DATE:	May 10, 2012
TO:	Office of Commission Clerk (Cole)
FROM:	Office of the General Counsel (Harris) Division of Regulatory Analysis (Bloom, Hawkins)
RE:	Docket No. 110056-TP – Complaint against Verizon Florida, LLC and MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services for failure to pay intrastate access charges for the origination and termination of intrastate interexchange telecommunications service, by Bright House Networks Information Services (Florida), LLC.
AGENDA:	05/22/12 – Regular Agenda – Interested Persons May Participate
COMMISSIONERS ASSIGNED:			All Commissioners
PREHEARING OFFICER:			Balbis
CRITICAL DATES:			None
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:			None
FILE NAME AND LOCATION:			S:\PSC\GCL\WP\110056.RCM.DOC

 

 Case Background

            On February 22, 2011, Bright House Networks Information Services (Florida) LLC (“Bright House”) filed a complaint alleging that Verizon Florida, LLC (“Verizon ILEC”), and MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services (“Verizon”) were violating Sections 364.01(4), 364.02(13) and 364.02(14), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and "other statutory provisions and applicable law and rules" by refusing to pay Bright House's established intrastate interexchange access charges.  On July 28, 2011, Bright House filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its complaint against Verizon ILEC, and Verizon ILEC has been dismissed from this docket.  On August 26, 2011, the Commission issued Order No. PSC-11-0359-PCO-TP, denying Verizon’s March 14, 2011, Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceeding. 

 

            After several Motions for Extension of Time, on January 3, 2012, Bright House filed a Motion to Temporarily Suspend Procedural Schedule (“Motion to Suspend”).  In the Motion to Suspend, Bright House represented that on October 27, 2011, the FCC adopted its Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Order”) addressing comprehensive reforms to the Universal Service Fund and Intercarrier Compensation mechanisms.[1]  The complete text of the Order was subsequently issued on November 18, 2011, and based on their analysis and review of the provisions of the FCC’s order, avers Bright House, the parties began discussions geared towards the settlement of matters in dispute in this docket.  In the Motion to Suspend, the parties acknowledged that they had reached a mutually acceptable resolution and that additional time would allow the parties to finalize a settlement.  Accordingly, the Prehearing Officer granted Bright House’s Motion to Suspend the remaining procedural schedule by Order PSC-12-0018-PCO-TP, issued January 6, 2012. 

 

            In the instant Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice, filed May 1, 2012, Bright House represents that the parties have finalized a settlement of this matter, which will resolve all issues in this docket, such that this proceeding can be terminated. This recommendation addresses Bright House’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice.  The Commission is vested with jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Chapter 364, Florida Statutes.

 

Discussion of Issues

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission acknowledge Bright House’s May 1, 2012, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should acknowledge Bright House’s May 1, 2012, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice.   (Harris)

Staff Analysis: 

 The law is clear that a plaintiff’s right to take a voluntary dismissal is absolute[2] and once a voluntary dismissal is taken, the trial court loses all jurisdiction over the matter, and cannot reinstate the action for any reason.[3]  Both of these legal principles have been recognized in administrative proceedings[4] and are consistent with past Commission decisions.[5] Staff recommends that the Commission acknowledge Bright House’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice of its petition as a matter of right. 

 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If Issue 1 is approved, there is nothing further for the Commission to consider in this docket.  Therefore, staff recommends that Docket No. 110056-TP be closed.  (Harris)

Staff Analysis: 

 If Issue 1 is approved, there is nothing further for the Commission to consider in this docket.  Therefore, staff recommends that Docket No. 110056-TP be closed.