Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
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.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Staton Holdings, Inc. d/b/a )
Staton Wholesale, )
MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., ) File No. EB-02-TC-F-008
Sprint Communications Company, L.P., ) File No. EB-03-TC-F-
Adopted: May 12, 2004 Released: May 13, 2004
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Order, we grant in part a Complaint filed by
Staton Holdings, Inc., d/b/a/ Staton Wholesale (``Staton'')1
against MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. (``MCI''),2 but deny
Staton's complaint against Sprint Communications Company, L.P.,
(``Sprint'').3 The complaints allege that Staton acquired the
right to use the toll-free vanity number 888-888-8888 (the ``All
Eights Number''),4 and that defendants MCI and Sprint transferred
the rights to use this number from Staton to a third party
without Staton's consent,5 in violation of Sections 1, 201(b) and
251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
``Act''),6 and several Commission orders dealing with the
assignment of toll free numbers. Staton's prayer for relief
requests that the All Eights Number be re-assigned to Staton.7
2. Staton is a clothing distributor based in Dallas,
Texas, with annual revenues of approximately $130,000,000.8 It
is incorporated in Texas, and has been in business since 1981.
Staton receives customer orders via telephone, facsimile, and
through the Internet. Staton states that from September 1999 to
September 2001, it purchased its long distance telecommunications
services under the MCI On-Net Voice Agreement and under MCI
Tariff FCC No. 1.9 Staton asserts that it has used the telephone
number 1-800-888-8888 in its business continuously since it was
obtained in September 1998. Staton states that it informed MCI
in June 1995 that it also wanted to be assigned the All Eights
Number under its right of first refusal to reserve equivalent
``888'' numbers.10 According to Staton, MCI granted the request
and, effective September 25, 1998, Staton had the right to use
the All Eights Number.11
3. MCI billed Staton for the All Eights Number for
consecutive time periods starting September 1998 through a
billing period ending on November 14, 2000.12 Staton received no
bill for the period November 15, 2000 through December 14, 2000,
but was billed again by MCI for the period December 15, 2000
through January 14, 2001.13 MCI has no explanation for this gap
in billing periods.
4. According to Staton, it used the All Eights Number as a
primary facsimile line for customer orders, and had the number
printed in its catalogs.14 Staton states that it planned to
retire the All Eights Number as a facsimile line, and to use the
number to enter the ``voice portal market.''15 To that end,
Staton's 2001 catalog no longer listed the All Eights Number as a
primary facsimile line.16 Staton believed that the easily
recognizable nature of the All Eights Number would allow its new
business plan to succeed, and states that it invested substantial
time and money in developing this line of business.17
5. MCI apparently disconnected the All Eights Number from
Staton's Corporate Identifier Number on October 27, 2000.18 MCI
readily admits that this was the result of an error by a former
MCI employee.19 On October 31, 2000, an MCI representative was
contacted by FDC Interactive (``Call Interactive''), also an MCI
customer, expressing interest in the All Eights Number.20 Call
Interactive represented to MCI that it had tried the All Eights
Number, and a recording indicated that it was not in use.21
6. MCI checked the status of the All Eights Number, and
learned that MCI was the Responsible Organization (``RespOrg'')22
for the number.23 MCI's internal database revealed that the All
Eights Number was in a hold status.24 According to MCI, a number
will remain in a hold status within MCI for 45 days, before it
gets released to the toll-free spare number pool.25 On November
2, 2000, MCI apparently assigned the All Eights Number to Call
Interactive's Corporate Identification Number, while leaving the
number in hold status.26 The MCI service representative for Call
Interactive contacted the MCI service manager for the All Eights
Number, but did not receive a return call.27 There is no
evidence that a second attempt to contact that MCI service
manager was ever made.
