EXHIBIT 3 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 78 PageID: 5725
Case 2:11 -cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 1 of 22 PagelD: 1293 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

WARREN HAVENS, et al. 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MOBEX NETWORK SERVICES, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J. 

I. Introduction 

This matter arises from a dispute over Federal Communication Commission ("FCC") 

licenses that permit the operation of Automated Maritime Telecommunications System 

("AMTS") radio frequencies. Plaintiffs Warren Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, 

Telesaurus, VPC, LLC, AMTS Consortium, LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring, 

LLC, and Telesaurus GB, LLC (collectively "plaintiffs") assert that defendants Mobex Network 

Services, LLC, Mobex Communications, Inc., Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC, 

Paging Systems, Inc., and Touch Tel Corporation, are engaged in a scheme to hoard certain types 

of AMTS licenses, in violation of FCC regulations, with the goal of harming plaintiffs business. 

To that end, plaintiffs assert claims under the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and the 

Sherman Antitrust Act. In this motion to dismiss, defendants allege that plaintiffs' claims are 

Civ. Action No. 11-993 (KSH) 

OPINION 

1 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 78 PageID: 5726
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 2 of 22 PagelD: 1294 

barred under res judicata and collateral estoppel, and that plaintiffs' complaint fails to put forth 

an adequate claim on each of its three counts. 

II. Factual Background and Procedural History 

A. The Facts as Pleaded 

The following facts are derived from plaintiffs second amended complaint. 

Plaintiff Warren Havens is in the business of obtaining FCC Geographic licenses in the 

AMTS radio service. (Second Am. Compl. f 2.) He is "the founder, majority owner, manager, 

and president of the other Plaintiffs." (Id.) Those plaintiffs are each either limited liability 

companies or nonprofit corporations in the business of obtaining FCC licenses for AMTS radio 

service "to provide spectrum and wireless telecommunications services to governmental and 

non-governmental entities within the State of New Jersey and other states." (Id. 3-1.) 

The case involves three defendants. The first, Paging Systems, Inc. ("PSI"), is the holder 

of "Site-Based" AMTS licenses, including some with stations designated for location in New 

Jersey. (Id. f 10.) The second, Touch Tel Corp. ("Touch Tel"), constructs and operates PSFs 

AMTS stations across the country. (Id.) Although the complaint equivocates as to precisely 

who owns each company, that issue is not relevant for purposes of this motion, and it suffices to 

say that Robert and Susan Cooper, husband and wife, together own and operate the companies in 

their joint operations. (Id.) The third and fourth defendants are Maritime Communications/Land 

Mobile, LLC ("MCLM")1 and Mobex Network Services LLC ("Mobex"). MCLM is the holder 

of site-based licenses in New Jersey, which it obtained upon its purchase of Mobex. (Id. f 8-9.) 

1 Because of ongoing bankruptcy proceedings in the Northern District of Mississippi, the 

litigation is presently stayed as to MCLM. MCLM figured in the parties' submissions on the 

motion to dismiss because those submissions were filed prior to the entry of the stay order. The 

stay precludes anything in this opinion from affecting MCLM at this time. 

2 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 3 of 78 PageID: 5727
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 3 of 22 PagelD: 1295 

The sole owner of MCLM is Rev. Sandra Depriest, though plaintiffs allege that her husband, 

Donald Depriest, actually controls MCLM's operations. {Id. f 8.) 

This case revolves around FCC-issued ATMS licenses. "AMTS is a common-carrier 

Commercial Mobile Radio Service . . . licensed throughout the United States, which provides 

when in operation voice and communications to customers." {Id. If 16.) Originally created for 

the benefit of maritime customers along costal and navigable water routes, it has expanded to 

include land service along the Northeast Corridor. {Id.) AMTS licenses fall into two categories: 

Site-Based and Geographic. A Site-Based license is a "license issued by the FCC on a firstcome, first-served basis, at no cost (except for nominal application processing fees)." {Id. f 17.) 

These licenses provide for operation only at a specific station whose location is provided in the 

license. (Id.) Until 2004, all AMTS licenses were Site-Based. (Id. ^ 18.) 

