*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 42248*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  215 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Core  Communications,  Inc., 
 Complainant, 
 v. 
 Verizon  Maryland  Inc., 
 Defendant. 


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


 File  No.  EB-  01-  MD-  007 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  September  8,  2004  Released:  September  14,  2004 
 By  the  Commission: 
 1.  In  this  Order,  we  deny  the  parties’  joint  motion  to  vacate  1  the  Commission’s  Liability  Order,  2  which  granted  in  part  a  formal  complaint  filed  by  Core  Communications, 


 Inc.  (“  Core”)  against  Verizon  Maryland  Inc.  (“  Verizon”)  pursuant  to  section  208  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (“  Act”).  3  The  parties  have  asked  that  we  vacate 
 our  decision  because  they  have  now  settled  their  dispute,  but  the  mere  fact  of  settlement  does  not  provide  grounds  for  vacatur.  Moreover,  we  find  no  basis  to  justify  abandoning  the 
 precedent  established  in  the  Liability  Order.  Therefore,  we  deny  the  Vacatur  Motion  for  the  same  reasons  we  made  clear  very  recently  in  Starpower  Communications  v.  Verizon  South,  4 
 a  case  on  all  fours  with  this  one.  As  we  said  in  Starpower:  Although  we  strongly  encourage 


 1  Joint  Motion  for  Vacatur,  File  No.  EB-  01-  MD-  007  (filed  June  2,  2004)  (“  Vacatur  Motion”). 
 2  Core  Communications,  Inc.  v.  Verizon  Maryland  Inc.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd 
 7962  (2003)  (“  Liability  Order”). 
 3  47  U.  S.  C.  §  208.  See  Liability  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  7962,  ¶  1. 


 4  Starpower  Communications,  LLC  v.  Verizon  South  Inc.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  FCC  No.  04- 
 102,  2004  WL  840858  (rel.  Apr.  16,  2004). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  215 
 2 
 the  parties  to  settle  their  disputes,  “parties  should  endeavor  to  settle  such  disputes  before  the  Commission  spends  time  and  resources  to  decide  them,  not  after.”  5 
 2.  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),  208,  that  the 
 Vacatur  Motion  IS  DENIED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 


 5  Starpower  Communications  v.  Verizon  at  ¶  7. 
2