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.


                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554

   In the Matter of )


   Staton Holdings, Inc. d/b/a )

   Staton Wholesale, )


   Complainant, )


   v. )


   MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. ) File No. EB-02-TC-F-008


   and )


   Sprint Communications Company, L.P., ) File No. EB-03-TC-F-002


   Defendants. )

                            ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

   Adopted: May 3, 2010 Released: May 5, 2010

   By the Commission:


    1. In this Order on Reconsideration, we deny a Petition for
       Reconsideration filed by Staton Holdings, Inc., d/b/a/ Staton
       Wholesale ("Staton") of an Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau
       ("Bureau") concerning Staton's formal complaints against MCI WorldCom
       Communications, Inc. ("MCI"), and Sprint Communications Company, L.P.,
       ("Sprint"). The complaints alleged that Staton acquired the right to
       use 1-888-888-8888 ("All Eights Number"), and that defendants MCI and
       Sprint transferred the rights to use this number from Staton to a
       third party without Staton's consent, in violation of sections 1,
       201(b), and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
       (the "Act"), and several Commission orders dealing with the assignment
       of toll free numbers. The Staton Order granted in part Staton's
       complaint against MCI, but denied Staton's complaint against Sprint.
       Staton's prayer for relief, that the All Eights Number be re-assigned
       to Staton, was denied.


   2. Staton has used the telephone number 1-800-888-8888 in its business
   continuously since it was obtained in early 1990. It first informed MCI in
   June 1995 that it wanted to be assigned the All Eights Number and later in
   April 1998 reiterated this request under its right of first refusal to
   reserve equivalent "888" numbers. Effective September 25, 1998, Staton had
   the right to use the All Eights Number. MCI billed Staton for the All
   Eights Number for consecutive time periods starting September 1998 through
   a billing period ending on November 14, 2000. MCI apparently did not bill
   Staton for the period November 15, 2000 to December 14, 2000, but did send
   a bill to Staton for the period December 15, 2000 through January 14,

   3. The Staton Order found that MCI acted negligently when it disconnected
   the All Eights Number from Staton's Corporate Identifier Number on October
   27, 2000. MCI readily admitted that this was the result of an error by a
   former MCI employee. On November 2, 2000, MCI assigned the All Eights
   Number to Call Interactive's Corporate Identification Number, while
   leaving the number in hold status. On January 4, 2001, the All Eights
   Number was assigned to Call Interactive. MCI received a Letter of
   Authorization from Call Interactive dated April 11, 2001 to have the All
   Eights Number ported to Sprint. On April 18, 2001, Sprint became the
   Responsible Organization ("RespOrg") for the All Eights Number.

   4. Staton stated that it first became aware that it was disconnected from
   the All Eights Number in June 2001. Staton contacted MCI and Sprint in
   June to have the number restored to Staton. At that time, however, Call
   Interactive was already using the All Eights Number. Staton filed
   complaints against MCI and Sprint on December 20, 2002. The Staton Order
   decided these complaints on May 13, 2004. Staton filed a Petition for
   Reconsideration on June 15, 2004 ("Petition"). MCI and Sprint filed
   Oppositions to the Petition on June 24, 2004. Staton filed a Reply to the
   Oppositions on July 6, 2004 ("Staton Reply"). On September 8, 2005, Staton
   filed a Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration ("Supplemental
   Petition"). Further, on May 18, 2006, Staton filed a Second Supplement to
   Petition for Reconsideration ("Second Supplemental Petition"). MCI filed a
   Reply to Staton's Second Supplemental Petition on June 12, 2006; on June
   27, 2006, Staton responded with a Reply to MCI's pleading ("Staton Second
   Supplemental Reply").


   5. Staton bases its Petition on three arguments, contending that: (1) the
   Bureau wrongfully denied Staton a full evidentiary hearing; (2) there was
   sufficient evidence to prove willful misconduct on the part of MCI; and
   (3) Staton has quantified its actual damages from the loss of the All
   Eights Number and thus the Bureau erred when it determined the equities in
   this case did not favor Staton. Staton requests that its Petition be
   granted, and that the Bureau then conduct a full investigation of the
   matter, including allowing Staton the right to examine all witnesses who
   were involved with the reassignment of the All Eights Number and all
   parties that would be affected by the return of the number to Staton.

