WPCG 2HB3X@V3|J  (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)6Qs>XP#"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BE7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fExTxTxTxo7oE\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^ee*B`^-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTy.C8*,C\  P6QP{&P2W Ez ZX X-#XP\  P6Q DXP#HP Color LaserJet 5/5M (HP)HCLA5HP.WRS4C\  P6Q,,T$S{PzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddy.C8*,C\  P6QP7PC2,s>XP\  P6QXP2J=.,&J\  P6Q&P.2N=.,&N4  pQ&2  @ Z R3 3|P "5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 4/4M 5/5M (HP)HPLAS4.WRS4C\  P6Q,,A#~PTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)2[@ ns"5@^.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc.====IL=\\RRRRRzzRpRpRpRpR=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\R\\\\\f\\RRzRzRzRpRpRpR\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pL\\\z=zLfGfGN@.S\=R\\\\\39\7\7==RR\==\\=R=7t=ddddhoo.Iih2[\\ydCpi`vZdfdloPpPi`d}}tro.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc=\R\\=f===RR@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\h=\Id77=iS.=79\Rzpppp====hf\RRRRRRzRRRRR3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\\\ S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#XP\  P6Qs>XP##&J\  P6Q&P#Bibliogrphy6jBibliography$=(O$ gw*O$7ot gwE Tech Init6jInitialize Technical Stylew*O$7ot gwE 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2=na1Technical+O$7otTechnical Document Stylew$=(O$ gw*O$4!     a2Technical+O$7otTechnical Document Stylew$=(O$ gw*O$*    a3Technical+O$7otTechnical Document Stylew$=(O$ gw*O$'     a4Technical+O$7otTechnical Document Stylew$=(O$ gw*O$&     2H4 > a5Technical+O$7otTechnical Document Stylew$=(O$ gw*O$&   . a6Technical+O$7otTechnical Document Stylew$=(O$ gw*O$&  . a7Technical+O$7otTechnical Document Stylew$=(O$ gw*O$ &  . a8Technical+O$7otTechnical Document Stylew$=(O$ gw*O$ &  . 2T z r ,Doc Initw6jInitialize Document Stylegw*O$7ot gwE     I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲa1DocumentE+O$7otDocument Styleow$=(O$ gw#*O$ F *  ׃  a2DocumentE+O$7otDocument Styleow$=(O$ gw#*O$ *    a3DocumentE+O$7otDocument Styleow$=(O$ gw#*O$0     21qee\pa4DocumentE+O$7otDocument Styleow$=(O$ gw#*O$ . a5DocumentE+O$7otDocument Styleow$=(O$ gw#*O$   a6DocumentE+O$7otDocument Styleow$=(O$ gw#*O$ !" a7DocumentE+O$7otDocument Styleow$=(O$ gw#*O$#$` ` ` 2#pc[e."p"a8DocumentE+O$7otDocument Styleow$=(O$ gw#*O$%&` ` ` Pleadingw$6jHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper*O$7ot gwE'(   ,#Xj\  PG;XP##Xj\  PG;XP# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Heading 2(6jUnderlined Heading Flush Left(*O$7ot gwE)* Heading 1)6jCentered Heading(O$ gw)*O$7ot gwE+,* Ã  2y%s5##:$$Bullet List6jIndented Bullet List gw**O$7ot gwE-.` ` ` a1Right Par+O$7otRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO$ gw,*O$8/0@   a2Right Par+O$7otRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO$ gw,*O$A12@` `  ` ` ` a3Right Par+O$7otRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO$ gw,*O$J34` ` @  ` `  2(%X&''a4Right Par+O$7otRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO$ gw,*O$S56` `  @  a5Right Par+O$7otRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO$ gw,*O$\78` `  @hh# hhh a6Right Par+O$7otRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO$ gw,*O$e9:` `  hh#@( hh# a7Right Par+O$7otRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO$ gw,*O$n;<` `  hh#(@- ( 2X3(@)@,Z0a8Right Par+O$7otRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO$ gw,*O$w=>` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp "5@^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fRfR=\f3=f3f\ffRG=f\\\RH(H`.====IL=\f\\\\\RzRzRzRzRG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\RRRzRzRzR\\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\fz3zLff\RRfGfGN@.c\=\\\\\\7<\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=ddddioo.Iii2[\\ydCpi`vZdfdloPpPi`d}}tro.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fRfR=\f3=f3f\ffRG=f\\\RH(H`=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Id77=ic.=7<\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\RRRRR3333\f\\\\\d\ffff\f"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBddddddXP\  P6QXP2J=.,&J\  P6Q&P.2N=.,&N4  pQ&. 