Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Friday, March 14, 2003; 10:00 A.M.
Conference Room, Xcel Energy
500 W. Russell Street, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
NOTE: If you wish to join this meeting by conference call, please contact the Commission at 605-773-3201 by 5:00 p.m. on March 13, 2003.
NOTE: Notice is further given to persons with disabilities that this Commission meeting is being held in a physically accessible place. If you have special needs, please notify the Commission and we will make all necessary arrangements.
AGENDA OF THE AD HOC MEETING
1. CT02-021 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY CHRISTOPHER A. CUTLER ON BEHALF OF RECREATIONAL ADVENTURES CO., HILL CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MIDWEST, INC. REGARDING FAILURE TO PROVIDE SERVICE. (Staff Analyst: Jim Mehlhaff, Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
Christopher Cutler states that in March 2002, Complainant entered into an agreement with AT&T to receive Fragmented T1 service. On more than one occasion, the AT&T representative assured the Complainant that AT&T could provide this service. Complainant has now been informed that AT&T cannot provide the Fragmented T1 service. Complainant states that it has invested more than $150,000.00 in its business to utilize the Fragmented T1 service. Complainant requests that AT&T provide the Fragmented T1 service that stated it could provide. If the service cannot be provided, Complainant would be willing to negotiate a settlement with AT&T for the expenses the Complainant has incurred. Complainant feels that AT&T should put forth some form of effort to resolve this complaint. On October 24, 2002, AT&T filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment. On December 9, 2002, AT&T filed a Motion for Continuance because of a change of counsel in the case. The Motion for Continuance was heard on December 17, 2002, and the Motion to Dismiss was continued until January 2, 2003. On January 2, 2003, the Commission heard the arguments of the parties on the Motion to Dismiss and deferred action to enable counsel to provide additional legal authority.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant AT&T's motion to dismiss, considered in part as a motion for summary judgment? IF NOT, how shall the Commission proceed?
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
February 25, 2003