   6. The Commission's rules "do not allow reconsideration requests for the
   purpose of allowing a petitioner to reiterate arguments already
   presented." This is particularly true where a petitioner "advances
   arguments that the Commission considered and rejected in a prior order."
   If this were not the case, the Commission "would be involved in a never
   ending process of review that would frustrate the Commission's ability to
   conduct its business in an orderly fashion."

   7. Staton's Petition is based upon facts and arguments that the Bureau
   already considered and rejected in the Staton Order. Staton introduces no
   new evidence in its Petition. Indeed, throughout the Petition, Staton's
   primary contention is that there was adequate evidence already in the
   record to find for Petitioner. The only new argument is Staton's
   contention that it did not receive an adequate hearing because it was not,
   according to Staton, afforded the opportunity to question witnesses in
   person. Staton's Reply is devoid of new arguments, focusing on: (1) a lack
   of live witness testimony it contends should have been required in this
   proceeding; and (2) listing evidence already in the record as to why
   Staton contends the Bureau's conclusions in the Staton Order were
   incorrect. Despite the lack of new evidence in its Petition, we have
   considered Staton's arguments herein and reject them for the reasons set
   forth below.

   A. The Bureau Provided Staton the Opportunity to Plead Its Case Fully

   8. Staton's only new argument is based on the fact that it did not conduct
   live examinations of witnesses, in particular of MCI employees, prior to
   the issuance of the Staton Order, maintaining that it was not given the
   opportunity to do so. Staton also contends that MCI did not adequately
   explain the circumstances regarding the re-assignment of the All Eights
   Number, but simply recounts the events as to how the number was
   purportedly released. Without the opportunity to question witnesses to the
   event, Staton argues that the Bureau could not have decided whether MCI
   acted willfully or negligently.

   9. Staton is incorrect that the testimony of live witnesses is necessary
   to resolve formal complaints such as Staton's. As set forth in section
   1.720 of our rules, formal complaint proceedings, such as this one, "are
   generally resolved on a written record consisting of a complaint, answer,
   and joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts and key legal
   issues, along with all associated affidavits, exhibits and other
   attachments." In American Message Centers v. FCC, the court, in endorsing
   the Commission's procedures governing formal complaints, stated:

   [T]he Commission's "formal complaint proceedings, unlike court litigation
   or administrative-trial type hearings, are often resolved solely on the
   written pleadings. These pleadings must therefore stand on their own and
   provide the factual underpinnings for a decision on the merits." Amendment
   of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed when Formal Complaints Are
   Filed against Common Carriers, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1807 at P:8 (1988).
   Accordingly, the Commission's fact-pleading rules require a petitioner to
   plead "all matters concerning a claim . . . fully and with specificity,"
   47 C.F.R. S: 1720(a) (1994), by providing a "complete identification or
   description, including relevant time period, of the communications,
   services, or other carrier conduct complained of," id. at S: 1721(a)(6),
   supported by "relevant documentation or affidavit," S: 1720(c).

   10. In addition, Staton's contention that the lack of live examination of
   witnesses in this proceeding was due to the actions of the Bureau is
   misplaced. It is incumbent upon the Complainant to request such an
   examination and Staton never filed a motion requesting a deposition
   pursuant to section 1.729(h) of our rules. Although the FCC has indicated
   that depositions will rarely be necessary in complaint cases, the
   Commission has noted that staff can "consider and modify or otherwise
   relax the discovery procedures in particular cases (including possible
   document production, depositions, and additional interrogatories)." While
   it had the opportunity to do so, Staton never pursued the option of
   requesting depositions, or any other form of additional discovery.

   11. Staton did request discovery in this matter by directing five
   interrogatories to MCI, to which MCI filed formal objections. The Bureau
   ordered MCI to respond to these interrogatories over its objections at the
   initial status conference, which MCI did on October 10, 2003. Staton did
   not file or serve any other interrogatories. Therefore, the sum total of
   Staton's discovery efforts against MCI in this proceeding was the
   submission of five interrogatories. As such, Staton's current contention
   that the proceeding was ripe with discovery possibilities that were never
   allowed, and that without the live testimony of witnesses a legitimate
   decision was impossible to reach, is not persuasive.

   12. Based on the foregoing, we reject Petitioner's contention that it was
   not afforded an opportunity to investigate fully the matters set forth in
   the formal complaints. Further, we reject Petitioner's related argument
   that it was denied an adequate hearing.