7UC2,|XU4  pQX!W!0(,h0\  P6QhPI(!,,(\  P6Q,P2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,OhCddddCoCȜCCddFdCNC2Cdddd,dCd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2G S- X   (Ͷ S- #&J\  P6Q&P#Federal Communications Commission`(#DA 99127 ă  yx}dddy (O3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-& Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S4-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:XP#In the Matter of hh@) x` `  hh@)  X- Metacomm Cellular Partners hh@)h  X-xComplainant hh@) x` `  hh@)  XR-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:"resolution of a two year old licensing proceeding in which WWC seeks authority to serve  x.unserved area in Wyoming 1, and to obtain a judgement that certain areas illegally served and  X - xclaimed by Metacomm in the market should be forfeited."D G {O -ԍxId,,  5..D WWC seeks damages from  xMetacomm in an amount to be proved after the conclusion of the liability phase of this  X- xproceeding.B zG {O-ԍxId., p. 32.B Metacomm interposed an answer to WWC's crosscomplaint on November 12, 1996, and disputed WWC's claims.   nx8. Thereafter, both parties filed a number of unauthorized pleadings purporting to  xsupplement the record, in which Metacomm alleged that WWC, subsequent to the filing of its  xLcomplaint, had filed additional frivolous pleadings in the ongoing radio licensing proceedings.  xThe unauthorized pleadings consist of an Amendment and Supplement to Complaint, filed by  xMetacomm on April 30, 1997; an answer thereto, filed by WWC on May 30, 1997; a Motion to  xDismiss, filed by WWC on May 30, 1997; a Supplement to its crosscomplaint, filed by WWC  xkon May 30, 1997; an answer thereto, filed by Metacomm on June 30, 1997; and an answer to  xWWC's supplemental crosscomplaint, filed by Metacomm on June 30, 1997. Discovery motions  XD- xwere also filed by the parties.!D G yO-  ԍxEach party served interrogatories on the other party, to which the served party objected in part. Motions  xJto Compel Answers to Interrogatories were filed by Metacomm and WWC on December 30, 1996. WWC also filed  xa Motion for Authorization to Conduct Depositions Discovery, Propound Additional Interrogatories and Request  xProduction of Documents. Oppositions to each of these motions have also been filed. The motions have not been  xacted upon and are still pending. In light of our decision, herein, to dismiss the underlying complaint and crosscomplaint, these motions will be dismissed as moot.  A status conference was held on October 14, 1997, in which the  xparties agreed to explore the possibility of settling this case. Thereafter, by letter dated April 2,  x\1998, the parties notified the Enforcement and Consumer Information Division staff that the  X-settlement negotiations had concluded unsuccessfully." G yO"-ԍxLetter, dated April 2, 1998, from Louis Gurman, Esquire, to Roderick A. Mette, Esquire.  X-  x9. By Order, released June 23, 1998, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau granted  xMetacomm's application for an alternative determination of its CGSA in the Wyoming 1 RSA  XO- x-as well as its Phase I applications for unserved areas in Wyoming RSA 1.#OG {O'-ԍxMetacomm Cellular Partners, Etc., 13 FCC Rcd 12192 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 1998). However, the Bureau"O#,l(l(,,o"  xLdetermined that it was not appropriate for Metacomm to have filed notifications on FCC Forms  X- x.489 as a means of seeking authorization to construct new cell sites.C$G {OV-ԍxId.,  2.C In this regard, the Order  xheld that Metacomm's operation of the four cell sites, which it subsequently constructed, had been  X- xunauthorized.N%ZG {O-ԍxId.,  2, 812.N The Bureau also rejected WWC's allegations that Metacomm had "misrepresented  Xt- x.or intentionally failed to disclose relevant facts in either its SIU or its Form 489 notification."D&tG {O -ԍxId.,  17.D  xThe Bureau noted that although Metacomm's SIU map erroneously showed coverage from its  xproposed cells as well as coverage from its existing cells at the end of its buildout period, the  X - xexpanded coverage from the proposed cells was clearly labeled as such.:' ~G {O: -ԍxId.: Similarly, the Bureau  xfound that although Metacomm had improperly filed notifications on FCC Forms 489 for cell  xsites that had not yet been authorized or constructed, the notifications stated that the cell sites  X- xwere proposed.:(G {Oc-ԍxId.: The Bureau expressed its concern that "Metacomm's improper inclusion of the  xjproposed cell sites in its amended SIU submission and submission of Form 489 may have been  X\ - x-intended to deceive potential unserved area applicants and deter them from filing applications."D)\ G {O-ԍxId.,  18.D  xyHowever, the Bureau did not believe there was evidence that this was necessarily Metacomm's  X -intent or that these actions actually had the effect of deterring competing applications.D* 4 G {O-ԍxId., fn. 58.D  X - III. DISCUSSION T  X-  TP x10. The Commission's jurisdiction under Section 208 of the Act is limited to complaints  x"of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to this Act, in  XD- x.contravention of the