*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 45316.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  64 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Xspedius  Communications  LLC, 
 Complainant, 
 v. 
 Verizon  Florida  Inc.  and  Verizon  Maryland  Inc., 


 Defendants. 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 


 File  No.  EB-  03-  MD-  017 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  January  11,  2005  Released:  January  12,  2005 
 By  the  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau: 
 1.  On  October  23,  2003,  Xspedius  Communications,  LLC  (“  Xspedius”)  filed  a  formal  complaint  1  against  Verizon  Florida  Inc.  and  Verizon  Maryland  Inc.  (collectively, 


 “Verizon”)  pursuant  to  section  208  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (“  Act”).  2  In  its  Complaint,  Xspedius  alleged,  inter  alia,  that  Verizon  violated  section  201(  b)  of  the  Act  by 
 refusing  to  pay  Xspedius  reciprocal  compensation  for  the  termination  of  traffic  bound  for  internet  service  providers.  3 


 2.  On  January  7,  2005,  Xspedius  and  Verizon  filed  a  Joint  Motion  requesting  that  the  Complaint  be  dismissed  with  prejudice.  4  Xspedius  and  Verizon  state  in  the  Joint  Motion  that 


 1  Formal  Complaint,  File  No.  EB-  03-  MD-  017  (filed  Oct.  23,  2003)  (“  Complaint”). 
 2  47  U.  S.  C.  §  208. 
 3  Complaint  at  11-  12,  ¶¶  39-  49  (citing  47  U.  S.  C.  §  201(  b)). 
 4  Motion  to  Dismiss  with  Prejudice,  File  No.  EB-  03-  MD-  017  (filed  Jan.  7,  2005)  (“  Joint  Motion”).  For 
 three  months  prior  to  seeking  dismissal,  the  parties  made  several  joint  requests  seeking  a  stay  of  this  proceeding  to  facilitate  ongoing  settlement  discussions.  See,  e.  g.,  Letter  from  Brett  H.  Freedson,  Kelley  Drye  &  Warren  LLP, 


 counsel  to  Xspedius,  to  Marlene  Dortch,  Secretary,  FCC  (filed  Oct.  20,  2004)  (stating  that  both  parties  request  a  stay);  Letter  from  Brett  H.  Freedson,  Kelley  Drye  &  Warren  LLP,  counsel  to  Xspedius,  to  Marlene  Dortch, 
 (continued….) 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  64 
 2 
 they  have  reached  a  mutually-  acceptable  resolution  of  their  dispute.  5 
 3.  We  are  satisfied  that  dismissing  the  Complaint  with  prejudice  will  serve  the  public  interest  by  promoting  the  private  resolution  of  disputes  and  by  eliminating  the  need  for  further 


 litigation  and  the  expenditure  of  further  time  and  resources  of  the  parties  and  this  Commission. 
 4.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  sections  4(  i),  4(  j),  and  208  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §§  154(  i),  154(  j),  and  208,  sections  1.720- 


 1.736  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  1.720-  1.736,  and  the  authority  delegated  in  section  0.111  and  0.311  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  0.111  and  0.311,  that  the  Joint 
 Motion  IS  GRANTED,  that  the  Complaint  IS  DISMISSED  WITH  PREJUDICE,  and  that  this  proceeding  IS  TERMINATED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Alexander  P.  Starr  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division 
 Enforcement  Bureau 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  Secretary,  FCC  (filed  Nov.  30,  2004)  (stating  that  both  parties  request  an  additional  stay);  Letter  from  Brett  H. 
 Freedson,  Kelley  Drye  &  Warren  LLP,  counsel  to  Xspedius,  to  Marlene  Dortch,  Secretary,  FCC  (filed  Dec.  10,  2004)  (same). 


 5  Joint  Motion  at  2. 
2