Federal Communications Commission DA 14-618
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
PAPPAMMAL KURIAN 
Assignment of Authorization of 23 Licenses to 
Thomas Kurian
Assignment of Authorization for 
Industrial/Business Pool Stations WPKT842 and 
WPMT214 to Balhir Bhogal
R F DATA INC. 
Assignment of Authorization for 
Industrial/Business Pool Station WPVV314 to 
New York Communications Co.
Assignment of Authorization for 
Industrial/Business Pool Station WPSR462 and 
Microwave Industrial/Business Pool Stations 
WQAN731, WQBP266, and WQFL329 to 
Thomas Kurian
SPECTRUM WIRELESS LLC 
Assignment of Authorization for 
Industrial/Business Pool Station WQAJ377 to 
Thomas Kurian
BALHIR BHOGAL 
Assignment of Authorization for 
Industrial/Business Pool Stations WPKT842 and 
WPMT214 to Rebel Communications LLC
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. 0005233398
File No. 0005264554
File No. 0005227801
File No. 0005233524
File No. 0005233547
File No. 0005311461
ORDER AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  May 6, 2014 Released:  May 7, 2014
By the Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
1. Introduction.  In this Order and Order on Reconsideration, we address a petition filed by 
Warren Havens, Environmentel LLC, Environmentel-2 LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Verde 
Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and 
V2G LLC (collectively, Havens Entities) for reconsideration of our consent to the application of 
Pappammal Kurian (Ms. Kurian) to assign the licenses for Industrial/Business Pool Stations WPKT842 
and WPMT214 to Balhir Bhogal (Mr. Bhogal).1 We also address a petition filed by Thomas Kurian (Mr. 
  
1 Petition for Reconsideration, and Petition to Deny, and in the Alternative, Requests under Section 1.41 (filed July 
20, 2012) (Havens PFR).  Ms. Kurian filed an opposition.  Motion to Deny the following petition (filed July 23, 
2012).
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-618
2
Kurian) to set aside the assignment of the licenses to Mr. Bhogal and subsequently from Mr. Bhogal to 
Rebel Communications LLC (Rebel), and to reinstate Ms. Kurian’s earlier application to assign these and 
other licenses to him.2 For the reasons stated below, we deny the Havens petition in part and dismiss it in 
part, and deny the Kurian petition.
2. Background. On May 25, 2012, Ms. Kurian filed an application to assign the licenses for 
twenty-three land mobile and microwave licenses, including Stations WPKT842 and WPMT214, to Mr. 
Kurian.3 On June 13, 2012, she withdrew the application.  On June 15, 2012, she filed an application to 
assign the licenses for Stations WPKT842 and WPMT214 to Mr. Bhogal, and the Commission consented 
to the application.4 On July 16, 2012, Mr. Bhogal filed an application to assign the licenses to Rebel, and 
the Commission consented to the application.5
3. On July 20, 2012, the Havens Entities filed a petition for reconsideration of the consent to 
Ms. Kurian’s application to assign the licenses for Stations WPKT842 and WPMT214 to Mr. Bhogal.6  
They argue that the assignment should be set aside because one of the Havens Entities obtained a 
monetary judgment against Ms. Kurian in Nevada state court and plans to proceed with the necessary 
legal actions to obtain satisfaction of the judgment by forcing a sale of Ms. Kurian’s licenses.7  
4. On October 22, 2012, Mr. Kurian filed a petition to set aside the assignments of the licenses 
for Stations WPKT842 and WPMT214 from Ms. Kurian to Mr. Bhogal to Rebel, and requested 
reinstatement of Ms. Kurian’s application to assign those and other licenses to him.  He argues that Ms. 
Kurian agreed to assign all of her call signs to him; and that the withdrawal of the application to assign 
the licenses to him, as well as the subsequent assignment applications, were submitted by Rebel without 
Ms. Kurian’s or Mr. Bhogal’s authorization.8 Mr. Kurian provided a declaration signed by Ms. Kurian to 
support this claim, but her declaration states that she and Mr. Bhogal agreed to assign the licenses for 
  
2 Petition to Set Aside the Assignment Application FCC File No. 0005311461, 0005264554, and Reinsert [sic] 
Application No. 0005233398 and Issue the Station Authorization of Call Sign WPKT842 and WPMT842 to Thomas 
K. Kurian, and Response to the Petition to Deny by Rebel Communications, LLC. [sic], FCC File # 00054446482 
and 0005437382 (filed Oct. 22, 2013) (Thomas Kurian PFR).  Rebel filed an opposition.  Reply to Opposition 
Pleadings (filed Oct. 31, 2012) (Rebel Opposition).