The second type of license is a Geographic license, which is "issued by the FCC to a high 

bidder in a public auction, which authorizes to the licensee exclusive use of specified radio 

frequencies to construct and operate wireless telecommunications stations within a defined wide 

geographic area." (Id. If 17.) The FCC began auctioning AMTS Geographic licenses in 2004. 

(Id. H 18.) 

To protect Site-Based license holders whose licenses incorporate areas located within the 

same area granted in a Geographic license, FCC regulations provide that Site-based stations are 

entitled to "continue their station operations without excessively close-spaced co-channel 

Geographic-Licensed Stations that may cause radio interference." (Id.) To that end, "the 

Geographic Licensee [may] build and operate stations no closer than a certain range of lawful 

stations operated under a valid co-channel (same frequencies) Site-based AMTS license." (Id. 

K 21.) That distance is the shorter of 120 kilometers and the actual transmitting distance of the 

3 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 4 of 78 PageID: 5728
Case 2:11-CV-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 4 of 22 PagelD: 1296 

Site-Based station as determined through a specific, technical formula. (Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. 

§ 80.385).) If a Site-Based license is terminated, revoked, or found invalid, its covered radio 

frequencies will revert to the overlapping Geographic license for that area. (Id. f 18.) 

The plaintiffs in this case collectively hold AMTS Geographic Licenses covering a 

majority of the United States, including New Jersey. (Id. f 19.) Defendants hold the AMTS 

Site-Based licenses in various places across the country including New Jersey. (Id. f 20.) 

Plaintiffs assert that Site-Based licensees are expected to provide information to the overlapping 

Geographic licensees so that the Geographic licensees may calculate the Site-Based station's 

transmitting distance. (Id. If 22.) 

Plaintiffs and defendants are competitors, and plaintiffs complain that defendants have 

failed to provide them with the necessary information to allow them to know the protected 

contour of the defendants' stations. (Id. f 23.) Defendants have refused to provide this 

information notwithstanding three FCC "Cooperation Orders" and the FCC's regulatory 

disclosure requirements. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs assert that defendants are "motivated by an anticompetitive purpose and intend 

to block and restrain Plaintiffs as competitors." (Id. 27.) Specifically, plaintiffs allege that 

even though FCC regulations require Site-Based AMTS licensees to construct stations within 

two years of obtaining a license, defendants have not actually constructed those stations and are 

therefore refusing to disclose their stations' operating contours because such disclosure would 

reveal that the stations do not exist, thereby resulting in the Site-Based license rights reverting to 

plaintiffs as the Geographic licensees for the relevant region. (Id. 27-30.) This practice is 

known as "warehousing," and it "occurs when a party acquired spectrum licenses without the 

4 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 5 of 78 PageID: 5729
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 5 of 22 PagelD: 1297 

intent to utilize them lawfully" and instead "squatjs]' on the spectrum until a buyer is found." 

(MUSI.) 

In the course of discussions with defendants, Havens learned that PSI and the company 

now known as Mobex were cooperating on management of their licenses, such as that they 

would locate their stations at the same sites to reduce costs, and that Mobex held an option on 

PSI's licenses. (Id. 36-39.) 

Plaintiffs' first count demands an injunction under 47 U.S.C. § 401(b) to require 

defendants to disclose the information necessary to calculate the contours of their Site-Based 

stations. (Id. 46-54.) Plaintiffs' second count seeks damages for violations of the Federal 

Communications Act, as permitted under 47 U.S.C §§ 206-07. (Id. If 55-63.) Plaintiffs' third 

count seeks damages for violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-2. (Id. 64—73.) 

B. The California Litigation 

In 2005, plaintiffs (except for Skybridge Spectrum Foundation) filed a complaint in 

California Superior Court against Mobex and MCLM, claiming interference with prospective 

economic advantage, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair competition, and breach of 

contract. (Friedman Cert., Ex. A.) Defendants removed the case to the Northern District of 

California, and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and later voluntarily dismissed the 

action. (Friedman Cert., Exs. A & B.) 