   B. The Evidence Staton Presented Did Not Prove an Act of Willful
   Misconduct on the Part of MCI

   13. Pursuant to both an agreement between MCI and Staton and a United
   States Bankruptcy Court order, Staton's claim for damages is capped at
   $1,000 if the Commission finds MCI liable for negligence but not willful
   misconduct. Staton argues that it presented sufficient evidence to
   demonstrate willful misconduct. It contends that MCI's actions constitute
   a systematic pattern demonstrating a willful disregard of the consequences
   of its actions. Staton relies on several facts, but also on certain
   assumptions in support of its argument. MCI admitted that an employee
   mistakenly disconnected the All Eights Number. Staton concludes that
   because of the "obvious attractiveness" of the number, it took only four
   days for another party to express an interest in it. Staton contends that,
   after discovering that it had been disconnected from the number, MCI and
   Sprint promised to return the All Eights Number to Staton.

   14. Staton cites a Commission case in support of its contention that MCI's
       level of misconduct rises to a level that can be considered willful.
       In Ascom Communications, Ascom Communications, Inc. ("Ascom"), a
       payphone service provider, discovered that callers were able to place
       fraudulent international calls from certain payphones in New York.
       When Ascom notified New York Telephone Company ("NYT") of this, it was
       apparent that NYT already knew about the fraudulent calls but had
       failed to notify Ascom. NYT also directed Ascom to seek redress from
       other carriers, despite the fact that it was NYT's error that caused
       the calls to be improperly directed to the other carriers and
       completed by those carriers. Accordingly, the Commission held that
       NYT's conduct was sufficient to be considered willful misconduct.

         1. The facts in Ascom Communications are distinguishable. Here, the
            evidence demonstrates that while MCI disconnected the number
            negligently, it was not aware that there was a mistake until
            contacted by Staton many months later. By that time, MCI was not
            the RespOrg for the All Eights Number. While the process for
            correcting errors at MCI failed in this case, the evidence
            demonstrates an act of negligence, not willful deceit or a
            propagation of an error as in Ascom Communications.

         2. Staton also cites Gerri Murphy Realty, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. to
            define what actions or omissions the Commission considers to be
            willful misconduct. In Gerri Murphy, the FCC held that willful
            misconduct was "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."

         3. The Bureau already considered Staton's arguments based upon Gerri
            Realty in the Staton Order. Staton's legal analysis is no more
            persuasive here than before because Staton has not presented
            evidence to contradict MCI's sworn testimony that the
            disconnection was an unintended error. That Staton communicated
            to MCI Staton's future plans for the number does not address the
            root issue of the reasons behind the disconnection. Staton's
            theory of complicity between MCI and Sprint to take the number
            from Staton was considered and rejected in the Staton Order.
            Moreover, none of these alleged facts contradict the evidence
            proffered by MCI.

         4. Staton's final citation in support of its contention that MCI
            engaged in willful misconduct is to MCI v. Management Solutions.
            This case has little precedential value in this proceeding.
            There, the court rejected a recommended decision from a
            magistrate judge to grant a motion for summary judgment because
            the court believed that a genuine issue of fact remained to be
            tried. The MCI employees in that case allegedly stated that a
            problem was being resolved, and failed to affirmatively follow up
            on that representation, despite knowledge of possible
            consequences. The issue to be tried was whether such
            representations and the failure to follow up constituted willful
            misconduct. Here, even if MCI had informed Staton after the
            discovery of the disconnection that it would attempt to retrieve
            the All Eights Number, it was no longer the RespOrg for the
            number and could not, on its own, retrieve the number. Thus, any
            purported failure to follow up here is unlike that in Management
            Solutions, in which follow-up actions would have resolved the
            initial problem. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence in the
            record to find that MCI even agreed to attempt to do so.

         5. Finally, Staton completely fails to refute sworn testimony
            concerning an employee error at MCI that resulted in the
            disconnection of the number. Staton provides no evidence that
            contradicts this testimony. Although Staton contends that this
            testimony is not probative, we disagree. This was not the only
            evidence that MCI presented. In fact, the preponderance of the
            evidence clearly demonstrated negligence on the part of MCI, and
            the Bureau so held. It is incumbent upon the complainant to
            present evidence of willful misconduct. Staton failed to do so in
            the proceeding, and does not introduce any new facts in its

         6. Based on the foregoing, we find that the Bureau was correct in
            holding that Staton did not meet its burden of proof regarding
            the issue of willful misconduct on the part of MCI. Staton did
            not, and has not, in its Petition provided sufficient evidence to
            demonstrate that MCI's actions in disconnecting Staton from the
            All Eights Number was the result of willful misconduct.
            Accordingly, we deny Staton's Petition in this regard.