The Thomas Kurian PFR was filed jointly with his opposition to Rebel’s petition to deny applications filed by Ms. 
Kurian to assign certain licenses to Vegas Wireless LLC (FCC File Nos. 0005437382 and 0005446482).  This Order 
and Order on Reconsideration addresses the Thomas Kurian PFR only with respect to FCC File Nos. 0005233398, 
0005264554, and 0005311461; it was addressed with respect to Ms. Kurian’s applications to assign licenses to 
Vegas Wireless LLC in Pappammal Kurian, Order, 29 FCC Rcd 881 (WTB MD 2014).
3 FCC File No. 0005233398.  The other call signs were WNVJ741, WNXG425, WPIQ777, WPKV330, WPKW294, 
WPMG886, WPMP534, WPRH562, WPRH760, WPRK215, WPUA346, WPUB270, WPUD821, WPXC618, 
WPXH849, WPXH935, WQAH890, WQAJ503, WQAJ984, WQAJ986, and WQAQ340.
4 FCC File No. 0005264554.  The assignment was consummated on June 18, 2012.  See FCC File No. 0005266430.
5 FCC File No. 0005311461.  The assignment was consummated on August 2, 2012.  See FCC File No. 
0005337256.
6 The Havens Entities also sought denial of applications filed by entities associated with Ms. Kurian for consent to 
assign other land mobile and microwave licenses to New York Communications Co. (FCC File No. 0005227801 
[WPVV314]) and Mr. Kurian (FCC File Nos. 0005233524 [WPSR462, WQAN731, WQPB266, WQFL329] and 
0005233547 [WQAJ377]), but those applications were dismissed (FCC File No. 0005227801, dismissed Jan. 1, 
2013) or withdrawn (FCC File No. 0005233524, withdrawn Aug. 21, 2012; FCC File No. 0005233547, withdrawn 
Aug. 22, 2012).  Consequently, we dismiss the Havens PFR as moot with respect to those applications.
7 See Havens PFR 2-3.
8 See Thomas Kurian PFR at 1-3.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-618
3
Stations WPKT842 and WPMT214 to Rebel and she provided her Universal Licensing System password 
to Rebel for it to make the necessary filings.9 Rebel provides documentation of its agreement with Ms. 
Kurian and Mr. Bhogal, but denies that it filed the assignment applications.10
5. The Nevada state court subsequently prohibited Ms. Kurian from disposing of any assets11
and appointed a receiver12 to seek Commission approval to take control of the licenses listed in an 
attachment to the receivership appointment order, and sell them and distribute the net proceeds to the 
plaintiff to satisfy the judgment.13
6. Discussion.  As noted above, receivership appointment order authorizes the receiver to seek 
Commission approval to take control of specific licenses held by Ms. Kurian and associated entities.  
Stations WPKT842 and WPMT214 are not listed therein.14 Moreover, the temporary restraining order 
and receivership appointment order were issued well after the assignments were consented to and 
consummated.  Thus, while the Commission generally accommodates court decrees that are final unless it 
is in the public interest to do otherwise,15 the record in this matter sets forth no court order that then 
barred Ms. Kurian from assigning the licenses for Stations WPKT842 and WPMT214. That one of the 
Havens Entities had obtained a monetary judgment against her does not, by itself, constitute grounds for 
reconsideration of the consent to assign the licenses, where the receivership appointment order does not 
clearly authorize the receiver to take control of these licenses.16  Therefore, we deny the Havens Entities’ 
petition for reconsideration of our consent to assign the licenses for Stations WPKT842 and WPMT214 
from Ms. Kurian to Mr. Bhogal.
