An administrative law judge for the Colorado Public Utilities Commission ruled Nov. 18 that an evidentiary hearing over allegations against On Location Events LLC will be narrowly focused on whether the company complied with a May 29, 2025 recommended decision concerning advertising on its website, but the judge allowed limited follow‑up questioning about post‑decision changes and continued the matter to a later date.

Judge Connor Farley opened the remote proceeding in docket 25FDash0270CP at approximately 9 a.m. and said he would address two prehearing motions first: a motion from respondent counsel to limit the scope of evidence and a motion to quash subpoenas for witnesses from ACE Express and Ramblin Express. "I'm going to grant it in part and deny it in part," Farley said in announcing his ruling on the motion to limit.

Why it matters: The dispute centers on whether On Location violated the PUC's earlier recommended decision (R25‑0406, issued May 29, 2025). That decision found fault with advertising that did not make clear On Location was acting as a transportation broker rather than directly providing carrier services. The complainant argued the prior order required On Location to "cease and desist" from violating all applicable PUC rules and that alleged violations are ongoing; the respondent asked the judge to confine the new hearing to a narrow 20‑day window referenced in filings.

In his ruling, Farley said the evidence for today's hearing must focus on whether On Location failed to comply with the May 29 recommended decision as it relates to advertising on the company's website and its disclosure that it functions as a broker. The judge declined, however, to limit the complainant to the respondent’s proposed 20‑day end date and said the complainant may present evidence beyond that endpoint if it bears on compliance with the advertising/disclosure issue. To avoid unnecessary duplication, Farley also granted administrative notice, under Commission rule 1501(c), of the documents and transcripts in the earlier proceeding (24FDash0236CP).

On the motion to quash subpoenas for ACE Express and Ramblin Express, Mark Valentine, representing those third parties, argued their testimony was unnecessary because they lacked personal knowledge about the content or intent of On Location's website advertising and had already testified at length in the earlier proceeding. The judge granted the quash motion in part and denied it in part: he barred re‑litigation of testimony already in the prior record but allowed the complainant to question ACE and Ramblin witnesses specifically about whether their relationships with On Location or their operations had changed since the May 29 decision.

Complainant Grama Wysenka stressed she needed direct examination of those witnesses to determine whether any post‑decision changes demonstrate continued or new violations. In response to the judge's inquiry about what kinds of changes would matter, the complainant suggested examples such as a carrier obtaining a common‑carrier license or On Location reselling single‑ride tickets — changes that could shift regulatory responsibility.

Counsel for On Location, John Sean Jennings, said the respondent was prepared to proceed and opposed a continuance; he argued the issues were narrow and could be handled at the scheduled hearing. With ACE Express’s primary witness unavailable (the judge was informed the witness was abroad), and balancing fairness and efficiency, Farley granted the complainant's oral motion for a continuance and directed the parties to coordinate a future date when all witnesses and counsel can attend. He instructed parties to use scheduling emails (copied to counsel) and to avoid substantive emails to the ALJ about case merits.

The hearing was adjourned for scheduling and will resume on a date to be set by agreement of the parties and the ALJ. "I think it makes far better sense to have everybody available on the same date," Farley said before adjourning. The commission's administrative notice of the earlier proceeding will be reflected in the record of the resumed hearing.