In 2007, plaintiffs (except for Skybridge Spectrum Foundation) filed another complaint in 

California Superior Court against Mobex, MCLM, and PSI, this time alleging a violation of the 

Cartwright Act (a California state antitrust law), two counts of interference with prospective 

economic advantage, two counts of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, two counts of unfair 

competition, intentional interference with contracts, and two counts of conversion. (Mauriello 

5 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 6 of 78 PageID: 5730
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 6 of 22 PagelD: 1298 

Cert., Ex. I.) On June 2, 2008, the California state court dismissed the action, holding that the 

claims were preempted under the Federal Communications Act ("FCA"), see 47 U.S.C. 

§ 332(c)(3)(A), because determination of the matter would require the court to assess whether 

defendants violated the FCA. (Mauriello Cert., Ex. J.) 

C. Procedural History 

On June 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District of New Jersey, originally 

under civil docket number 08-3094. On October 14, 2008, plaintiffs filed a first amended 

complaint. After the California matter concluded and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on 

February 7, 2011, plaintiffs submitted a second amended complaint under docket number 11-

993. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. 

On August 4, 2011, defendants MCLM and Mobex Network Services, LLC submitted to 

the Court a Notice of Bankruptcy Case Filing. On August 10, 2011, the Court entered an order 

staying this matter as to those defendants pending the disposition of the bankruptcy matter. On 

November 7, 2011, the Court lifted the order as to Mobex because only MCLM actually filed for 

bankruptcy. 

III. Standard of Review 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a claim for relief must include "a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Although a 

plaintiff need not submit "detailed factual allegations" to plead a case, the Rule requires that the 

complaint include "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 555 (2007)). Mere '"labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do,'" unless the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

6 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 7 of 78 PageID: 5731
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 7 of 22 PagelD: 1299 

true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

556-57, 570). Ultimately, the complaint must contain sufficient facts to allow "the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id; see also 

Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008). 

When a court decides a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), it "must accept as true all of the 

allegations contained in a complaint," provided that they are factual allegations and not masked 

legal conclusions. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50. 

IV. Discussion 

Defendants argue first that the Court is barred from deciding this case under principles of 

res judicata and collateral estoppel. They then argue that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on 

each of the three counts in the complaint. 

A. The California Litigation 

1. Res Judicata 

. Defendants argue that res judicata applies because the facts underlying this case are the 

same as the facts upon which the now-dismissed California state litigation was based. 

The purpose of res judicata is to "promote[] judicial economy and protectQ defendants 

from having to defend multiple or nearly identical lawsuits by 'barfing] not only claims that were 

brought in a previous action, but also claims that could have been brought.'" Morgan v. 

Covington Twp., 648 F.3d 172, 177 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Mullarkey, 536 F.3d 215, 225 

(3d Cir. 2008)) (third alteration in original). To that end, a second suit is barred "when there 

exists '(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their 

privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.'" Id. (quoting Mullarkey, 

536 F.3d at 225). Res judicata applies whenever "there is an 'essential similarity of the 

7 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 8 of 78 PageID: 5732
Case 2:11 -cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 8 of 22 PagelD: 1300 

underlying events giving rise to the various legal claims.'" CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Huls Am., 

Inc., 176 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir 1999) (quoting United States v. Anthlone Indus., 746 F.2d 977, 

984 (3d Cir. 1984)). In other words, res judicata will prevent a party from re-litigating not only 

the precise theory of recovery, but also any other theory invoking the same underlying facts. 

The doctrine, however, is not without its limitations. "Ordinarily, a party will not be 

precluded from raising a claim by a prior adjudication if the party did not have the opportunity to 

fully and fairly litigate the claim." Id. at 197 (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments 

§ 26(1 )(c)). A claim will not be extinguished if "[t]he plaintiff was unable to rely on a certain 

theory of the case or to seek a certain remedy or form of relief in the first action because of the 

limitations on subject matter jurisdiction of the courts." Restatement (Second) of Judgments 

§ 26(1 )(c). 

Here, the complaint alleges claims under the Federal Communications Act ("FCA") and 

the Sherman Act. Both of these statutes explicitly limit a plaintiffs recourse in court to federal 

district courts. See 15 U.S.C. § 15(a); 47 U.S.C. § 207. These claims could not have been 

brought to the California state court in the previous action. Defendants acknowledge as much, 

arguing that "Plaintiffs conveniently ignore that they could have filed (but did not) the California 

Action in federal district court rather than state court." (Defs.' Reply Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 3.) 