7. In light of Ms. Kurian’s statement that she and Mr. Bhogal agreed to assign the licenses for 
Stations WPKT842 and WPMT214 to Rebel, and the documentation provided by Rebel, we conclude that 
the record does not support Mr. Kurian’s claim that the assignment applications from Ms. Kurian to Mr. 
Bhogal to Rebel were not authorized by the respective licensees.17 Therefore, we deny Mr. Kurian’s 
  
9 See id. at Exhibit 1.
10 See Rebel Opposition at 5, Exhibit A.
11 See Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should 
Not Be Issued, Case No. A-12-669776-C, Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada (filed Dec. 6, 
2012).  
12 See Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint William Holland as Receiver, Case No. A-12-669776-C, Eighth 
Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada (filed Jan. 30, 2014) (Receivership Order).  
13 Both court orders are viewable in the Universal Licensing System under Call Sign WNXG425.  See Further 
Supplement to Petition to Respect and Take Actions Under Court Restraining Order, Exhibit 3 (filed Dec. 17, 2012); 
Letter dated Feb. 11, 2014 from Warren Havens, to Stana Kimball, Attorney-Advisor, Mobility Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Attachment.  The Havens Entities reported in the record of another proceeding that a 
preliminary injunction also had been obtained against Ms. Kurian.  See Pappammal Kurian, Order, 29 FCC Rcd 
881, 881 ¶ 3 (WTB MD 2014) (citing Petition to Deny [FCC File Nos. 0005446482 and 0005446495] and, in the 
alternative, Request under Section 1.41 (filed Nov. 7, 2012)).
14 See Receivership Order, Exhibit A.
15 See, e.g., Inforum Communications Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 820, 827 ¶ 12 (2005) 
(noting that it is the Commission's policy “to accommodate court decrees adjudicating disputes over contract and 
property rights, unless a public interest determination compels a different result”).  
16 Cf. Lewis J. Paper, Esq., Letter, 28 FCC Rcd 4550, 4552 (reversing grant of involuntary assignment to receiver 
where the receivership appointment order authorized the receiver to take control of the principal’s interest in the 
licensee but did not specifically address the licensee’s interest in the license), recon. denied, Lewis J. Paper, Esq., 
Letter, 28 FCC Rcd 16553 (MB AD 2013).
17 We need not resolve the dispute in the record regarding who filed the applications.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-618
4
petition to set aside the assignment of the licenses for Stations WPKT842 and WPMT214 to Mr. Bhogal 
and then to Rebel, and to reinstate Ms. Kurian’s application to assign these and other licenses to him. We 
will not address Mr. Kurian’s belief that the agreement among Ms. Kurian, Mr. Bhogal, and Rebel 
conflicted with his agreement with Ms. Kurian.  The Commission has long held that it is not the proper 
forum for the resolution of private contractual disputes, and that claims for redress stemming from such 
disputes should be sought in a court of competent jurisdiction.18  
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), 309(d), and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), 405, and Sections 1.106 
and 1.939 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.939, that the Petition for Reconsideration, 
and Petition to Deny, and in the Alternative, Requests under Section 1.41 filed by Warren Havens, 
Environmentel LLC, Environmentel-2 LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Verde Systems LLC, 
Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and V2G LLC on 
July 20, 2012, IS DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above, and the Petition to 
Set Aside the Assignment Application FCC File No. 0005311461, 0005264554, and Reinsert [sic] 
Application No. 0005233398 and Issue the Station Authorization of Call Sign WPKT842 and WPMT842
to Thomas K. Kurian, and Response to the Petition to Deny by Rebel Communications, LLC. [sic], FCC 
File # 00054446482 and 0005437382 filed by Thomas Kurian on October 22, 2013 IS DENIED.
9. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Scot Stone
Deputy Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
  
18 See, e.g., PCS 2000, L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 1681, 1691 ¶ 23 (1997) (deferring to 
the courts to adjudicate matters involving private rights); John F. Runner, Receiver (KBIF), Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 36 R.R. 2d (P&F) 773, 778 (1976) (local court of competent jurisdiction, not the FCC, is the proper 
forum to resolve private disputes); Decatur Telecasting, Inc, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8622, 
8624 ¶ 12 (MMB VSD 1992) (same).