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-011
)
Tekbilt World Communications, 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 Tekbilt World
Communications, Inc. (``Tekbilt'') pursuant to section
208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
``Act'').1 The complaint alleges that Tekbilt 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 Tekbilt 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 Tekbilt'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 Tekbilt
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 Tekbilt 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
Tekbilt 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. Tekbilt World
Communications, 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 Carl Saling, President,
Tekbilt World Communications, Inc, File No. EB-02-MD-011
(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. Tekbilt World
Communications, 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 Carl Saling, President,
Tekbilt World Communications, Inc, File No. EB-02-MD-011
(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).