Class suit vs CUC reopened

A 1993 class lawsuit against the Commonwealth Utilities Corp. is being reopened after several customers accused CUC of illegally disconnecting their power service.

Attorney Stephanie G. Flores, counsel for the disgruntled customers, asked the U.S. District Court to order CUC to explain why it should not be held in contempt for violating a 1994 court order, which required CUC to properly issue written notice before disconnecting a customer’s power service.

A status conference on Flores’ request will be held at 4:30pm today.

On Feb. 12, 1993, customers sued CUC for disconnecting their utility services without proper notice. CUC and the plaintiffs eventually reached a settlement agreement and the federal court approved it on June 10, 1994.

The settlement prohibited CUC from doing certain things with regard to future disconnections. Specifically, CUC was barred from disconnecting customers without mailing or personally delivering proper notice prior to the proposed disconnection; from terminating customers’ electrical service after only a 48-hour notice; from disconnecting customers’ power supply while an informal meeting or administrative hearing is pending; and from disconnecting customers’ electrical service more than 45 days after proper service of the most recent disconnection notice.

In her motion, Flores said that CUC has violated the terms of the settlement agreement. Four different customers provided declarations to back her claim. Two of them have pending billing disputes with CUC, but have paid the undisputed amount. They said that CUC disconnected their power service without any warning.

Another customer related that she tried to file a billing dispute but a CUC customer service representative refused to accept her. The CUC employee allegedly wrote “void” across the complaint and returned it to the customer. Two days after the incident, she received a CUC notice stating that her power service will be disconnected in 14 days.

The fourth customer was behind in her CUC payment. Thirteen days after receiving a delinquency notice, she paid a $100 partial payment of her bill. CUC told her she had another week to pay the rest of the bill. She followed CUC’s advice and settled the entire amount on the final deadline given her. But on the same day, her power service was disconnected. She was forced to pay a $75 reconnection fee to get her power restored.

“In this particular case, plaintiffs are not merely seeking to enforce a money judgment, but also to enforce certain injunctions that have been put in place by this court, specifically, disconnecting customers in a manner that violates due process, CUC’s regulations, and this court’s previous order,” Flores said.

In related news, Rep. Stanley T. Torres yesterday called the attention of House Speaker Oscar M. Babauta to the reopening of the case. He also urged Babauta and all lawmakers to attend the status conference called by U.S. District Court Judge Alex Munson.

“[N]ow is the time to make your position known on this CUC issue. I am inviting all legislative members, the general public, and the media to attend this status conference, to show support for the CNMI people’s rights in this one-sided CUC attempt to financially cripple our homes and our struggling businesses,” Torres said.