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
In the Matter of )
)
Cavalier Telephone, LLC, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) File No. EB-02-MD-005
)
Virginia Electric and Power Company )
d/b/a Virginia Power, )
)
Respondent. )
)
ORDER
Adopted: December 2, 2002 Released: December
3, 2002
By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement
Bureau:
1. On April 1, 2002, Cavalier Telephone, LLC (``Cavalier'' or
``Complainant'') filed a formal complaint (``Complaint'')
against Virginia Electric and Power Company (``Dominion'')
pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (``Act'').1 This Complaint follows another complaint
proceeding between these same parties, which resulted in an
Order by the Cable Services Bureau that was released on June
7, 2000.2 The Complaint alleges that Dominion failed to
compensate Cavalier to the extent required by the June 7
Bureau Order; imposed improper engineering charges on Cavalier
in retaliation for the June 7 Bureau Order; and attempted to
compel arbitration of a dispute between the parties in
violation of section 224 of the Act and the June 7 Bureau
Order.3
2. On November 6, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Notice of
Settlement and Motion to Dismiss, in which they state that
they have reached a mutually-acceptable resolution of the
issues alleged in the Complaint, and move that we dismiss the
Complaint without prejudice.4
3. We grant the parties' joint motion to dismiss the complaint,
without prejudice.5 We find that dismissal at this stage is
appropriate, and will serve the public interest by promoting
the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need
for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time
and resources of the parties and this Commission.
4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and section 1.1415
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1415, and authority
delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the joint motion to
dismiss without prejudice the above-captioned complaint filed
by Cavalier IS GRANTED in its entirety.
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and section 1.1415 of
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1415, and 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 without prejudice and this proceeding
IS TERMINATED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Alexander P. Starr
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 47 U.S.C. § 224 (``Pole Attachment Act'').
2 Cavalier Telephone, LLC v. Virginia Electric and Power
Company, Order and Request for Information, 15 FCC Rcd 9563
(Cable Serv. Bur. 2000) (``June 7 Bureau Order'').
3 Cavalier Telephone, LLC v. Virginia Electric and Power
Company, Complaint, File No. EB-02-MD-005 (filed Apr. 1, 2002).
4 Cavalier Telephone, LLC v. Virginia Electric and Power
Company, Joint Notice of Settlement and Motion to Dismiss, File
No. EB-02-MD-005 (filed Nov. 6, 2002).
5 See generally Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1).