Posts tagged "Cable"

Olmstead v. Department of Telecommunications and Cable, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-194-13)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;     SJC‑11240   BRIAN MICHAEL OLMSTEAD  vs.  DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE & others.[1] Suffolk.     September 9, 2013.  ‑  December 4, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Supreme Judicial Court, Appeal from order of single justice.  Telecommunications.  Public Utilities, Telecommunications, Judicial review.  Administrative Law, Judicial review, Agency’s interpretation of statute.  Due Process of Law, Appeal.  Statute, Construction.  Practice, Civil, Dismissal of appeal, Moot case.       Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on September 15, 2011.   A motion to dismiss was considered by Spina, J., and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him.     Brian Michael Olmstead, pro se. Suleyken D. Walker, Assistant Attorney General, for the Department of Telecommunications and Cable. Alexander W. Moore, for Verizon New England, Inc., & another, was present but did not argue.       CORDY, J.  In this case, we are asked to decide if the single justice erred, first, in concluding that G. L. c. 25, § 5, governs judicial review of a final order by the Department of Telecommunications and Cable regarding a consumer telephone service complaint and, second, in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to comply with the timely filing requirements of G. L. c. 25, § 5.  We affirm the single justice’s ruling that G. L. c. 25, § 5, applies to such appeals.  However, because the plaintiff was afforded a renewed opportunity to pursue an appropriate and timely appeal under G. L. c. 25, § 5, and has chosen to do so, we dismiss this case as moot. 1.  Background.  a.  The plaintiff’s initial claims.  This case arises from a consumer dispute regarding billing practices and quality of telephone, cable television, and Internet service provided by Verizon New England, Inc., to the plaintiff, a residential customer.  In December, 2009, the plaintiff filed an appeal and a claim for an adjudicatory hearing with the department, alleging that Verizon New England had violated the department’s Rules and Practices Relating to Telephone Service to Residential Customers, and had otherwise engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices.  The matter was assigned to a hearing officer, and after a tortuous procedural history, the claim was dismissed as moot because, in the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff’s customer relationship with Verizon New England had been terminated due to continuous nonpayment.  The plaintiff appealed the hearing officer’s decision to the Commissioner of […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 4, 2013 at 11:45 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,