WARNING:
Changes in appearance and in display of formulas, tables, and text may have occurred during translation of this document into an electronic medium. This HTML document may not be an accurate version of the official document and should not be relied on.

For an official paper copy, contact the Florida Public ServiceCommission at contact@psc.state.fl.us or call (850) 413-6770. There may be a charge for the copy.

State of Florida

Public Service Commission
Capital Circle Office Center 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850

-M-E-M-O-R-A-N-D-U-M-

DATE:

May 19, 2005

TO:

Director, Division of the Commission Clerk & Administrative Services (Bayó)

FROM:

Office of the General Counsel (Rojas, Fordham)

Division of Competitive Markets & Enforcement (Barrett)

Division of Regulatory Compliance & Consumer Assistance (Vandiver)

RE:

Docket No. 031125-TP – Complaint against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. for alleged overbilling and discontinuance of service, and petition for emergency order restoring service, by IDS Telcom LLC.

 

Docket No. 040488-TP – Complaint of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. against IDS Telcom LLC to enforce interconnection agreement deposit requirements.

 

Docket No. 040611-TP – Request for approval of amendment to interconnection, unbundling, resale, and collocation agreement between IDS Telcom LLC and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.

AGENDA:

05/31/05 – Regular Agenda – Interested Persons May Participate

CRITICAL DATES:

None

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:

None

FILE NAME AND LOCATION:

S:\PSC\GCL\WP\031125.RCM.DOC

 

 Case Background

On December 23, 2003, IDS Telecom, LLC (IDS) filed its Complaint Against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) for Alleged Overbilling and Discontinuance of Service, and Petition for Emergency Order Restoring Service.  On May 21, 2004, BellSouth filed its Complaint Against IDS to Enforce Interconnection Agreement Deposit Requirements, and on June 25, 2004, IDS filed its Request for Approval of Amendment to its Interconnection Agreement with BellSouth.

            On May 11, 2005, IDS and BellSouth filed their Joint Motions for Dismissal With Prejudice of all matters encompassed by these three Dockets.  The parties allege that they have jointly settled the issues contained therein.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Issues

ISSUE 1:        Should the Commission grant the Joint Motions for Dismissal With Prejudice filed by IDS and BellSouth?

RECOMMENDATION:      Yes.  The Commission should grant the Joint Motions for Dismissal With Prejudice filed by IDS and BellSouth.  In addition, the Commission should find that the voluntary Dismissal renders any and all outstanding motions moot, and all documents filed under claim of confidentiality should be returned to the filing party.  Therefore, these Dockets should be closed.  (Fordham, Rojas)

STAFF ANALYSIS:   The law is clear that the plaintiff’s right to take a voluntary dismissal is absolute.  Fears v. Lunsford, 314 So.2d 578, 579 ( Fla. 1975).  It is also established civil law that once a timely voluntary dismissal is taken, the trial court loses its jurisdiction to act. Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 1978).

                       

            Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission grant the Joint Motions for Dismissal With Prejudice filed by IDS and BellSouth, and find that the voluntary dismissal renders any and all outstanding motions moot. Additionally, all confidential materials filed in these Dockets should be returned to the filing party and these Dockets should be closed.