Telephonic Procedural Conference - S-21301A-24-0076 - EFG America, LLC Audio only

meeting

Arizona Corporation Commission 13 min 8 agenda items transcribed 2 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: agenda · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose and docket information for this telephonic procedural conference?

Yvette Kinsey 0:01

Okay. Well, that will go ahead and go on the record. Good morning. I'm ALJ Yvette Kinsey, and this is a time set of ESG America, LLC et al. This is docket number S21301A240. And just as a reminder, let's try not to talk over each other so that our court reporter can take down our words. And I have appearances for the record and we'll start with the division.

Elizabeth Schmidt 0:41

Yes, good morning. This is Elizabeth Schmidt, counsel for the division.

Yvette Kinsey 0:47

Okay, and then for the respondent.

Greg McGill 0:51

Yes, good morning. This is Greg McGill. for the respondents, EFG America, LLC, Femright, Boyd, Carroll, and I'm here with Council Ryan McGill. Hi, good morning.

Yvette Kinsey 1:06

Good morning. All right, thank you. And we set this as a telephonic status conference or procedural conference this morning. And I'll go to Ms. Schmidt, if you could just give me an update on what you guys are thinking at this point.

Elizabeth Schmidt 1:25

Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

How did the division explain the Supreme Court’s review timeline and oral‑argument scheduling?

Elizabeth Schmidt 1:26

So the Supreme Court did grant the petition for review. And so I've noted in the request for a continuance, that briefing schedule is going to go through the end of the year, basically, oral arguments have not been set in the in the matter. So I think that we are just asking that we set this for a hearing. And you know, the next available date, which looks like it may be summer, fall of 2026 at this point.

Yvette Kinsey 1:59

Okay. And Mr. McEwell, anything to add to that?

Greg McGill 2:04

No, that sounds, that sounds correct. That's our understanding, Your Honor.

Yvette Kinsey 2:10

Okay. I want to just ask you guys, are you, are you thinking that you want to schedule a hearing at this point, or maybe should we do another status conference sometime in the future? And I'll start with you, Ms. Smith. Go ahead.

Elizabeth Schmidt 2:29

Yeah, Your Honor, the division would ask that a hearing be set on the calendar, especially given how quickly that it fills up, and then we can vacate those dates. or modify them if necessary in the future. Okay, and Mr. McGill?

Greg McGill 2:47

My input on that, Your Honor, is we don't, at this point, we don't know when the Arizona Supreme Court is going to schedule an oral argument after the briefing is done, year end. So that their scheduling of that oral argument could be in January or February. And so, number one, we don't know when the oral argument will be scheduled for.

Why does the division prefer setting a hearing date now versus waiting for a later status conference?

Greg McGill 3:19

And then even after that, I've checked prior Supreme Court docket timeframes. They have a range of anywhere after they have an oral argument, anywhere from three to three months to 10 months or so before they issue a decision. So my suggestion would be to continue the status conference to some time, perhaps mid-year in July, for example, or and see where it's at versus you issuing an order and scheduling it and then are having to vacate it, you know, if that becomes necessary.

Yvette Kinsey 4:10

Okay. Ms. Schmidt, anything in addition?

Elizabeth Schmidt 4:15

The only additional thing would be in division, see this position in the previous motion to continue, that it's the division's position that regardless of of the decision um with the supreme court based on the uh jarcassy opinion that it administrative hearing would still occur um and the issue would just be whether the jury trial is required for administrative penalties um we could also set dates for the next available time and then set a status conference sometime in the interim and we can reassess at that point whether those dates are realistic. That would be possibly an alternative.

Yvette Kinsey 5:02

Okay. I think probably we should do the combination of the two. Let's see if we can set a status conference maybe about March. I think you probably would have a general idea of you know, kind of when oral arguments and all that would be scheduled with the Supreme Court. And then we can look out, you know, to date for, what are you thinking, maybe September of 26? Give me a general idea. And I'll start with you, Ms.

What alternative scheduling options (March status conference vs. July hearing) were discussed?

Yvette Kinsey 5:42

Smith, and then go to Mr. McGill.

Elizabeth Schmidt 5:48

So as far as the status conference, the division is available anytime in March. Um, so any date would work, uh, for the division. And it looks like June, anytime after June 19th at this point would be, uh, available for the division to set a hearing. So, um, whatever is convenient for your honor's calendar, the hearing calendar and, uh, Mr. McGill's calendar.