This argument twists the res judicata exception for exclusive federal jurisdiction into a 

requirement that plaintiffs either bring their initial claims to the federal forum or forfeit their 

federal counts. Plaintiffs could have sought relief in federal court, but they did not. Instead they 

brought their claims in a state court that lacked jurisdiction to entertain the FCA and Sherman 

Act claims. Therefore, res judicata cannot apply. 

8 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 9 of 78 PageID: 5733
Case 2:11 -cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 9 of 22 PagelD: 1301 

2. Collateral Estoppel 

Defendants argue that collateral estoppel precludes re-litigation of the following issues 

because they were decided in the motion to dismiss the California case: 

(1) plaintiffs failed to establish a predicate wrong under the 

Communications Act because they failed to allege facts sufficient 

to show that the FCC has finally determined that Defendants 

wrongfully retained cancelled licenses; (2) alleging that certain 

licenses have 'automatically terminated and were subsequently 

identified by the FCC as cancelled' is not sufficient to establish a 

predicate wrong under the Communications Act; and (3) the 

determination of whether there was a predicate wrong under the 

Communications Act is a question for the FCC, not a court of law. 

(Defs.' Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 18.) 

Collateral estoppel provides that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by 

a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a 

different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation." Howard Hess Dental Labs., 

Inc. v. Detsply Int'l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Montana v. United States, 

440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979)). Application of collateral estoppel requires the satisfaction of four 

elements: "(1) the identical issue was previously adjudicated; (2) the issue was actually litigated; 

(3) the previous determination was necessary to the decision; and (4) the party being precluded 

from relitigating the issue was fully represented in the prior action." Id. at 247-48 (quoting 

Szehinskyj v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 432 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2005)).2 

Flere, the claim for collateral estoppel fails on the first element because the identical issue 

has not already been decided. The California court dismissed the case because "the claims set 

2 The parties cite the five-factor test articulated in California courts. See Lucido v. Super. Ct. of 

Mendocino Cnty., 795 P.2d 1223, 1225 (Cal. 1990), cert, denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991). Because 

the tests are substantively the same in all respects relevant here, the different articulations do not 

change the outcome. 

9 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 10 of 78 PageID: 5734
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 10 of 22 PagelD: 1302 

forth in the [Second Amended Complaint] come within the express preemption clause of the 

Federal Communications Act ("FCA") at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A)." (Mauriello Cert., Ex. J, at 

3, 4.) The court's decision was relatively narrow, and defendants overstate its depth. For 

example, although the court found that plaintiffs' allegation "that certain licenses have 

'automatically terminated and were subsequently identified by the FCC as cancelled'" was 

insufficient to demonstrate that the FCC has made a final decision on the matter, the court 

addressed that claim only in the context of making certain that the FCC had not decided 

potentially preempted claims. {See id. at 3, 4.) Moreover, the court never said that the 

determination of a predicate wrong is strictly one for the FCC; rather, it simply observed that 

state courts are precluded from addressing such questions under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A). (See 

id.) 

The California court determined that state courts lack jurisdiction to hear certain claims 

under the FCA. Because this Court is not a state court, that determination is irrelevant and does 

not bar this Court's consideration of the issues presented in that prior litigation. 

B. Availability of Relief Under 47 U.S.C. § 401(b) 

Defendants argue that plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under 47 U.S.C. § 401(b) 

because that provision does not provide a private right of action in these circumstances. Section 

401(b) provides that 

[i]f any person fails or neglects to obey any order of the 

Commission other than for the payment of money, while the same 

is in effect, . . . any party injured thereby . . . may apply to the 

appropriate district court of the United States for the enforcement 

of such order. If, after hearing, that court determines that the order 

was regularly made and duly served, and that the person is in 

disobedience of the same, the court shall enforce obedience to such 

order by a writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or 

otherwise, to restrain such person or the officers, agents, or 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 11 of 78 PageID: 5735
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 11 of 22 PagelD: 1303 

representatives of such person, from further disobedience of such 

order, or to enjoin upon it or them obedience to the same. 