7. On January 2, 2001, Call Interactive reiterated its
interest in obtaining the All Eights Number. By then, the number
had been in hold status for more than 45 days. Accordingly, on
January 4, 2001, the number was assigned to Call Interactive.28
These dates are consistent with MCI's invoices to Staton, which
show a lower volume of traffic for the October/November 2000
period when the number was first disconnected from Staton, and
explains the lack of a November/December 2000 invoice. It does
not explain, however, the later December 2000 /January 2001
invoice. According to MCI, it received a Letter of Authorization
from Call Interactive dated April 11, 2001 to have the All Eights
Number ported to Sprint.29 On April 18, 2001, Sprint became the
RespOrg for the All Eights Number.30
8. Staton states that it first became aware that it was
disconnected from the All Eights Number in June 2001.31
According to Staton, the disconnection was not discovered earlier
because the number was relegated by Staton for use as a secondary
facsimile line, and as such would not have received much traffic.
Staton contends that it contacted MCI and Sprint in June to have
the number restored to Staton.32 At that time, Call Interactive
was already using the All Eights Number.
9. Staton alleges that ``Defendants MCI and Sprint
knowingly and intentionally took the All Eights Number from
Staton without its consent,'' and that such ``willful
misconduct'' violated sections 1, 201(b), and 251(e)(1) of the
Act, as well as several Commission orders concerning toll free
number assignments. Staton asks for the immediate return of the
All Eights Number, and states that upon a determination of
liability, it will seek damages from MCI and Sprint ``in a
separate proceeding under Section 1.722 of the FCC's rules.''33
A. Procedural Issues
10. We begin by addressing two procedural issues.
First, MCI raises as an affirmative defense the requirement under
Section 415(b) of the Act that all complaints against carriers
for the recovery of damages be filed with the Commission within
two years from the time the cause of action accrues. According
to MCI, Staton's complaint was filed outside this statute of
limitations.34 We conclude that Staton's complaint against MCI
was filed within two years of the accrual of Staton's cause of
11. The relevant dates are as follows. On October 27,
2000, MCI disconnected the All Eights Number from Staton.35
According to Staton, MCI sent invoices for the All Eights Number
covering service through January 14, 2001.36 MCI asserts that
the last ``substantial'' invoice for the All Eights Number sent
to Staton was dated November 25, 2000, but does not specifically
deny that it sent later invoices.37 The parties agree that
Staton did not realize that the All Eights Number had been
disconnected until June 2001.38 Staton's complaint against MCI
was filed on December 20, 2002.
12. In determining when Staton's cause of action
accrued, we apply the ``discovery-of-injury'' rule.39 That is,
Staton's cause of action accrued when it discovered, or with due
diligence should have discovered, that it had been injured. In
this case, the parties agree that Staton did not actually
discover the disconnection of the All Eights Number until June
2001, which would bring the filing of the Complaint well within
the two year statute of limitations. MCI, who bears the burden
of proof on this affirmative defense, argues that there was no
legitimate reason for Staton's failure to discover the
13. At least as long as MCI was continuing to bill Staton
for service to the All Eights Number, however, Staton's failure
to realize that the All Eights Number was out of service was not
unreasonable. There is no indication in the record that MCI ever
affirmatively informed Staton that the All Eights Number had been
disconnected. Indeed, the record indicates that MCI continued
sending bills for service to that number until January 2001,
which would have suggested to Staton that its service remained
fully operational. Because the service at issue was an inbound
service (i.e., customers used the number to call in to Staton,
Staton did not use it to call out), the disconnection was perhaps
less immediately apparent than it would have been if an outbound
service were disconnected. Moreover, the All Eights Number was
not Staton's only toll-free service number. According to Staton,
it was using the All Eights Number only as a secondary fax line
at the time it was disconnected, and no customers ever contacted
Staton to complain that the number was not working.41 As set
forth above, Staton's cause of action accrued when it should
have, with due diligence, discovered that it had been injured.
Accordingly, we find that Staton's cause of action accrued no
sooner than the date of MCI's last invoice, which puts the
complaint within the two-year limitations period.
