Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                         Before the
              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                   Washington, D.C.  20554


APCC Services, Inc.,                    )
Data Net Systems, LLC              )
Davel Communications, Inc.              )
Jaroth, Inc. dba Pacific Telemanagement )
Services, and                      )
Intera Communications Corp.,       )
                              )
Complainants,                      )
                              )
                              )
     v.                       )    File No. EB-02-MD-013
                              )
United Technological Systems, Inc.,          )
                              )
Defendant.                         )


                            ORDER

     Adopted:  July 10, 2002            Released:  July 10, 
2002

By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, 
Enforcement Bureau:

   1.     On April 19, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. 
     (``APCC'' or ``Complainants''), filed with this 
     Commission a formal complaint against United 
     Technological Systems, Inc. (``United'') pursuant to 
     section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
     amended (the ``Act'').1  The complaint alleges that 
     United failed to pay dial-around compensation to 
     Complainants for certain categories of completed 
     coinless calls originating from payphones, in violation 
     of Commission rules and orders.2  United failed to 
     submit an answer to the complaint or otherwise contact 
     Commission staff with regard to the proceeding against 
     it.3

   2.     During a telephone conference with counsel for 
     Complainants held on May 23, 2002, Commission staff 
     indicated that, in light of United's failure to 
     participate in this proceeding, Complainants must, on 
     or before July 8, 2002, either withdraw the complaint 
     (in order to file an informal complaint against United 
     alleging identical claims), or file a motion for 
     default judgment, and that a failure to take either of 
     these steps may result in a dismissal for failure to 
     prosecute.4  On May 24, 2002, Commission staff sent a 
     letter to Complainants and United via U.S. mail and by 
     facsimile restating that Complainants must withdraw 
     their complaint or file a motion for default judgment 
     by July 8, 2002, or risk dismissal for failure to 
     prosecute.5  This directive was repeated one week later 
     in a separate letter establishing a status conference 
     to discuss Complainants' options in this matter.6  
     Despite these warnings, APCC failed to take either of 
     these steps.

   3.     It is settled that the Commission will dismiss a 
     complaint for failure to prosecute when the complainant 
     has ceased to pursue its complaint in accordance with 
     the Commission's rules.7  In this case, Complainants 
     declined to withdraw the complaint or file a motion for 
     default judgment by the required date, despite a 
     specific notification from Commission staff that a 
     failure to act in this manner might result in dismissal 
     for failure to prosecute.  Moreover, Complainants have 
     not requested additional time within which to pursue 
     either of these actions.

   4.     We view Complainants' failure to withdraw the 
     complaint, or file a motion for default judgment, as an 
     indication that Complainants do not intend to pursue 
     their claim in accordance with the Commission's rules.  
     Under these circumstances, we conclude that dismissal 
     for failure to prosecute is warranted, and that 
     termination of this matter will serve the public 
     interest by eliminating the need for the expenditure of 
     further time and resources by the Commission.

   5.     Typically, when the Commission dismisses formal 
     complaints for failure to prosecute, it does so with 
     prejudice.8  In this case, however, given that the 
     complaint was filed merely three months ago, and United 
     has not participated in this proceeding, we find that 
     this sanction would be unduly severe.  Accordingly, we 
     dismiss the Complaint without prejudice.  In this way, 
     we balance our need to manage our docket and the public 
     interest in expeditious resolution of litigation with 
     insignificant prejudice to defendants from delay.9  We 
     caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile 
     a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to 
     adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with 
     prejudice.
 
   6.     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 
     1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 
     1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 
     208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the 
     Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  64.1300-64.1320, and 
     authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 
     1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  
     0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned 
     complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this 
     proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION                                                  


                              Radhika V. Karmarkar
                              Deputy Chief, Market Disputes 
Resolution Division
                              Enforcement Bureau

_________________________

1         47 U.S.C.  208.
2         See 47 C.F.R.  64.1300-64.1320.  The Commission 
promulgated these rules to implement section 276 of the Act, 
47 U.S.C.  276.    
3         See APCC Services, Inc. et al. v. United 
Technological Systems, Inc., Letter from Warren Firschein, 
Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, FCC, to Albert H. Kramer and Edward G. Modell, 
counsel for Complainants, and S.K. Mohan, President, United 
Technological Systems, Inc., File No. EB-02-MD-013 (dated 
May 24, 2002).
4         Id.
5         Id. (stating that ``Complainants must, on or 
before July 8, 2002 (forty-five (45) days from the date of 
this letter), either withdraw the complaint, or file a 
motion for default judgment, and that a failure to take 
either of these steps may result in a dismissal for failure 
to prosecute.'').
6         See APCC Services, Inc. et al. v. United 
Technological Systems, Inc., Letter from Warren Firschein, 
Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, FCC, to Albert H. Kramer and Edward G. Modell, 
counsel for Complainants, and S.K. Mohan, President, United 
Technological Systems, Inc., File No. EB-02-MD-013 (dated 
May 31, 2002).
7         See, e.g, Voice Networks, Inc. v. U S West 
Wireless, L.L.C., Order, 16 FCC Rcd 4904 (Enf. Bur. 2001); 
Nassau Communications Network, Inc. v. National 
Communications Network, Inc., Order, 12 FCC Rcd 15191 (Com. 
Car. Bur. 1997); IBEX Ltd. v. New Valley Corporation, Order, 
11 FCC Rcd 14387 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996); Cellular Marketing 
Inc. v. Houston Cellular Telephone Co., Order, 10 FCC Rcd 
8897 (Wireless Bur. 1995).
8         See, e.g, Voice Networks, Inc. v. U S West 
Wireless, L.L.C., Order, 16 FCC Rcd 4904, 4906,  8 (Enf. 
Bur. 2001); Nassau Communications Network, Inc. v. National 
Communications Network, Inc., Order, 12 FCC Rcd 15191, 
15195,  9 (Com. Car. Bur. 1997); IBEX Ltd. v. New Valley 
Corporation, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 14387, 14388,  4 (Com. Car. 
Bur. 1996); Cellular Marketing Inc. v. Houston Cellular 
Telephone Co., Order, 10 FCC Rcd 8897, 8898, 8 (Wireless 
Bur. 1995).
9         See Citizens Utilities Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. 
Co., 595 F.2d 1171, 1174 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 
93 (1979).