provisions thereof."H+D G yO-ԍ x47 U.S.C.  208(a).H Accordingly, the Commission's Rules require that  xformal complaints set forth "[c]itation to the section of the Communications Act and/or order  X- xand/or regulation of the Commission alleged to have been violated."L,V G yO"-ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.721(a)(4).L The Commission's Rules  xfurther provide that, "[a]ny document purporting to be a formal complaint which does not state  X-a cause of action under the Communications Act will be dismissed."E-G yOO%-ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.728E x"rv-,l(l(,,"   x11. In its formal complaint, Metacomm does not specify any provision of the  xMCommunications Act or any substantive section of the Commission's Rules that WWC has  xallegedly violated. Rather, it claims that WWC has violated two procedural rules, i.e., Section  x/22.130(a)(2) and Section 1.52. However, Section 22.130(a)(2) is merely a reference in Part 22  xto the Commission's general procedural rules. It provides that petitions to deny radio applications  xgoverned by Part 22 must "[c]omply with all applicable requirements of  1.41 through 1.52 of  X.- xthis chapter."J..G yO-ԍx47 C.F.R.  22.130(a).J Similarly, Section 1.52 is a general procedural rule providing, that when a  xpleading is filed by a party represented by an attorney, it should be signed by at least one of the  x>attorneys responsible for the pleading, and that the signature of an attorney "constitutes a  x-certification by him that he has read the document; that to the best of his knowledge, information  X- xand belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay."E/XG yO -ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.52.E Section  x1.52 also states that an attorney may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action, pursuant to  xSection 1.24, for a willful violation of Section 1.52 or if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted in a pleading signed by the attorney.   x12. Metacomm recognizes that Section 1.52 is, by its terms, applicable to attorneys  X - x>practicing before the Commission, rather than to their clients.[0 G yOi-ԍxMetacomm's Complaint,  95 and 116.[ It argues that the allegedly  xfrivolous WWC pleadings were signed by WWC's counsel in violation of Section 1.52 of the  X- xkRules, acting as agents for WWC,E1xG {O-ԍxId.,  116.E and that Section 217 of the Act makes common carriers  Xg- xliable for the acts of their agents.2"g G {O"-  ԍxId.,  117. Section 217 provides that, "In construing and enforcing the provisions of the Act, the act,  xiomission or failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting for or employed by any common carrier or user,  xacting within the scope of his employment, shall in every case be deemed to be the act, omission, or failure of such carrier or user as well as that of the person."  Metacomm also reliesC3g G {O -ԍxId.,  6.C on the Commission's February 9,  XD- x1996, Public Notice, Commission Taking Tough Measures Against Frivolous Pleadings.H4D G yO{-ԍx11 FCC Rcd 3030 (1996).H It  xcontends that by publishing this public notice, the Commission promulgated both a "formal policy  X- xstatement" and an enforceable "rule."b5G yO"-ԍxMetacomm's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, p. 3.b It argues that "the Commission has authority under  x]Section 4 of the Act to adjudicate a frivolous pleading claim in a complaint proceeding if  xnecessary to enforce its rules and policies (and protect the integrity of its processes) . . . or to  X-serve the interests of administrative economy and justice . . . ." ;6G {O&-ԍ xId.;"86,l(l(,,"Ԍ  ԙx13. The sanctions for the violation of Section 1.52 are set forth in that rule section.  x[Frivolous pleadings in violation of the Rule "may be stricken as sham and false, and the matter  X- xmay proceed as though the documents had not been filed."E7G yO3-ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.52.E In addition, Section 1.52 provides  X- xthat an attorney who violates the section "may be subject to appropriate disciplinary action."E8XG yO-ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.52.E  x\The 1996 Public Notice encourages all Bureaus and Offices within the Commission "to fully  xutilize the Commission's sanctions powers, which include the authority to strike such pleadings  xpursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.52 or other applicable rules and to issue forfeitures under 47 C.F.R.  X - x? 503 for violations of  1.52 or other applicable rules."{9 G {O -ԍxCommission Taking Tough Measures Against Frivolous Pleadings, supra.