14. The second procedural issue we address concerns a
motion filed by MCI. On October 14, 2003, Staton filed with the
Commission a letter reiterating previous arguments and
introducing new issues and facts in the case.42 MCI filed a
Motion to Strike the Staton Letter on October 23, 2003 (``MCI
Motion to Strike'').43 Staton filed an Opposition to the Motion
to Strike on October 29, 2003.44 We grant MCI's Motion to Strike
the Staton Letter. This letter was filed in violation of the
Commission's formal complaint rules and procedures because there
is no accommodation for such a filing in the pleading schedule,
and no leave to file the letter was requested.45
15. MCI and Staton have stated that ``the key legal issue
in this Action is whether MCI's actions with respect to the All
Eights Number were negligent or can be characterized as willful
misconduct.''46 As explained below, we find that MCI was
negligent, but that Staton has failed to prove willful
16. On the issue of negligence, MCI admits that it
disconnected the All Eights Number from Staton, but asserts that
this action was ``an error.''47 MCI seems to concede that its
actions were negligent, focusing its defense in the case on the
issue of willful misconduct. In any event, MCI offers no
explanation as to how the alleged error occurred, and offers no
basis to rebut the assertion that its actions were at least
negligent. Accordingly, we find that MCI acted negligently in
disconnecting the All Eights Number.
17. On the issue of willful misconduct, Staton asserts
that willful misconduct means the ``intentional performance of an
act with knowledge that the performance of that act will probably
result in injury or damage, or . . . the intentional omission of
some act, with knowledge that such omission will probably result
in damage or injury . . . .48 Staton does not provide evidence
to counter MCI's assertion that its disconnection of the All
Eights Number was merely an error, and provides no evidence that
MCI acted intentionally. Accordingly, Staton has failed to prove
18. Staton alleges that MCI violated sections 1,
201(b), and 251(e)(2) of the Communications Act by its actions.
Section 201(b) of the Act requires that all ``charges, practices,
classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such
communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such
charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or
unreasonable is . . . unlawful.''49 We agree that MCI's
negligent disconnection of the All Eights Number constituted an
unjust and unreasonable practice within the meaning of section
201(b), and therefore find that MCI has violated section 201(b).
As to sections 1 and 251(e)(2), however, we conclude that these
sections impose no duty on MCI that has been violated.
19. Staton contends that MCI violated Section 1 of the
Act, which sets forth the mission of the FCC to ``make available,
so far as possible, to all the people of the United States,
without discrimination . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and
world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate
facilities at reasonable charges . . . .''50 Staton contends
that MCI violated this Section because it did not provide a
vanity service access code on an equitable basis.51 Section 1 of
the Act, however, does not establish any requirements for common
carriers, and does not create a cause of action between private
parties. Accordingly, we find that MCI did not violate Section
20. Staton also contends that by failing to provide a
vanity code on an equitable basis, MCI violated Section 251(e)(1)
of the Act. Section 251(e)(1) of the Act confers jurisdiction
on the FCC over certain numbering matters:
The Commission shall create or designate one of more
impartial entities to administer telecommunications
numbering and to make such numbers available on an equitable
basis. The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction
over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan
that pertain to the United States. Nothing in this
paragraph shall preclude the Commission from delegating to
State commissions or other entities all or any portion of
Staton, while acknowledging that ``[Section] 251(e)(1) of the Act
do[es] not expressly impose specific requirements upon
carriers,''52 nevertheless contends that this section creates a
requirement ``that carriers ensure all [vanity codes] are
provided on an equitable basis.''53 Staton does not, however,
cite any Commission rule, order, or other authority demonstrating
that the Commission has imposed such toll-free numbering
responsibilities upon carriers or ``responsible organizations''
such as MCI or Sprint. This, coupled with Staton's own admission
that Section 251(e)(1) does not expressly impose requirements
upon carriers, leads us to reject its Section 251(e)(1) argument.
Accordingly, we conclude that Staton's Section 251(e)(1)
21. Staton also alleges that MCI violated ``various
FCC Rulings,''54 citing generally to a number of orders and
letters relating to the administration of toll free numbers.55
Staton does not describe, however, what specific obligations it
believes that MCI has violated. Without more, we find that
Staton has failed to prove any such violations.
