Telephonic Status Conference - S-21355A-25-0104 - Patrick B. Horsman et al.

meeting

Arizona Corporation Commission 22 min 7 agenda items transcribed 3 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 of the telephonic status conference and who are the parties involved?

Yvette Kinsey 0:00

Perfect. With that we'll go ahead and go on the record. Go on the record. Don't know why we have some fleet. Uh Let me try this.

Yvette Kinsey 0:21

Okay, hopefully we'll be able to clear it up just a second. Good morning. Everyone, I'm administrative law judge Yvette Kinsey. And this is the time set for the procedural conference in the matter of Patrick B. Horseman. At all? This is docket number S two one. Three five five A two five zero one zero four And just so we're aware Our court reporter is trying to take down our words so if you could identify yourself For speaking, that would help her out a lot. And with that can I have appearances for the record starting with the division? Thank you and good morning, Your Honor. This is Cynthia Thomas on behalf of the division. And for the respondents.

Joe Adams 1:17

Good morning, Your Honor Joe Adams on behalf of the respondents.

Yvette Kinsey 1:21

Thank you. Um and the reason we set the Telephonic um status conference today is Um the parties made the um Commission aware that there is another pending or there is a pending superior court case. where there may be some overlapping issues. And I'll start with you, Miss Thomas. Can you give me an update on what's happening with the other case? Thank you, and yes, Your

Cynthia Thomas 1:51

Honor. Um so From the division's understanding, the civil case uh has been resolved. Uh was adjudicated, I believe, about a week or two ago. Um with the way that it was adjudicated, uh the division um is currently I guess evaluating um the overlap between the civil case and our own um if if We know that there are some overlapping facts. The division's position is the underlying allegations um are a bit different. There there are some nuances with our case that didn't exist in the civil case. So uh at this time, and I I spoke to Mr.

How does the division’s pending civil case affect the current ACC proceeding?

Cynthia Thomas 2:34

Adams yesterday, the division's position right now is we are likely uh still moving forward on our case. However, we do want the opportunity to review the uh the civil case transcript um request uh and to request the transcript. Should a hearing happen, it might be simpler for the parties to introduce parts of the transcript instead of calling additional witnesses since their testimony would be similar to about the same. Um, in that time the division is also in the process of setting up time to meet with and speak with Mr. Adams and his client for any possible um negotiation or Uh just to uh have a conversation with with the other side and see if we can get to a resolution short of hearing. Um that being said, looking at how quickly hearing dates are are kind of filling up, um, should a negotiation not

Cynthia Thomas 3:36

the uh truthful in this case, the division would like to at least get a date uh on on the calendar should we need a hearing date. Um in looking at the divisions availability and our hearing schedule. I think that Um, I would be looking to probably push something out until Probably about March of twenty twenty seven, I think, is when we have uh a a gap between a couple of our already set hearings. So Mr. Adams and if the uh if if the court is inclined we'd be looking at uh setting a hearing date probably in about March of twenty twenty seven.

Yvette Kinsey 4:21

Thank you, Miss Thomas. And Mr. Adams? You wanna um chime in on the issue of superior court and timing for this matter.

Joe Adams 4:31

Sure, Your Honor, we appreciate the opportunity. You know, I as uh Miss Thomas said, we have been talking about these issues and there are talks ongoing. I understand that the trial record, uh there was a fair amount to it in terms of transcripts. I was not trial counsel, but I have spoken to trial counsel. Um just so your honor is aware, the outcome of the Superior Court trial was entirely in favor of descendants who are respondents. And so there was a jury verdict. uh that went uh against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendants. And separately there was an order from Judge Corey on the unjust enrichment claim which was not tried to the jury and he found in favor of the defendants in that case.

Joe Adams 5:10

So it was a complete defense victory. You know one of the things that we need to analyze and we'll be working through it with Ms.