   C. The Bureau's Initial Ruling on Equitable Relief was Proper

     7. Staton contends the Bureau erred in denying it equitable relief by
        maintaining it quantified its actual damages from the loss of the All
        Eights Number. Staton lists a number of activities that it states
        were forthcoming or had been undertaken before the number was
        disconnected. The only actual figure set forth, however, is $100
        million, which Staton describes as the value of an initial public
        offering ("IPO") for a telecommunications entity to be created by
        Petitioners in connection with the All Eights Number. Again, however,
        Staton fails to provide any new evidence to support its claim.

     8. Looking first at the $100 million figure, even Staton's Petition is
        rife with speculation. First, Staton states that it "intended" to
        assign the All Eights Number to InfoEights (a wholly owned subsidiary
        of All Eights, L.L.C.). Staton "applied" for trademarks for "All
        Eights" and "InfoEights." Staton "solicited venture capitalists" and
        was "advised" that Staton "probably could" expect $100 million at an
        initial public offering "after" the "initial steps to form a public
        company had been taken." From all this, Staton contends that it has
        quantified a loss of $100 million.

     9. The Bureau agreed that Staton incurred some monetary loss as a result
        of MCI's negligent disconnection of service. As for the loss of $100
        million, however, aside from Staton's bald assertions, there is a
        lack of credible evidence to support such damages. By Staton's own
        admission it had many steps to take before an IPO could be offered,
        even if it was eventually carried to fruition. What is lacking is
        sufficient evidence that supports the loss of a quantifiable monetary

    10. Further, the Petition does not address the many other factors set
        forth in the Staton Order where the equities weigh against Staton.
        Among other things, Staton did not file a complaint with the FCC
        until another 18 months had passed after the discovery that the All
        Eights Number had been reassigned, during which time Call Interactive
        continued to use the number. A delay for this length of time
        substantially undercuts Staton's equitable arguments and actually
        strengthens Call Interactive's equitable claim. Based on all the
        foregoing, we deny Staton's contention that it was wrongfully denied
        equitable relief.

   D. Staton's Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration Fails to Include
   New Evidence

    11. Staton's Supplemental Petition is based on an allegation that the All
        Eights Number may not be in active use. According to Staton, it
        contacted an entity that Staton alleges currently has the right to
        use the All Eights Number and, again according to Staton, this entity
        claimed that the number was in use. Even though Staton doubts this is
        true, it has not established otherwise. Staton's Supplement to
        Petition does not set forth any new facts and thus cannot, on its
        own, alter the outcome of the Staton Order.

   E. Staton's Second Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration Fails to
   Justify Reopening the Record

    12. Staton's Second Supplemental Petition seeks to reopen the record
        based upon information that Staton characterizes as "new evidence
        [that] goes to the heart" of the Bureau's conclusion that negligence
        rather than willful misconduct caused MCI to disconnect the All
        Eights Number. The Second Supplemental Petition presents information
        gleaned from Staton's February 2006 deposition of an MCI employee in
        connection with Staton's ongoing lawsuit against Call Interactive. In
        particular, Staton asserts that the deposition bolsters its claim of
        willful misconduct on the part of MCI and further demonstrates that
        MCI violated section 52.103(d) of the Commission's rules by
        reassigning the All Eights Number to Call Interactive without first
        placing it in the spare number pool.

    13. Staton fails to justify either reopening the record or consideration
        of its newly-proffered evidence and claims of unlawful conduct. The
        Commission's rules make clear that absent a compelling public
        interest, reconsideration is not available to either revisit
        questions that have already been decided or to introduce new evidence
        that could have been discovered previously with due diligence. First,
        Staton does not identify a public interest in reopening the record.
        Second, the fact that Staton did not earlier obtain all the evidence
        contained in the February 2006 deposition does not mean that it could
        not have done so. The identity of the deponent was available to
        Staton no later than September 2003; Staton could have sought greater
        discovery in this proceeding to depose this individual or to obtain
        information about particular events in question but it did not.

    14. Staton's new assertion that MCI has violated section 52.103(d)
        likewise does not warrant reopening the record. Staton's complaint
        does not specifically plead such a violation, and its general claim
        that MCI violated "various FCC rulings" cannot be translated into an
        allegation that MCI violated section 52.103(d) of the rules and any
        related Commission rulings. There is no justification for reopening
        the record to permit Staton to pursue a claim that it did not include
        in its complaint.

