Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03092/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03092-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-01850 SI 

No. C 04-3092 SI

ORDER RE: MCI’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR RECONSIDERATION

Intervenors/Defendants MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc. and MCIMetro Access

Transmission Services LLC (“MCI”) have filed a “motion for clarification, or in the alternative,

reconsideration” in response to the Court’s April 5, 2005 Order. In that Order, the Court vacated the

CPUC’s January 30, 2003 Decision ordering the unbundling of HFPL and remanded the issue to the

CPUC, in order to allow the CPUC to reach a decision that conforms with the Telecommunications Act

and FCC regulations. MCI’s motion does not address this aspect of the Court’s Order. 

The Court’s Order also concerned pricing requirements implemented by the CPUC and

remanded to the CPUC “to adopt pricing requirements that comply with the TRO and refund any

Case 3:04-cv-03092-SI Document 33 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

amount owed to plaintiffs as a result of the pricing requirements in conflict with the TRO.” MCI’s

motion is limited to this aspect of the Court’s Order addressing the pricing requirements. Plaintiff SBC

California opposes MCI’s motion.

In remanding to the CPUC, the Court did not determine whether the CPUC’s pricing

requirements conflict with the TRO or other FCC regulations. However, the Court did find that the

CPUC’s January 30, 2003 Decision ordering the unbundling of HFPL was unlawful under the TRO and

vacated that Decision. In the unlikely event that the CPUC is able to lawfully determine on remand that

the HFPL should be unbundled, the unbundling would only apply prospectively. In those

circumstances, the CPUC must adopt pricing requirements for the period between the effective date of

the TRO and the date of the valid CPUC unbundling Decision, during which HFPL was unlawfully

unbundled. These requirements must comply with the TRO. 

If the CPUC determines on remand that it cannot unbundle the HFPL, then it also must adopt

pricing requirements that comply with the TRO. 

If the CPUC determines on remand that the proper pricing requirements for the HFPL exceed

the pricing requirements currently in place, then it should instruct the CLECs to refund the proper

amount owed to plaintiffs. The refund period should begin with the effective date of the TRO. In

determining whether a refund, or “true-up,” is necessary, the CPUC should take relevant interconnection

agreement provisions into consideration. 

To the extent that the findings in the Court’s Order differs from those proposed in defendant

MCI’s motion, defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The hearing set for June 24, 2005

is VACATED. [Docket # 129]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2005 S/Susan Illston SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03092-SI Document 33 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2