WPC 2MBVRKZ3|Xy.X80,qX\  P6G;P"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN K Z3|X"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72KlK K\M"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN\4  pG;2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P2e=5,&e4  pG;&P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP H5!,),5\  P6G;,P\!0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X\{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;X2 yO X   8  X-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#  Federal Communications Commission DA 98411 Ŀ3v Before theTTP Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X -#XP\  P6QynXP##&a\  P6G;u&P##&J\  P6Qu&P#In re Application of R#XP\  P6QynXP#)  S -#&a\  P6G;u&P##&J\  P6Qu&P#Los Angeles Cellular Telephone CompanyR) R) For Renewal of R)  S-Domestic Public Cellular RadioSL ) hFile No. 05166CLMR95 Telecommunications Service StationR) License KNKA351R) For Frequency Block AR) in the Los Angeles, CaliforniaR) Metropolitan Service AreaR) T  S-< ORDER TP  S-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:of its Petition, L.A. Cellular has continued to engage in misconduct. According to Pacific West, L.A.  x\Cellular has, for example, intentionally blocked 911 calls and signed customers to longterm contracts  S8- x.without their knowledge.I 8X5% yO0-ԍxMotion for Leave at 12.I Pacific West cites as evidence of L.A. Cellular's alleged misconduct the filing  S- xof a class action lawsuit by cellular consumers against L.A. Cellular alleging price fixing.7$5% {O -  >ԍxId. (citing Garabedian v. LASMSA Limited Partnership, et al., #C\  P6QɒP#Case No. 72114 (Super. Ct., Dept. 25)).  xAccording to L.A. Cellular, the parties reached a settlement in this case that was approved by the Orange County  {O* - xSuperior Court on January 27, 1998. See Letter from Jay L. Birnbaum, Counsel for L.A. Cellular, to David Furth, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, dated February 5, 1998.7 Although  xPacific West has not made a formal request for an oral hearing, it states that the allegations in its motion  S- xzwould be substantiated at an open hearing before the Commission.G5% yO4-ԍxMotion for Leave at 2.G Since the filing of its Motion for  xLeave, Pacific West has filed a number of letters with the Commission in which it discusses other pending  Sp- xklitigation involving L.A. Cellular and to which it attaches various court filings and transcripts.pd 5% yOt-  ԍxSpecifically, Pacific West has filed letters dated Dec. 11, 1997, Jan. 19, 1998, Jan. 27, 1998, and Feb. 17, 1998. L.A. Cellular has filed responses dated Dec. 22, 1997, and Feb. 5, 1998. In its  xymost recent letter, Pacific West requests that we defer a decision in this case until the California Supreme  S -Court has ruled on a case in which L.A. Cellular is a defendant.^Z 5% yO|-   ԍxLetter from Gerhard P. Randel to David Furth, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, dated February 17,  {OD- x1998. The case in question is CelTech Communications, Inc. et al. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 97 C.D.O.S., B094578 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).^  S -t# III. Discussion ă   {x5. L.A. Cellular contends that Pacific West's status as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against L.A. Cellular  SX- x[is not sufficient to confer standing in this proceeding.BX5% yO-ԍxOpposition at 3. B Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of  x1934, as amended, bestows standing on any party in interest so long as that party pleads "specific  S- xallegations of fact sufficient to show that the petitioner is a party in interest. . . ."Jn5% yO"-ԍx47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1).J To establish standing,  xthe petitioner must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that a grant of the subject application would cause  S- xythe petitioner to suffer a direct injury.]\5% {OV%-  ԍxAmericaTel Corporation, 9 FCC Rcd. 3993, 3995 (1994) (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733  {O &- x(1972)); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975).] The petition must further demonstrate a causal link between the"",(())"  S- x^claimed injury and the challenged action.5% {Oh-ԍxDuke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 74, 81 (1978). Pacific West's pleadings state that it has a business  S- xrelationship with L.A. Cellular and that it has been injured by L.A. Cellular's business practices.MZ5% yO-ԍxPetition at 12, Reply at 3.M Pacific  xWest also claims it is challenging L.A. Cellular's application because the cellular carrier has provided  S- xinferior customer service.<5% yO-ԍxReply at 2.< We do not believe that Pacific West has shown how grant of L.A. Cellular's  x>renewal application would cause it direct injury. To the extent that Pacific West claims to have been  xinjured by L.A. Cellular's business practices, it can seek redress for such injuries in court, and its rights  x=to do so are not affected by our action here. Moreover, to the extent that Pacific West bases its Petition  xon allegations regarding the quality of L.A. Cellular's service, it has presented no facts or affidavits that  xwould establish its standing to represent cellular consumers or the public as a whole. However, we find  x.that we need not resolve the issue of whether Pacific West has standing in this proceeding, because even  xif Pacific West does have standing, it has not demonstrated that the grant of L.A. Cellular's application would be inconsistent with the public interest.   