    15. Substantively, Staton's Second Supplemental Petition and the
        underlying deposition do not undermine the Staton Order's finding of
        negligence or justify reopening the record to explore this issue or
        any other newly-claimed violations. Indeed, Staton's recitation of
        the so-called new evidence largely repeats the history of this
        dispute that is contained in previous pleadings and the Staton Order
        itself. Moreover, besides inference and conclusory allegations,
        Staton does not explain the particular significance of any new facts
        to the question of willful misconduct or to the specific violations
        averred in its complaint. Like Staton's previous claims of willful
        misconduct, Staton's new pleadings appear to suggest - but fail to
        establish - that MCI and Call Interactive acted deliberately to take
        the All Eights Number from Staton.

    16. Staton's Second Supplemental Petition does not address the initial
        action that removed the All Eights Number from Staton's control:
        MCI's October 27, 2000 disconnection of the number from Staton's
        Corporate Identifier Number, which enabled the later steps by MCI to
        reassign the number from Staton to Call Interactive. Staton ignores
        the fact that this disconnection is the critical act by MCI because
        it separated the All Eights Number from Staton and rendered the
        number available for reassignment to any party, not just Call
        Interactive.  MCI admitted negligence in disconnecting Staton's
        Corporate Identifier Number from the All Eights Number, and Staton
        provides no new evidence to rebut this sworn admission or to justify
        reopening the record to reassess the Bureau's conclusions in this


    17. 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. S:S:
        154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, that the above-captioned Petition for
        Reconsideration of Staton Holdings, Inc., is DENIED.


   Marlene H. Dortch


   The Enforcement Bureau has referred this Petition for Reconsideration to
   the full Commission pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106(a)(1).

   See Staton Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Staton Wholesale, Complainant, v. MCI
   Worldcom Communications, Inc., and Sprint Communications Company, L.P.,
   Defendants, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 8699 (EB 2004) ("Staton Order").

   Staton Complaints at 9.

   Id. at S-1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

   47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 201(b), 251(e)(1).

   Although Staton filed its complaints ("Staton Complaints") in one
   pleading, Commission staff assigned different file numbers for each
   individual defendant (MCI and Sprint). Therefore, the Staton Complaints
   referred to throughout this order on reconsideration are identical in all

   Staton Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 8708, para. 30.

   Staton Complaints at 6.

   Staton Complaints at 8-9. 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).

   Staton Complaints at 9.

   Staton Complaints, Exhibit H.


   Staton Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 8704-05, para. 16.

   MCI Opposition at 3; see also Staton v. MCI, File No. EB-02-TC-F-008,
   Answer of MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., filed by MCI on September 22,
   2003. ("MCI Answer") at 3, 5, 11, 16, and 18.

   MCI Answer at 17.

   Id. at 18; see also MCI Answer, Exhibit 2.

   See MCI Answer, Exhibit 1.

   Id. at 18.

   Staton Complaints at 12.

   Id. at 12; see also Staton Complaints, Ex. L.

   See Staton Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 8699, n.2.

   Staton's Petition is primarily dedicated to the Bureau's findings
   regarding MCI. It does not address Sprint except peripherally, naming
   Sprint in the Petition because Sprint is the current RespOrg for the toll
   free vanity number 888-888-8888 ("All Eights Number"). MCI's Opposition
   will be referred to as "MCI Opposition."

   MCI captions its pleading as a reply rather than an opposition.

   Staton captions its pleading "Reply to Opposition to Second Supplement to
   Petition for Reconsideration."

   Petition at 9.

   Applications of Vodafone Airtouch, PLC and Bell Atlantic, Order on Further
   Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 8161 (2003). See also Policies Regarding the
   Detrimental Effects of Proposed New Broadcasting Stations on Existing
   Stations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 2276, 2277 (1989) ("It
   is well established that reconsideration will not be granted merely for
   the purpose of again debating matter on which the agency has once
   deliberated and spoken. The public interest in expeditious resolution of
   Commission proceedings is done a disservice if the Commission readdresses
   arguments and issues it has already considered."); Simplification of the
   Licensing and Call Sign Assignment Systems for Stations in the Amateur
   Radio Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 87 FCC 2d 501, 505 (1981).

