(A) Any party seeking remedial relief from alleged violations of Section 58-3-260 may file a complaint with the Administrative Law Court.

(B) A complaint seeking sanctions must include the following:

(1) the name and address of the complainant;

(2) the name and address of complainant's counsel, if any;

(3) the name and address of each person alleged to have violated the ex parte prohibition, hereinafter referred to as respondent;

(4) the name and address of each respondent's counsel, if known;

(5) the facts constituting the alleged violation; and

(6) the sanctions sought by the complainant.

(C) A complaint filed under this section must be served on the commission, each respondent, respondent's counsel, if known, and all persons on the commission's service list for the proceeding that is the subject of the ex parte complaint.

(D) Within seven days of service of the complaint, a respondent must file an answer with the Administrative Law Court and serve it on the complainant, the commission, and all persons on the commission's service list for the proceeding that is the subject of the ex parte complaint.

(E) The administrative law judge assigned to the ex parte communication complaint proceeding by the Administrative Law Court may issue an order tolling any deadlines imposed by any state statute for a decision by the commission on the proceeding that is the subject of the ex parte communication complaint. The administrative law judge assigned to the ex parte communication complaint proceeding by the Administrative Law Court must conduct a hearing and must issue a decision within sixty days after the complaint is filed.

(F) The decision of the administrative law judge must describe the relevant facts of the case and must set forth the judge's findings as to whether the ex parte communication was in violation of Section 58-3-260. The judge also must impose sanctions in accordance with subsection (G) of this section. In imposing these sanctions, the judge, as a matter of equity, must protect: (1) the rights and interests of parties who are not alleged to have violated Section 58-3-260, and (2) the public interest in general.

(G) In his decision, the administrative law judge may impose the following sanctions:

(1) dismiss the proceeding if the prohibited ex parte communication has so prejudiced the proceeding that the commission cannot consider the matter impartially;

(2) issue an adverse ruling on a pending issue that is the subject of the prohibited ex parte communication if other parties are prejudiced by the prohibited ex parte communication;

(3) strike evidence or pleadings if the evidence or pleadings are tainted by the prohibited ex parte communication;

(4) issue a public statement of censure or explanation, if it is determined that the prohibited ex parte communication occurred but mitigating circumstances exist that:

(a) negate the need for a more severe sanction;

(b) indicate that the proceeding was not prejudiced to the extent that the commission is unable to consider the matter in the proceeding impartially;

(c) indicate that the ex parte communication did not prejudice other parties; or

(d) indicate that the ex parte communication did not taint the evidence or pleadings.

(H) If the administrative law judge finds the complainant's allegation of an ex parte violation was interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or increase the cost of the proceeding, the administrative law judge may issue an appropriate sanction against the complainant.

(I) Any decision of an administrative law judge pursuant to this section shall be considered interlocutory in nature and is not immediately appealable until a final order of the commission has been issued. Any appeal of a decision of an administrative law judge pursuant to this section must be included in and made in the same manner as an appeal of the final order of the commission in the subject proceeding.

HISTORY: 2004 Act No. 175, Section 4, eff January 1, 2005.