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

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

James Chelmowski



AT&T Mobility LLC,











Proceeding No. 14-260

File No. EB-14-MD-016

order on reconsideration

Adopted: October 15, 2015 Released: October 16, 2015

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


On July 10, 2015, the Enforcement Bureau dismissed this case because the complaint was not filed within two years of the alleged injury, as required by the Communications Act. In this order, we deny a motion for reconsideration filed by complainant James Chelmowski because the motion does not identify any material error, omission, or reason warranting reconsideration, and merely repeats arguments that were fully considered and rejected in the dismissal order.


On August 10, 2015, Chelmowski filed a Motion to Reconsider the Enforcement Bureau's Order that dismissed his formal Complaint against AT&T Mobility LLC (AT&T). The Complaint, filed on December 11, 2014, alleged that AT&T violated Commission rules 52.35 and 52.36 by failing to port Chelmowski's telephone number from AT&T to his new provider in 2011. Chelmowski previously filed three informal complaints against AT&T concerning the same failed number port on March 23, 2011, August 31, 2011, and July 31, 2014. AT&T responded to the three informal complaints on April 13, 2011, September 22, 2011, and August 13, 2014, respectively. Although Chelmowski claims he never received AT&T's responses to the first and second informal complaints directly from AT&T, the record shows that the Commission provided Chelmowski with a copy of AT&T's responses to the first informal complaint and the second informal complaint on May 24, 2013 and October 22, 2013, respectively.

The Bureau dismissed the Complaint as time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations in section 415(b) of the Act. The Bureau held that the Complaint was untimely because Chelmowski's cause of action accrued at the time of his alleged injury from the failed number port, which occurred more than two years before he filed the Complaint. The Bureau rejected Chelmowski's argument that the two year limitations period should be tolled because AT&T fraudulently concealed "material facts [relating] to the basis of his claim." The Bureau found that Mr. Chelmowski had the basic facts needed to assert his claim when he filed two informal complaints about the failed ports in 2011 -- more than two years before he filed the Complaint.

Petitions for reconsideration are granted only in limited circumstances. Reconsideration is not appropriate where the petitioner fails to demonstrate a material error or omission in the original order, or does not raise additional facts not known or not existing until after the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. A petition for reconsideration that only reiterates facts and arguments previously considered and rejected will be denied.

Chelmowski's Motion fails to present any information or argument warranting reconsideration of the Order. The Motion does not challenge the Bureau's finding that Chelmowski filed informal complaints in March and August 2011 concerning the same injury alleged in the Complaint. Instead, the Motion focuses on Chelmowski's argument that he should be entitled to obtain additional information from AT&T to substantiate the unlawfulness of AT&T's alleged porting violation. Such evidence, even if available, would provide no grounds for reversing the Bureau's Order because the record plainly shows that Chelmowski knew of his alleged injury when he filed the first informal complaint in 2011. The Complaint, filed in December, 2014, is thus barred by the two year limitations period in section 415(b) of the Act, and additional discovery concerning the alleged unlawfulness of AT&T's porting conduct cannot change that conclusion.

The Motion also repeats Chelmowski's argument, fully considered in the Order, that the statute of limitations should be tolled based on AT&T's alleged fraudulent concealment of his injury. The Motion provides no basis to reconsider the Bureau's conclusion that such tolling is unavailable here because Chelmowski had the basic facts needed to assert a claim, and he actually did so, in two informal complaints in 2011. Accordingly, because Chelmowski fails to provide any new information, or to raise any new arguments not previously considered and rejected by the Bureau, we deny the Motion pursuant to section 405 of the Act and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules.

ordering clause

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 405, and section 1.106 of the of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, the Motion to Reconsider filed by James Chelmowski on August 10, 2015 is hereby DENIED.


* Travis LeBlanc

* Chief, Enforcement Bureau