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


                             Washington, D.C. 20554

   Nina Shahin, )


   Complainant, )


   v. ) File No. EB-12-MD-001


   Verizon, )


   Respondent. )

                            ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

   Adopted: January  10, 2013 Released: January  10, 2013

   By the Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau:


    1. This Order denies a Petition, filed by Nina Shahin (Shahin), seeking
       review of a February 24, 2012, Letter Ruling by the Market Disputes
       Resolution Division (MDRD). The February 24 Letter Ruling dismissed,
       without prejudice, a complaint Shahin filed against Verizon under
       section 208 of the Act. Having reviewed Shahin's arguments, we find
       there is no basis to alter the February 24 Letter Ruling, and we
       therefore deny her Petition. Because the February 24 Letter Ruling
       dismissed Shahin's Complaint without prejudice, she is free to refile
       a complaint that complies with the Commission's formal complaint


    2. On March 21, 2011, Shahin filed her Complaint against Verizon alleging
       that technical and billing problems associated with a fax line to her
       home caused, among other things, a malfunction in her home security
       system and other economic loss. After reviewing the Complaint, MDRD
       issued the February 24 Letter Ruling, which identified eight respects
       in which the Complaint was deficient and dismissed it without
       prejudice. In the Petition, to which Verizon did not respond, Shahin
       argues that the February 24 Letter Ruling is of "questionable legal


    3. We find no reason to reconsider the conclusions in the February 24
       Letter Ruling. The Commission's formal complaint rules require
       fact-based pleadings that incorporate, as part of the initial filing,
       a legal analysis as well as supporting documentation and affidavits.
       In other words, complaints, standing alone, must contain all of the
       factual and legal support that the complainant can muster.

    4. As documented in the February 24 Letter Ruling, the deficiencies of
       Shahin's Complaint were numerous, significant, and would have made it
       impossible for Verizon to adequately respond to Shahin's allegations
       and for the Commission to render a decision on her claims. MDRD
       appropriately dismissed the Complaint for these reasons.


    5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 405
       of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154 (i),
       154(j), 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
       1.106, that the Petition IS DENIED.


   Market Disputes Resolution Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   See Petitioner's Appeal Filed Under Provisions of 47 C.F.R. S: 1.276 With
   Exceptions to the Decision of the Federal Communications Commission Issued
   on February 24, 2012, File No. EB-12-MD-001 (filed Mar. 22, 2012)
   (Petition). See also Appellant's Brief In Support of Her Appeal With the
   Exceptions to the Initial Decision of the Federal Communications
   Commission Filed Under Provisions of 47 C.F.R. S: 1.276, File No.
   EB-12-MD-001 (filed Mar. 22, 2012) (Brief). Shahin's filing incorrectly
   invoked section 1.276 of the Commission's rules, which applies to
   Commission hearings. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.726 (Appeal and review of initial
   decision). Rather than requiring Shahin to re-file, we treat her request
   as a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) under section 1.106 of the
   Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106 (Petitions for reconsideration
   in non-rulemaking proceedings).

   Letter from Market Disputes Resolution Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau,
   to Nina Shahin, File No. EB-12-MD-001 (Feb. 24, 2012) (February 24 Letter

   47 U.S.C. S: 208. See Petition-Complaint, File No. EB-12-MD-001 (filed
   Mar. 21, 2011) (Complaint).

   See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736.

   Complaint at 3-4.

   February 24 Letter Ruling at 1-2 (noting that the Complaint violated the
   following Commission rules: 1.720(a), (d); 1.721(a)(5), (6), (8), (9);
   1.722(a); and 1.723(b)).

   Appeal at 1.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.720 (b)-(c). See also Implementation of the
   Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to
   Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers,
   Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22520, paras. 70-71, 81-82 (1997)
   (Report and Order) (contrasting fact-based pleadings filed with the
   Commission to notice pleadings filed with federal courts).

   Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22605, para. 267. See also 47 C.F.R. S:

   February 24 Letter Ruling at 1.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 4(j) ("The Commission may conduct its proceedings in such
   manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the
   ends of justice."). See also 47 U.S.C. S: 4(i) ("The Commission may ...
   make such rules and regulations ... as may be necessary in the execution
   of its functions.").

   Federal Communications Commission DA 13-27