Plaintiffs' complaint seeks to have the Court enter an order "directing Defendants ... to 

comply with the Cooperation Orders and 47 C.F.R. 80.385(b)(1), and specifically requiring 

Defendants to provide Plaintiffs the required information to enable Plaintiffs to calculate the 

protected contour of Defendants' Site-Based AMTS stations and thus the portions of Plaintiffs' 

same-channel Geographic licenses they may use." (Second Am. Compl. 32-33.) Defendants 

counter that neither the "Cooperation Orders" nor 47 C.F.R. § 80.385(b)(1) constitute "orders" 

within the meaning of the FCA. 

The definition of the term "order" has generated a circuit split and the Third Circuit has 

yet to address the question. In New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities 

Commission of Maine, 742 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1984) (Breyer, J.), the First Circuit held that an 

FCC decision that arose via the Commission's rulemaking authority was not an "order" under 

section 401(b). The court based its reasoning on several factors: first, the Administrative 

Procedure Act defines the word "order" as including "final dispositions ... in a matter other than 

rulemaking," New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co., 742 F.2d at 5 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 551(6)); second, a 

broad definition of the term "order" would threaten the principle that enforcement should be left 

to the FCC, id.', third, a broad definition would "threaten[] the sound development of a coherent 

nationwide communications policy," id. \ fourth, given that review of an FCC decision is 

obtained through the courts of appeals, "the Act's statutory review provisions can be read more 

fairly and coherently if 401(b) is construed narrowly" to limit the ability of district courts to 

engage in interpretation of agency decisions, id. at 6; fifth, other provisions of the 

Communications Act "use the word 'order' in a way that seems to envision Commission 

11 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 12 of 78 PageID: 5736
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 12 of 22 PagelD: 1304 

decisions requiring specific actions of specific carriers," id. at 7; and sixth, a narrower view of 

the definition helps avoid "issue splitting and procedural complexity," id. Accordingly, the court 

concluded that the term "order" in section 401(b) refers only to "adjudicatory" orders. Id. at 9. 

At the other end, in Hawaiian Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of State of 

Hawaii, 827 F.2d 1264, 1271 (9th Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit explicitly rejected the First 

Circuit's interpretation. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit saw no reason to import definitions from 

the Administrative Procedure act into section 401(b) and did not share the First Circuit's concern 

that the broader definition of the word "order" would hinder the FCC's enforcement role. 

Hawaiian Tel. Co., 824 F.2d at 1271-72. The court ultimately reserved judgment on the issue of 

"whether every rule, order, or regulation promulgated by the FCC is an enforceable order under 

§ 401 (b)," holding that the order immediately at issue met the necessary criteria because it 

"require[d] particular actions be taken by [defendant] and private carriers providing service to 

Hawaii." Id. at 1272. 

In its only case confronting this issue, the Third Circuit concluded that "an agency 

regulation should be considered an 'order' if it requires a defendant to take concrete actions." 

Mallenbaum v. Adelphia Commc'ns Corp., 74 F.3d 465, 468 (3d Cir. 1996). The court 

recognized the circuit split but held that it did not need to take sides because the "order" at issue 

did not require "a particular action to be taken by the defendant." Id. at 468 & n.5. 

Here, plaintiffs' section 401(b) claim seeks an order requiring defendants to disclose "the 

protected contour of [their] Site-Based AMTS stations." To that end, plaintiffs point to three 

orders. The first order is a response to MCLM's request for clarification on FCC rules. (Second 

Am. Compl., Ex. 1.) The Commission granted the request in part and denied it in part. With 

regard to one part of the request for clarification, the Commission held that a "geographic 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 13 of 78 PageID: 5737
Case 2:11 -cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 13 of 22 PagelD: 1305 

licensee's co-channel interference protection obligations" should be based on "actual operating 

parameters" rather than "maximum permissible operating parameters." {Id.) In a footnote to this 

remark, the Commission cited a prior order in another case and added that "[a]s we noted in that 

decision, we expect incumbent AMTS licensees 'to cooperate with geographic licenses in order 

to avoid and resolve interference issues. This includes, at a minimum, providing upon request 

sufficient information to enable geographic licensees to calculate the site-based station's 

protected contour.'" (Id.) 

