People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Commission

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2009 » People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Commission

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-06-1063 Rel

Case Date: 09/03/2009

Preview:NO. 4-06-1063 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

Filed 9/3/09

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex ) Direct rel. LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of ) Administrative the State of Illinois, ) Review of the Petitioner-Appellant, ) Illinois Commerce v. ) Commission THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION; ) No. 06-0027 ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; THE ) CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD; THE CITY OF ) CHICAGO; COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S ) OFFICE; AARP ILLINOIS; GALLATIN RIVER ) COMMUNICATIONS LLC; TRUCOMM CORPORATION; ) and DATA NET SYSTEMS, ) Respondents-Appellees. ) _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the opinion of the court: In November 2005, respondent Illinois Bell Telephone Company (Illinois Bell) filed tariffs with respondent Illinois Commerce Commission (Commission) reclassifying as competitive specific residential local services in MSA-1, an area encompassing Chicago and outlying areas. A number of entities, including

the petitioner, the People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Attorney General Lisa Madigan, participated in the investigation of and hearings on Illinois Bell's reclassification. On August

30, 2006, the Commission issued its decision reclassifying Illinois Bell's residential local service for MSA-1 as competitive. The Commission also modified and adopted a joint proposal

of Illinois Bell and the Citizens Utility Board (CUB), under which Illinois Bell agreed to certain rate limits. Petitioner appeals the Commission's ruling. On appeal,

petitioner argues (1) the First District has exclusive jurisdiction to hear this appeal, (2) the Commission erred by reclassifying "measured" or "basic service" in MSA-1 as "competitive" under section 13-502 of the Public Utilities Act (Act) (220 ILCS 5/13502 (West 2006)), and (3) the Commission lacked the authority to adopt the Illinois Bell-CUB proposal. We agree with petitioner's

first argument and transfer this appeal to the First District. I. BACKGROUND In November 2005, Illinois Bell filed tariffs declaring essentially all of its residential local services in MSA-1 competitive under section 13-502 of the Act (220 ILCS 5/13-502 (West 2004)). The services labeled competitive included resi-

dence network-access lines, residence usage services, call waiting, caller identification (caller ID), and directory-listing services. A consumer could purchase these services on an a la Illinois Bell also reclassified as competitive a We note the Commission

carte basis.

number of residential-service packages.

approved the reclassification of the residential packages and petitioner did not appeal that ruling. On January 11, 2006, the Commission initiated an investigation into Illinois Bell's reclassification of its residential local services. Illinois Bell's reclassification of

those services, previously deemed noncompetitive, would allow Illinois Bell to "change its prices with fewer procedural obstacles and less scrutiny from the Commission." Illinois Bell

Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 282 Ill. App. 3d 672, - 2 -

675, 669 N.E.2d 628, 630 (1996).

A number of parties intervened,

including petitioner, the City of Chicago, CUB, and AARP Illinois (AARP). In April 2006, the Commission held an evidentiary In May 2006, Illinois Bell and CUB filed Under this proposal, those

hearing on the matter.

their stipulation and joint proposal.

parties agreed, in part, the residence local-exchange services in MSA-1 would be reclassified as competitive and Illinois Bell would cap or reduce certain prices related to such services. The

People, the City of Chicago, the Cook County State's Attorney's office, AARP, Data Net Systems, and TruComm all urged the Commission not to accept the joint proposal. In July 2006, the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a proposed order recommending, in part, the Commission reject the joint proposal and find measured service, caller ID, and call waiting be classified noncompetitive. disagreed with the ALJ. The Commission, however,

On August 30, 2006, the Commission

issued its decision reclassifying Illinois Bell's measured services for MSA-1 as competitive and adopting the joint proposal upon modifying it. Illinois Bell, petitioner, and AARP, as well as other parties, filed applications for rehearing with the Commission. On October 13, 2006, the Commission explicitly denied the applications for rehearing filed by Illinois Bell, petitioner, and other parties. The Commission did not rule on the merits of AARP's application. Three petitions for administrative review followed in - 3 -

two appellate districts.

On October 13, 2006, Illinois Bell

filed the first of its two petitions in this court, docketed as No. 4-06-0882. On October 23, 2006, Illinois Bell filed its One day later, in the First District,

second (No. 4-06-0911).

petitioner filed its notice of appeal and petition for administrative review (No. 1-06-3014). In November 2006, Illinois Bell filed, in the First District, a motion to transfer petitioner's appeal to the Fourth District or to dismiss petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Illinois Bell maintained because it filed the first The

appeal, the Fourth District had exclusive jurisdiction.

First District, without ruling on the jurisdiction arguments, agreed to the transfer and, in December 2006, transferred petitioner's appeal to the Fourth District. People ex rel. Madigan

v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 369 Ill. App. 3d 126, 860 N.E.2d 459 (2006). Upon transfer, the appeal was docketed as No. 4-06-1063. On January 4, 2007, petitioner filed in this court a motion to dismiss Illinois Bell's appeals (Nos. 4-06-0882 and 406-0911). Petitioner argued both of Illinois Bell's petitions

for administrative review were prematurely filed and invalid as they were filed before the Commission resolved all of the postjudgment motions. On January 12, 2007, this court granted Illi-

petitioner's motion, dismissing Illinois Bell's appeals.

nois Bell Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, Nos. 4-060882, 4-06-0911, cons. (January 12, 2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). Illinois Bell did not petition the - 4 -

supreme court for leave to appeal. Also in January 2007, this court dismissed petitioner's appeal in No. 4-06-1063. We held petitioner failed to file a

timely application for rehearing in the Commission and such failure precluded our review. People ex rel. Lisa Madigan v.

Illinois Commerce Comm'n, No. 4-06-1063 (January 18, 2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois. In November 2008, our supreme court reversed and remanded our decision in case No. 4-06-1063. The court first Petitioner

concluded petitioner timely filed its application for rehearing with the Commission and this court did not lack jurisdiction on that particular ground. People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois

Commerce Comm'n, 231 Ill. 2d 370, 389, 899 N.E.2d 227, 237 (2008). The court then ordered this court to (1) determine

whether the subject matter of the Commission's order lies within the First or Fourth District, if either; (2) if the subject matter lies in both districts, decide which district first acquired jurisdiction over petitioner's appeal; and (3) consider appellate jurisdiction in light of Supreme Court Rules 303(a)(2) (210 Ill. 2d R. 303(a)(2)) and 335 (155 Ill. 2d R. 335). Madigan, 231 Ill. 2d at 389, 899 N.E.2d at 237. We consider the appeal on remand. II. ANALYSIS Petitioner's appeal is one from the decision of the Commission, an administrative body. - 5 We have jurisdiction to

review administrative decisions only as provided by law.

Ill.

Const. 1970, art. VI,

Download People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Commission.pdf