{ The Commission's staff is also  xKencouraged to refer offending attorneys to the Office of General Counsel for possible disciplinary  X- xlactions.::zG {O-ԍxId.: Neither Section 1.52 nor the Public Notice indicates that the filing of allegedly  xfrivolous pleadings may provide a basis for a formal complaint pursuant to Section 208 of the Act.   x14. Metacomm cites no precedent, and we are not aware of any, that contemplates  xconsideration of a formal complaint that is filed pursuant to Section 208 and is predicated on an  xlallegation that the defendant filed frivolous pleadings. The Commission's Public Notice,  X - xCommission Taking Tough Measures Against Frivolous Pleadings, was not, as Metacomm  xbelieves, a "formal policy statement," enforceable as a new substantive "rule." The intent of the  xNotice, as stated in the first paragraph thereof, was to remind "parties to our proceedings and  xLtheir attorneys that our rules prohibit the filing of frivolous pleadings or pleadings filed for the  xpurpose of delay in proceedings before the Commission or its staff" and to announce that "[t]he  xCommission intends to fully utilize its authority to discourage and deter the filing of such  xpleadings and to impose appropriate sanctions where such pleadings are filed." Moreover, the  X- xPublic Notice would not have the effect of a separate binding rule. See United States Telephone  X-Association v. FCC, 28 F.3d 1232 (DC Cir. 1994).   x15. We do not agree with Metacomm that the Commission has general authority under  xSections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Act to entertain Section 208 complaints based on the filing of  xallegedly frivolous pleadings. The Commission's authority under Section 208 is expressly limited  xLto the adjudication of complaints alleging acts or omissions by common carriers in violation of  xthe provisions of the Act. Moreover, the expansion of the Commission's Section 208 jurisdiction  X- xis not "necessary in the execution of its functions" as required by Section 4(i).B;X G yO#-  =ԍxSection 4(i) provides that, "The Commission may perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations,  xand issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions." 47 U.S.C.  154(i).B The measures mentioned in the Commission's Public Notice, i.e., the striking of frivolous pleadings and, in ", ;,l(l(,,"  xextreme cases, the imposition of forfeitures and the disciplining of attorneys, are adequate to deter this abuse of the Commission's processes.   x16. Also, the Commission's acceptance of formal complaints, based on the filing of  xalleged frivolous pleadings by the defendant in other proceedings, would not, in the language of  XQ- xKSection 4(j), "best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice."<QG yO-  !ԍxSection 4(j) provides that "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 . . . ." 47 U.S.C.  154(j). This  xproceeding illustrates the administrative inefficiency that results when parties attempt to initiate  xseparate formal complaint proceedings to adjudicate the propriety of their opponents' pleadings.  xThe pleadings filed by Metacomm and WWC in this formal complaint proceeding address the  xZissue of whether WWC's pleadings in the radio licensing proceedings lacked a substantial factual  xKbasis and therefore were "frivolous." As such, they essentially duplicate arguments raised by the  xsame parties in the licensing proceedings. Further, we note that Metacomm states that it elected  xto file a formal complaint, instead of raising its allegations of frivolous pleadings in the radio  xlicensing proceedings, because it could not obtain an award of damages in the radio licensing  X - xjproceedings.b= G yO-ԍxMetacomm's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, p. 5.b We do not believe that either the dispatch of the Commission's business or the  xends of justice are furthered by encouraging parties in licensing proceedings to initiate separate  x>formal complaint proceedings to adjudicate allegations that should be raised, if at all, in the  xlicensing proceedings. It would be an inefficient use of the Commission's resources to have one  xlicensing proceeding, and a separate proceeding deciding the propriety of pleadings filed in the  xMlicensing proceeding. The Commission personnel responsible for conducting the licensing  xproceeding would be in the best position to determine whether a party to that proceeding has  xLfiled a frivolous pleading or has engaged in other improper conduct. Duplicative proceedings,  x.such as the one here, are an inefficient use of the Commission's resources, and the conduct of  xsuch duplicative proceedings could delay final resolution of the underlying licensing matters.  