   See Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide Regulatory
   Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service, Third Order on Reconsideration of
   the Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 8520,
   8525 (2002) (citing 47 C.F.R. S: 1.429 (procedures for filing petition for
   reconsideration in a rulemaking context)).

   Applications of Warren Price Communications, Inc. Bay Shore, New York, et
   al., for a Construction Permit for a New FM Station on Channel 276 at Bay
   Shore, New York, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 6850, n.1 (1992).

   Petition at 2, 3.

   Id. at 2.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.720.

   American Message Centers v. FCC, 50 F.3d 35, 40-41 (D.C.Cir. 1995)
   ("AMC"); see also Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed
   when Formal Complaints Are Filed against Common Carriers, Report and
   Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2614, 2625-26 at para. 65 (1993) (explaining that there
   is no requirement for a formal hearing in section 208 complaint cases and
   noting that the Commission's rules contemplate disposition of complaints
   principally on a paper record).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.729(h).


   It has long been held that the burden of pleading and documenting a
   violation of the Act is on the complainant. See AMC, 50 F.3d at 41. The
   Commission's rules do not require a defendant to prove that it has not
   violated the Act. Id.

   See Joint Statement of Complainant and Defendants, filed October 1, 2003
   at 9; 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 at para 5.

   Petition at 3-7. Staton relies upon the alleged willful misconduct of MCI
   and Sprint in its attempt to prove that these entities violated sections
   1, 201(b), and 251(e)(1) of the Act.

   Petition at 4.

   Id. at 4, 5.

   Ascom Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P. and New
   York Telephone Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3223
   (2000) (Ascom Communications).

   Id. at 3234, paras. 26-27.

   Staton Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 8702, para. 8.

   Gerri Murphy Realty, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16
   FCC Rcd 19134 (2001) (Gerri Murphy).

   Id. at 19142, para. 19 (citing Berner v. British Commonwealth Pac.
   Airlines, Ltd., 346 F.2d 532, 536- 37 (1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 983

   See Staton Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 8705, para. 17.

   Id. at 8706, para. 23.

   MCI v. Management Solutions, Inc., 798 F.Supp. 50 (D.Me. 1992).


   Petition at 2.

   Staton Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 8704-05, para 16.

   Petition at 7, 8.



   Staton Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 8707-08, para. 24.

   Id. at 8708, para. 28.

   Supplement to Petition at 3.

   See Supplement to Petition, Affidavit of Christopher M. McCaffrey at 3.

   "A rehearing of particular issues may be made necessary by new and
   relevant evidence where the new evidence `might have gone far toward
   undermining the basis for the Commission's conclusion.'" Second
   Supplemental Petition at 4 (quoting Eagle Broadcasting Company v. FCC, 514
   F.2d 852, 854 (D.C.Cir. 1975)).

   Staton Holdings, Inc. v. First Data Corporation, Civil Action No.
   3-04-CV-2321-P, U.S.D.C. (N.D. Tx).

   Second Supplemental Petition at 5. Section 52.103(d) provides "Toll free
   numbers may remain in disconnect status for up to 4 months. . . . All toll
   free numbers in disconnect status must go directly into the spare category
   upon expiration of the 4-month disconnect interval." 47 C.F.R. S:

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.106(c).

   See MCI Answer at 16-17.

   See para. 11, supra.

   Without elaboration, Staton cites several Commission orders and letters
   involving toll free service access codes. Staton Complaints at 4, n. 7.

   A formal complaint must contain "[c]itation to the section of the
   Communications Act and/or order and/or regulation of the Commission
   alleged to have been violated." 47 C.F.R. S:1.721(a)(4).

   Second Supplemental Petition at 2-4; Staton Second Supplemental Reply at
   7; MCI Answer at 16-18; Staton Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 8701-02. .

   See para.18, supra.

   See para.3, supra; Staton Order, 19 FCC Rcd  at 8701-02, paras. 5-7
   (identifying actions taken by MCI to reassign the All Eights Number to
   Call Interactive). Staton relies on conjecture and unsupported conclusions
   to assert that the All Eights Number could not have been taken from Staton
   but for MCI's actions after the October 27, 2000 disconnection.

   The fact that Staton cannot demonstrate that it would have been any more
   likely to recover the All Eights Number had it been placed in the spare
   number pool confirms that it is the initial negligent act of disconnection
   that is crucial here, not the fact that MCI subsequently assigned the All
   Eights Number to a particular party, Call Interactive.

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-74


   Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-74