C. Sprint's Actions
22. Staton asserts that Sprint also violated the
Communications Act and ``various FCC Rulings.'' Staton asserts,
without any evidence to support the assertion, that Sprint
intentionally induced MCI to disconnect Staton from the All
Eights Number.56 Sprint denies these allegations, stating that
the transfer of the All Eights Number from Staton was a fait
accompli before Sprint ever became the RespOrg for the number.57
23. Staton bears the burden of proof in this case.
The record demonstrates that Staton was already disconnected from
the All Eights Number before Call Interactive requested that the
number be ported to Sprint from MCI. Staton offers no evidence
whatsoever that Sprint did anything improper or that Sprint
induced MCI to disconnect Staton from the All Eights Number.
Accordingly, we find that Staton has failed to prove that Sprint
engaged in any misconduct in violation of the Communications Act.
We therefore deny Staton's claims against Sprint.
24. The Bankruptcy Court order that permitted this case to
go forward states that if MCI is found liable, ``all further
proceedings regarding determination and liquidation of damages
shall take place in the Bankruptcy Court'' except that ``[i]n the
event that the FCC determines that [MCI is] liable for negligent,
and not willful, reassignment of the All Eights Number, then the
parties hereby agree that Staton's claim for damages only shall
be liquidated at the tariff cap amount of $1000, and shall be
allowed in that amount and not subject to further appeal by
either party.''58 Similarly, Staton and MCI have agreed in this
case that in the event that MCI is found liable for negligence,
but not willful misconduct, ``Staton's claim for damages only
shall be liquidated at the tariff cap amount of $1,000, and shall
be allowed in that amount and not subject to further appeal by
any party.''59 Accordingly, we award damages from MCI to Staton
in the amount of $1000.
A.b. Equitable relief
25. Staton asks that the Commission order the current user
of the All Eights Number to surrender its rights to Sprint, and
order Sprint to assign the All Eights Number to Staton. 60 The
relief that Staton seeks obviously cannot be granted without
causing harm to the current user of the All Eights Number. In
the judicial context, it is an ``age-old principle that in
formulating equitable relief a court must consider the effects of
the relief on innocent third parties.''61 In light of this
general equitable principle, we find that we must balance the
equities of granting the relief requested by Staton against the
harm to a third party if that relief is granted.
26. The All Eights Number is currently being used by Call
Interactive. There is no evidence in this record to suggest that
Call Interactive is anything other than a completely innocent
third party. The record indicates that on April 10, 2001, Call
Interactive authorized Sprint to become the RespOrg for the All
Eights Number, that Sprint began carrying Call Interactive's
traffic on April 16, 2001, and that the number is active and
being used to generate traffic.62 Staton has provided no other
evidence of the importance, or lack thereof, of the All Eights
Number to Call Interactive.
27. Turning to Staton, there is no doubt that Staton has
suffered some harm as a result of the loss of the All Eights
Number caused by MCI's negligent disconnection of service. At
the same time, however, we consider a number of facts weighing
against return of the number to Staton. First, Staton presents
almost nothing by which we can quantify the extent of the harm
from loss of the number. At the time that MCI disconnected the
number, Staton was using it only as a secondary fax line.63
Staton asserts that it had plans to launch a ``voice portal''
service using the number, but it had not yet done so. Staton
asserts generally that monetary damages would be inadequate
compensation for loss of the All Eights Number, and states that
its proposed voice portal service would obtain a ``competitive
edge provided with the ease of memory and the unique nature of
the toll-free All Eights Number.''64 Because of the extreme
sparseness of the record, however, we have no real evidence that
Staton could not simply launch its voice portal system with
another toll free number, such as the 1-800-888-8888 number that
it currently has assigned to it. Thus, the extent of the harm to
Staton is speculative.
28. Moreover, Staton did not act promptly to protect its
rights. Even after discovering the disconnection of the All
Eights Number, Staton waited 18 months before filing this
complaint with the Commission. During that time, Call
Interactive continued to use the number.
29. Considering all of these factors, we find that the
balancing of equities here weighs in favor of leaving the All
Eights Number with Call Interactive. Staton, which bears the
burden of proof as Complainant, has not persuaded us that it
would be more equitable to take the number from Call Interactive
and give it to Staton, than to leave things as they currently
stand. Accordingly, we deny the equitable relief that Staton
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
30. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections
4(i), 4(j), 201(b) and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934 as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and the
authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the above-
captioned Complaint of Staton Holdings, Inc., against Sprint
Communications Company, L.P. is DENIED, and that the Complaint of
Staton Holdings, Inc. against MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc.
is granted to the extent set forth herein.
31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and
209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
151, 154(i), and 209, that MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc.
shall pay Staton Holdings, Inc., within 60 days of release of
this Order, damages in the amount of $1,000.
32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI's Motion to Strike
the October 14, 2003 letter filed by Staton Holdings, Inc., IS
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
1 Although Staton filed its complaints (``Staton Complaints'')
in one pleading, the staff assigned different file numbers for
each individual defendant. Therefore, the Staton Complaints
referred to throughout this order are identical in all respects.
Staton initially included Mills Fleet Farm, Inc. and First Data
Voice Service as defendants, but they were dismissed from the
case on June 30, 2003 because they are not common carriers, and
thus the complaints against them did not state a cause of action
under section 208. Staton Holding, Inc. v. Mills Fleet Farm,
Inc. et al., Order, DA 03-2101 (Enforcement Bureau rel. June 30,
2 See Staton v. MCI, File No. EB-02-TC-F-008 (filed December 20,
2002). The complaint against MCI was automatically stayed
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a) because of MCI's pending
bankruptcy proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). On April 22,
2003, Staton filed a Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay to
Pursue Administrative Relief (``Staton Motion for Relief''). See
WorldCom Inc., Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay to Pursue
Administrative Relief, Case No. 02-4223-AJG, United States
Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, April 22, 2003.
Upon stipulation, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the
Southern District of New York entered on July 15, 2003 a
Stipulation and Order Resolving Motion of Staton Holdings, Inc.
for Relief from Automatic Stay to Pursue Administrative Relief
(``Bankruptcy Stipulation and Order''). See WorldCom, Inc.,
Stipulation and Order Resolving Motion of Staton Holdings, Inc.
for Relief from Automatic Stay to Pursue Administrative Relief,
Chapter 11 Case No. 02-13533-AJG, United States Bankruptcy Court,
Southern District of New York, July 15, 2003. The Bankruptcy
Stipulation and Order granted Staton's Motion for Relief, and
ordered that the automatic stay be modified to permit Staton and
MCI to continue and conclude this FCC proceeding ``solely with
respect to a determination of liability and adjudication of
claims for injunctive relief with respect to the disconnection
and reassignment of the All Eights Number.'' With the automatic
stay modified, MCI filed the Answer of MCI WorldCom
Communications, Inc., on September 22, 2003 (``MCI Answer'').
See Staton v. MCI, File No. EB-02-TC-F-008, Answer of MCI
WorldCom Communications, Inc., filed by MCI on September 22,
3 See Staton v. Sprint, File No. EB-03-TC-F-002 (filed December
20, 2002). Sprint filed an Answer to Staton's Complaint on March
14, 2003 (``Sprint Answer''). See Staton v. Sprint, File No. EB-
03-TC-F-002, Answer, filed by Sprint on March 14, 2003.
4 Staton Complaints at 8.
5 Id. at S-1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
6 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 201(b), 251(e)(1).
7 Staton Complaints at 18, 19.
8 Id. at 5, 6.
9 Id. at 6, 7.
10 Section 251(e)(1) of the Act grants the Commission the
jurisdiction to administer telecommunications numbering, and was
used as the basis for creating the limited exception to the
first-come, first-served policy by permitting a right of first
refusal for the 888 set-aside numbers. See Toll Free Service
Access Codes, Fourth Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 13 FCC Rcd 9058 (1998).
11 Staton Complaints at 9.
14 Id. at 9, 10; see also Staton Complaints, Exhibit H.
15 Staton Complaints at 11. The voice portal market, as Staton
describes it, offers consumers access to a wide variety of
information by calling a toll-free number.