xLegitimate allegations that a party in a licensing proceeding has engaged in improper conduct  xshould be raised and considered within the scope of the licensing proceeding, where the issues  xmay be expeditiously adjudicated. Commencing a new formal complaint proceeding to determine  x[whether a party in a licensing proceeding engaged in filing frivolous pleadings in the licensing  xLproceeding is disruptive, burdensome, and contains, we believe, an element of gamesmanship.   x17. We emphasize that it is the Commission's policy to investigate legitimate claims of  X- xabuses of its process and to take appropriate enforcement actions, when warranted. See K.O.  X- xkCommunications, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 12765 (Wireless Tel. Bur., released July 7, 1998). In this  xcase, however, it does not appear that the WWC pleadings to which Metacomm takes exception  xwere frivolous. There was a basis in fact for WWC's pleadings in opposition to Metacomm's  x=applications. Although the Bureau denied WWC's petitions to deny, it found that Metacomm  xhad, on the eve of the expiration of its build out period, improperly filed notifications on FCC  xForm 489 for cell sites that had not yet been constructed and had improperly included the" =,l(l(,,!"  X- xproposed cell sites in its SIU submission.N>G {Oy-ԍxSee paragraph 8, infra.N While the Bureau did not so conclude, there was  xan arguable basis for WWC's contention that Metacomm made these erroneous filings  xyintentionally to deter potential competitive applicants by deceiving them as to the extent of the unserved area within Metacomm's Wyoming 1 RSA.   x18. WWC's crosscomplaint is similarly based solely on alleged violations of procedural  xrules relating to the filing of deceptive and frivolous pleadings. In this regard, WWC contends  xthat Metacomm, by filing a meritless formal complaint, has violated Sections 1.17, 1.52 and  X- x1.734(c) of the Commission's Rules.N?ZG yO -ԍxWWC's Crosscomplaint, p. iv.N Section 1.17 provides that the written submissions by  X- xlicensees, applicants and permitees should be truthful.@ G yO` -  ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.17. In this regard, WWC alleges that Metacomm, generally, lacked "any reasonable basis  xfor the allegations asserted in its compliant (WWC's Crosscomplaint,  124) and, in particular, its assertions that  x "WWC has attempted to 'purchase an ownership interest in Metacomm for less that fair market value. (WWC's Crosscomplaint,  125. Both Section 1.52 (which is generally  xapplicable to all Commission proceedings) and Section 1.734(c) (which applies to pleadings in  x<formal complaint proceedings) provide that pleadings must be signed by the party submitting the  xpleading or by the party's attorney, and that by signing the party or attorney certifies that he or  xshe has read the pleading, and that he or she believes that it is "well grounded in fact and is  X - xwarranted by existing law. . . ."IA G yO-ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.734(c).I WWC has argued that Metacomm's complaint, based on an  x[alleged abuse of process, "is outside the proper scope of Section 208 and fails to state a cause  X - x<of action that can be adjudicated by the Commission."OB b G yO-ԍxWWC's Motion to Dismiss, p. 3.O Moreover, WWC explicitly requests the  x=Commission to accept the crosscomplaint only if the Commission finds that it has jurisdiction  xto hear Metacomm's complaint. Accordingly, because we dismiss Metacomm's complaint, WWC's crosscomplaint will also be dismissed.  X!-* III. ORDERING CLAUSES T  X-  TP x19. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j) and 208 of the  xMCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), 208, and Section 0.321  xand 1.728 of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321 and 1.728, that, the abovecaptioned  xformal complaint filed by Metacomm against WWC in this proceeding is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.   x20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the abovecaptioned crosscomplaint filed by WWC against Metacomm in this proceeding is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. x" B,l(l(,,"   x21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions To Compel Answers to Interrogatories,  xfiled by Metacomm and WWC on December 30, 1996, and the Motion for Authorization to  xConduct Deposition Discovery, Propound Additional Interrogatories and Request Production of Documents, filed by WWC on December 30, 1996, are DISMISSED as moot. x22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS TERMINATED.  X -p` px` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` x` ` Gerald P. Vaughan x` ` Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau