In re Application No. C-4973 of Keith Skrdlant; Windstream Communications, Inc. v. Nebraska Public Service Commission and Keith Skrdlant; In re Application No. C-4960 of Jason Poppe et al.; Windstream Communications, Inc. v. Nebraska Public Service Commission et al.

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed Windstream Communications' appeals from Nebraska Public Service Commission orders because Windstream's motions for rehearing were not timely filed. The court held that filing under Nebraska Revised Statute § 75-134.02 requires the motion to be in the Commission's possession within 10 days after the order's effective date, and that the Commission's July 23 file stamps established the filing date absent meaningful contrary evidence. Because the motions did not suspend the appeal period, the notices of intention to appeal filed on September 13, 2018, were untimely and the court lacked jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. For purposes of suspending the time to appeal a PSC order, a motion for reconsideration is filed only when it is in the possession of the PSC within 10 days after the order's effective date.
2. An agency file stamp is presumed regular and, absent meaningful contrary evidence, establishes the date on which the document was received by and in the possession of the agency for filing.
3. Mailing a motion on the deadline does not establish timely filing with the PSC, and service of a motion on opposing counsel under a civil pleading rule does not establish filing with the PSC. The record also did not establish that email attachments were an authorized method of filing with the PSC.
4. Because Windstream's motions for rehearing were filed on July 23 rather than within 10 days of the July 10 effective date, they did not suspend the appeal period, and the September 13 notices of intention to appeal were untimely. The Nebraska Supreme Court therefore lacked jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Nebraska Supreme Court had jurisdiction over Windstream's appeals when Windstream's motions for rehearing were file stamped more than 10 days after the effective date of the PSC orders.
2. Whether transmission by email or mailing on July 20 constituted filing of the motions for rehearing within the statutory 10-day period.
3. Whether the file stamp on the PSC's copies of the motions was entitled to a presumption of regularity.

Disposition

dismissed