16 Id. at 12.
17 Id. at 12-13.
18 See MCI Answer at 3, 5, 11, 13, 16.
19 Id. at 3, 5, 11, 16, 18
20 Id. at 16; see also MCI Answer, Exhibit 2.
21 MCI Answer at 16.
22 A ``responsible organization'' or ``RespOrg'' is defined as
the ``entity chosen by a toll free subscriber to manage and
administer the appropriate records in the toll free Service
Management System for the toll free subscriber.'' 47 CFR §
23 MCI Answer at 16.
24 Id. at 16, 17; see also MCI Answer, Exhibit 2.
25 MCI Answer at 17; see also MCI Answer, Exhibit 2.
26 MCI Answer at 17.
27 Id.; see also MCI Answer, Exhibit 2. MCI does not state when
this call was placed, but the record indicates that, at the very
least, it was prior to when Call Interactive was assigned the All
Eights Number. Id. Further, although MCI does not explicitly
state why the call was placed, it is reasonable to assume from
the language in MCI's Answer that it was placed to check the
status of the All Eights Number.
28 MCI Answer at 18; see also MCI Answer, Exhibit 2.
29 See MCI Answer, Exhibit 1.
30 MCI Answer at 18.
31 Staton Complaints at 12.
32 Id. at 12; see also Staton Complaints, Ex. L. Exhibit L,
while described by Staton as a transcript, is a series of notes
allegedly taken by Staton's counsel denoting the dates and times
that calls were placed, along with a purported summary of each
33 Staton Complaints at 17.
34 47 U.S.C. § 415(b). The facts set forth in MCI's Answer on
this issue appear to relate to an entirely different case,
inasmuch as they refer to complainants not present here, and
dates that are plainly unrelated to this case. See Answer at 15,
35 See Joint Statement of Complainant and Defendants, filed
October 1, 2003 at 6, para. 1 (``Joint Statement'').
36 Id. at 5, para. 5.
37 Id. at 8, para. 14.
38 Id. at 6, para. 9, and 7, para. 12.
39 See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 59 F.3d 1407 (1995)
(holding that ``discovery-of-injury'' rule, rather than ``time-
of-injury'' rule, applied in section 208 complaint case);
Communications Vending Corp. of Arizona, Inc. v. FCC, __ F.3d __,
2004 WL 911769 (D.C. Cir. April 30, 2004).
40 MCI Answer at 20.
41 Joint Statement at 4, para. 2.
42 Letter from Walter Staton, Executive Vice President, Staton
Wholesale to Lynn Vermillera and David Hunt, FCC, October 14,
2003 (``Staton Letter'').
43 See Motion of MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc to Strike,
filed October 23, 2003.
44 See Staton's Opposition to Motion to Strike, filed October
45 See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736. Even if we had
considered the letter, it does not add additional facts or issues
that would change the outcome of this proceeding. The letter
focuses mainly on Staton's speculation regarding potential
motives MCI may have had to intentionally disconnect Staton from
the All Eights Number. Staton does not, however, support its
speculative theories with record evidence.
46 Joint Statement at 9.
47 See MCI Answer at 3, 5, 11, 13, 16.
48 Staton Complaints at note 37 (citing Gerri Murphy Realty,
Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 16 FCC Rcd 19134 (2001)).
49 47 U.S.C. § 201(b).
50 47 U.S.C. § 151.
51 Staton Complaints at 14.
52 See Reply to Answer filed by Staton, March 26, 2003, at 8.
53 Staton Complaints at 14.
54 Staton Complaints at 4.
55 See Toll Free Service Access Codes, Report and Order, 11 FCC
Rcd 2496 (1996); Toll Free Service Access Codes, Second Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd
11162 (1997); Toll Free Service Access Codes, Fourth Report and
Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 9058 (1998);
Letter from Geraldine A. Matise, FCC, to Michael Wade, Database
Service Management, Inc. (April 2, 1998); Letter from Geraldine
A. Matise, FCC, to Michael Wade, Database Service Management,
Inc. (May 15, 1998).
56 Staton Complaints at 16.
57 Sprint Answer at 13-16.
58 Bankruptcy Stipulation and Order at para 5.
59 Joint Statement at 8-9.
60 Staton Complaints at 18.
61 In re Envirodyne Indus., 29 F.3d 301, 303 (7th Cir. 1994)
(citing International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States,
431 U.S. 324 (1977)).
62 Joint Statement at 3, paras. 7-8.
63 Staton Complaints at 12.
64 Staton Complaints at 11.