x6. Under Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act, parties filing petitions to deny must make  S - xspecific allegations that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public  S - xinterest, convenience, and necessity. z5% {O-  kԍxAstroline Comm. Co. L.P. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988), quoting 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1).  {O-See also 47 C.F.R.  22.130(a)(3). Except where official notice may be taken, 5% {O -  .ԍxSee, e.g., WIOO Inc., 95 FCC 2d 974, 977 (1983) (Commission may take official notice of acquisitions that  {O- xJare a matter of public record); LeFlore Broadcasting Company, Inc., 66 FCC 2d 734, 736 n.9 (1975) (Commission  {O- xmay take official notice of its common ownership files), aff'd, LeFlore Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. FCC, 636  {O~- xwF.2d 454 (D.C. Cir. 1980); WHDH, Inc., 16 FCC 2d 29, 97 (1969) (Commission may take official notice of matters  {OH- xkcontained in ownership files on file at the FCC); Application of KIRO, Inc., 58 FCC 2d 86, 87, 90 (1976)  xZ(Commission will not take official notice of allegations of biased news coverage or inadequate coverage of public  yO-affairs).   such allegations must  S - x.be supported by affidavits of persons with personal knowledge of the facts alleged.+ 5% {OB-  ԍxSee Applications of Salem Media, et al., 10 FCC Rcd. 7757 (1995); Application of KHVH, Inc., 77 FCC  {O -2d 890, 891 (1980); Applications of Christian Broadcasting Association, 77 FCC 2d 858 (1980). + Section 309(d)(2)  xfurther states that if the pleadings and affidavits fail to raise substantial and material questions of fact and  x.the Commission concludes that grant of the application would be in the public interest, the Commission  S -shall deny the petition.J |5% yO&"-ԍx47 U.S.C.  309(d)(2).J   Ox7. Pacific West has failed to submit any affidavits of persons with personal knowledge of the  x[facts alleged, as required under the statute. Therefore, based on the record before us, we find that Pacific  x=West has failed to raise substantial and material questions of fact with respect to whether the renewal of  x/L.A. Cellular's application would be consistent with the public interest. In its Petition, Pacific West  xalleges that L.A. Cellular has engaged in illegal practices, and it provides information regarding a lawsuit," ,(())S"  xsince settled, that it brought against L.A. Cellular. These allegations are insufficient to raise an issue of  xfact in this proceeding. First, the Commission has repeatedly held that private disputes between licensees  S- xyand other parties should be resolved by courts of competent jurisdiction, not the Commission.>Z5% {O-  jԍxSee, e.g., RVC Services, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 12136, 12145 (1996) (citing MCI Communications Corp., 10 FCC  xjRcd 1072, 1074 (1994) (contractual disputes should be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction, not the Commission)).> Second,  x?the fact that an applicant is the subject of litigation is not sufficient to raise an issue regarding the  xapplicant's character unless there has been an adjudicated finding of misconduct by a court or government  S8- xagency..85% {O -  ԍxSee Spanish International Communications Corp., 2 FCC Rcd 3962, 3966 (1987). See also Policy Regarding  {O - xCharacter Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Policy Statement and Order, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1205 (1985)  {OV - x("Character Policy Statement"), recon. granted in part, denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed sub  {O - xnom. National Coalition for Better Broadcasting v. FCC, No. 8601179 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 1987); Policy Regarding  {O - xCharacter Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990). In the  {O - xCharacter Policy Statement, the Commission stated that it will not take cognizance of nonFCC misconduct involving  yO~- xjantitrust or anticompetitive misconduct unless it is adjudicated . NonFCC conduct is considered to have been  xadjudicated when the "ultimate trier of fact," which is generally the tribunal whose factual findings are not subject  {O-to review de novo, renders its decision. 102 FCC 2d at 1205, n.60. . In this case, Pacific West has presented no judgment by any court or government agency that  xL.A. Cellular has in fact acted illegally or engaged in any conduct that would raise such an issue of fact in this proceeding.   !x8. With respect to the quality of service L.A. Cellular offers to its customers, Pacific West again  xfails to provide facts supported by affidavits to show that renewal of L.A. Cellular's license is inconsistent  xwith the public interest. Its general allegation that the level of service L.A. Cellular provides to its  xsubscribers is not comparable with that offered by its competitor in the market is not sufficient to meet  S - xyits burden under section 309(d).