Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01320/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01320-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Communications Commission
Appellee
Leonard Communications, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

-

Decided December 15, 1995

No. 95-1307 

LOS ANGELES SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

APPELLANT

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,

APPELLEE

LEONARD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

INTERVENOR

-

Consolidated with 

No. 95-1320

-

Appeal of an Order of the

Federal Communications Commission

-

ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

-

JohnE.Ingle,DeputyAssociate General Counsel, for appellee Federal Communications Commission.

Theresa Fenelon and Michael A. Conley, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, for appellant Los Angeles

SMSA Limited Partnership; and Frances J. Chetwynd, Cole, Raywid & Braverman, for appellant

Leonard Communications, Inc.

Before: BUCKLEY, WILLIAMS, and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

USCA Case #95-1320 Document #168804 Filed: 12/15/1995 Page 1 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PERCURIAM: In an unpublished order, we are disposing of a number of motions filed in these

cases and in the cases with which they have been consolidated. This opinion addresses a single issue

raised in connection with the motions by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to

dismiss these cases: that is, whether the appeal period begins to run anew upon the withdrawal by

the petitioning party of its administrative petition for reconsideration. We hold that it does.

On March 23, 1995, the FCC released an order, McElroy Electronics Corporation,

MemorandumOpinion and Order, FCC95-93 ("MO&O"), addressing this court'sremand in McElroy

Electronics Corporation v. FCC, 990 F.2d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1993), which directed, among other

things, the reinstatement of the application of Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership ("the

Partnership")to provide cellular telephone service to unserved areas ofthe Los Angelesmetropolitan

statistical area. The Partnership appealed the MO&O to this court and subsequently filed a petition

for partial reconsideration with the FCC. On May 30, the Partnership withdrew its administrative

petition; ten days later it filed a second notice of appeal from the MO&O because the FCC had

moved to dismiss its first appeal as premature.

On April 24, 1995, Leonard Communications, Inc. ("Leonard") filed a petition for

reconsideration ofthe agency's MO&O to the extent it dismissed Leonard's application. On May 23,

Leonard withdrew its petition, and within thirty days of that action, filed an appeal from the MO&O.

The FCC now moves to dismiss Leonard's appeal and the Partnership's second appeal as

untimely because they were not filed within the initial thirty-day appeal period that began to run upon

the release of the MO&O. See 47 U.S.C. § 402(c) ("appeal shall be taken ... within thirty days from

the date upon which public notice is given of the decision or order complained of.")

Any person aggrieved byan FCCorder may, however, petition the agencyfor reconsideration

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 405(a), in lieu of immediate judicial review. "[T]he filing of a petition for

rehearing ... will suspend the running of the period within which an appeal may be taken, and ... this

period begins to run anew from the date on which final action is taken on the petition or motion,

whether it be denied or granted." Saginaw Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 96 F.2d 554, 558 (D.C. Cir.),

USCA Case #95-1320 Document #168804 Filed: 12/15/1995 Page 2 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

cert. denied, 305 U.S. 613 (1938); see also Spanish International Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 385

F.2d 615, 621 (D.C. Cir. 1967). This rule "applies even though a statute fixes a time within which

appeal may be taken as a definite period from the entry of judgment." Saginaw, 96 F.2d at 558

(citations omitted).

We see no reason why the principles of the general tolling rule should not be applied when

an optional administrative petition to reconsider is withdrawn rather than being acted upon by the

agency. Although we did not expressly address the issue in United Transportation Union v. ICC, 871

F.2d 1114, 1116-18 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ("UTU I"), or United Transportation Union v. United States,

905 F.2d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("UTU II"), those cases suggest that there is no jurisdictional

impediment to filing an appeal upon withdrawal of an agency petition for reconsideration. In UTU

I, this court dismissed UTU's petition as premature and stated in dictum that jurisdiction would vest

if UTU withdrew its petition or if the ICC denied it, and UTU filed a new appeal. See UTU I, 871

F.2d at 1118. The same day this court rendered its decision, UTU heeded the advice, withdrew its

agency petition, and immediatelyfiled a second petition for judicialreview ofthe agency's order, over

which we assumed jurisdiction and made a decision on the merits. See UTU II, 905 F.2d at 466.

While we recognize that some risk of manipulation of the appeal period may result from our

decision, we are persuaded that the alternative posed by the FCC is not acceptable. Under the FCC's

formulation, a party who seeks agency reconsideration must persevere indefinitely, on pain of losing

forever its right to judicial review of the agency's initial order. The hardships of such a rule are

illustrated in the Partnership's case because it sought only partial reconsideration of the MO&O on

an issue not raised in its appeal. Under the FCC's view, having sought agency reconsideration of one

issue, the Partnership could not then appeal any other aspect of the MO&O. Moreover, having

withdrawn its reconsideration petition, the Partnership would be foreclosed entirely from judicial

review of any part of the MO&O. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal period begins to run anew

on withdrawal by the petitioning party of its administrative petition for reconsideration.

The FCC's motions to dismiss Leonard's appeal and the Partnership's second appeal are

denied.

USCA Case #95-1320 Document #168804 Filed: 12/15/1995 Page 3 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

So ordered.

USCA Case #95-1320 Document #168804 Filed: 12/15/1995 Page 4 of 4