******************************************************** 
                      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-009
                              )
Gadjraj & Sons Import & Export, Inc.,   )
                              )
Defendant.                         )


                              ORDER

     Adopted:  November 21, 2002             Released:  November 
22, 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 Gadjraj & Sons 
          Import & Export, Inc. (``Gadjraj'') pursuant to section 
          208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the 
          ``Act'').1  The complaint alleges that Gadjraj 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  Due to a series of extensions, the 
          Defendant was required to file an answer in this 
          proceeding no later than October 17, 2002.3
       2.      In a letter to Commission staff dated October 17, 
          2002, the parties indicated that they had agreed upon 
          the basic terms of a settlement in this matter.4  To 
          allow for adequate time to finalize the agreement and 
          collect the required signatures, however, the parties 
          jointly requested a short additional extension of time 
          for the Defendant to file an answer to the complaint, 
          with the understanding that an answer would not be 
          required if the settlement were completed prior to the 
          revised due date.5  In a Letter Ruling from Commission 
          staff dated October 23, 2002, the Defendant was granted 
          the requested extension of time to file its answer, to 
          November 1, 2002, the date suggested by the parties.6

       3.      On November 1, 2002, Complainants filed a motion 
          requesting that we dismiss the formal complaint in this 
          proceeding with prejudice.7  We grant Complainant's 
          motion to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice.  We 
          find that dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and 
          will serve the public interest by promoting the private 
          resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure 
          of further time and resources of the parties and of the 
          Commission.

       4.      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 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 
          of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736, 
          64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by 
          sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 
          C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned 
          complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety 
          and the proceeding IS TERMINATED.


                              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.  These rules were 
promulgated to implement section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 276.  
     3    See, e.g.,  APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Gadjraj & 
Sons Import & Export, Inc., Letter from Warren Firschein, 
Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-009 (September 12, 2002); APCC 
Services, Inc., et al., v. Gadjraj & Sons Import & Export, Inc., 
Letter from Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes 
Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-
009 (August 20, 2002). 
4         See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Gadjraj & Sons 
Import & Export, Inc., Letter from Gregory Kwan, Attorney for 
Complainants, and Joseph P. Goldberg, Attorney for Gadjraj, to 
Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-009 (October 17, 
2002).
5         Id.
6         See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Gadjraj & Sons 
Import & Export, Inc., Letter from Warren Firschein, Attorney, 
Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, 
File No. EB-02-MD-009 (October 23, 2002).
7         APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Gadjraj & Sons Import & 
Export, Inc., Notice of Settlement and Motion to Dismiss Formal 
Complaint With Prejudice, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-009 (filed 
November 1, 2002).