& 5% {O`-  \ԍxSee Applications of Mercury PCS II, LLC, DA 97-1782, n.26 (Aug. 21, 1997) (allegations that consist of  {O*- xJultimate, conclusive facts, or more general allegations on information and belief, are not sufficient). See also North  {O- x,Idaho Broadcasting, 8 FCC Rcd. 1637, 1638 (1993) (citing Gencom, Inc. v. F.C.C., 832 F.2d 171, n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).  We also note that to obtain an expectancy of renewal, an applicant for  xrenewal of a cellular license is not required to demonstrate that it provides its subscribers with services  S - x[that are comparable to those provided by its competitors. 5% {O-  /ԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  22.940. See also Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules Relating to License  {O- x,Renewals in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order on  {O- xReconsideration, 8 FCC Rcd 2834 (1993), modifying Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules Relating  {O\ - xto License Renewals in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 71920 (1991).  Thus, Pacific West fails to demonstrate that  xa grant of L.A. Cellular's renewal application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience,  SX-and necessity.   x9. We also find that Pacific West has supplied no new information in its Motion for Leave that  x[would cause us to reach a different conclusion. The fact that there is additional pending litigation against  S- x.L.A. Cellular, or that L.A. Cellular has reached a settlement with parties having filed suit against it, does"n,(())"  S- x?not, without more, warrant a hearing or denial of its application. "5% {Oh-  ԍxSee Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Policy Statement and Order, 6 FCC  xJRcd 3448 (1991) (where litigation has ended in a settlement agreement, consent decree, or acquittal and there is no  xadmission or finding of unlawful misconduct, it is generally inappropriate for the Commission to reach legal conclusions on the basis of any stipulated facts). Should such pending litigation  xultimately result in a judgment that L.A. Cellular has engaged in misconduct, the Commission can then  xassess the significance of that judicial determination with respect to L.A. Cellular's qualifications to be  xa licensee and take whatever action is appropriate at that time. For this reason, we also find that there is no reason to delay our decision in this case, as Pacific West has requested.  S-]" IV. Conclusion  S-  x 10. Having carefully considered the record before us, we conclude that a grant of L.A. Cellular's  xapplication will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. We also conclude that Pacific  xlWest's Petition fails to meet the requirements of 47 U.S.C.  309(d) and therefore must be denied.  xBecause Pacific West presents no facts showing that renewal of L.A. Cellular's license is inconsistent with  xjthe public interest, we need not consider Pacific West's alternate request for the imposition of conditions  xin the event we grant L.A. Cellular's license renewal application. Because we find that Pacific West has  xfailed to meet its burden under 47 U.S.C.  309(d), we dismiss its Motion for Leave as moot. We also dismiss L.A. Cellular's Motion to Strike as moot.  SX-_ V. Ordering Clauses   x11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 309(d) of the Communications  xAct of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  309(d), and section 22.130 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  x 22.130, the Petition to Deny or, in the Alternative, to Condition Grant filed by Pacific West Cellular on November 13, 1996, IS DENIED.   x12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 309(a) of the Communications Act,  xas amended, 47 C.F.R.  309(a), the application for renewal of license filed by Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company on September 27, 1996, IS GRANTED.   lx13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.45(c) of the Commission's rules,  xz47 C.F.R.  1.45(c), the Motion of Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company to Strike Unauthorized  x[Materials filed by Pacific West Cellular or, in the Alternative, for Authorization to File Surreply filed on December 24, 1996, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. " ,(())/"   lx14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.45(c) of the Commission's rules,  x47 C.F.R.  1.45(c), the Motion for Leave to File Supplement filed by Pacific West Cellular on December 8, 1997, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.   ]x15. This action is taken pursuant to the authority delegated in section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331. /25%jgreenspan/draft/12/16/97/x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@David L. Furth x` `  hh@Chief, Commercial Wireless Division  S - hyx` `  hh@Wireless Telecommunications Bureau