The second order addressed an application that touched on PSl's site-based AMTS 

license at the World Trade Center. (Second Am. Compl., Ex. 2.) The Commission noted that 

the petitioner in that case "had to make certain assumptions regarding Station WQA216's 

technical parameters, given the destruction of the WTC on September 11, 2001." (Id.) In a 

footnote to that statement, the Commission again stated that "AMTS site-based incumbents are 

expected to cooperate with geographic licensees in order to avoid and resolve interference issues. 

. . . This includes, at a minimum, providing upon request sufficient information to enable 

geographic licensees to calculate the site-based station's protected contour." (Id.) 

The third order is a motion for reconsideration regarding the earlier co-channel 

interference decision. The Commission declined to reconsider its decision to "abandon the use 

of actual ERP for determining co-channel interference protection," again observing that "AMTS 

site-based licensees are expected to cooperate with geographic licensees in avoiding and 

resolving interference issues and that this obligation requires, at a minimum, that the site-based 

licensee 'provid[e] upon request sufficient information to enable geographic licensees to 

calculate the site-based station's protected contour.'" (Second Am. Compl., Ex. 3.) 

13 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 14 of 78 PageID: 5738
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 14 of 22 PagelD: 1306 

The Court need not decide which circuit's definition of the term "order" is correct 

because the cited orders fall short under either definition. In each of the three orders, the FCC 

discussed matters related to the interplay between Site-Based licenses and Geographic licenses, 

but the FCC never explicitly confronted the question of how much cooperation is necessary. To 

be sure, each order offered interpretive guidance, but the orders never required defendants 

engage in any particular disclosure. Rather, the FCC addressed the cooperation requirements in 

terms of "expectations," not specific mandates capable of judicial enforcement. Similarly, 47 

C.F.R. § 80.385(b)(1) also does not "require[] a particular action to be taken by a defendant," 

Mallenbaum, 74 F.3d at 468, because it dictates only where a Geographic licensee may locate its 

stations, not what technical details the Site-Based licensees must disclose. In the absence of an 

FCC order against defendants on this issue, the Court may not enter an injunction requiring 

defendants' compliance, and plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. 

C. Private Right of Action under 47 U.S.C § 201(b) 

Plaintiffs seek recovery for damages under 47 U.S.C. § 207, which provides that 

[a]ny person claiming to be damaged by any common carrier 

subject to the provisions of this chapter may either make complaint 

to the Commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring suit 

for the recovery of the damages for which such common carrier 

may be liable under the provisions of this chapter, in any district 

court of the United States of competent jurisdiction; but such 

person shall not have the right to pursue both such remedies. 

With regard to liability for damages in general, a common carrier such as defendants, who 

"do[es], or cause[s] or permit[s] to be done, any act, matter, or thing in this chapter prohibited or 

declared to be unlawful, or . . . omit[s] to do any act, matter, or thing in this chapter required to 

be done," is "liable to the person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages 

14 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 15 of 78 PageID: 5739
Case 2:11-CV-00993-KSH-PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 15 of 22 PagelD: 1307 

sustained in consequence of any such violation of the provisions of this chapter." 47 U.S.C. 

§ 206. 

In substance, plaintiffs claim that defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 201(b), which states: 

"All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with [a common 

carrier] communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, 

classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful." Therefore, 

if defendants' alleged conduct is "unjust or unreasonable," then it is unlawful and plaintiffs have 

stated a claim. 

Notwithstanding the grant of jurisdiction in section 207, courts are constrained in what 

they may and may not find to be a violation. Specifically, "the lawsuit is proper if the FCC 

could properly hold that [the challenged practice] is an 'unreasonable practice' deemed unlawful 

under § 201(b)." Global Crossing Telecomms., Inc. v. Metrophones Telecomms., Inc., 550 U.S. 

45, 52-53 (2007). Accordingly, as the Ninth Circuit stated in a case on which both parties rely, 

"[l]t is within the Commission's purview to determine whether a particular practice constitutes a 

violation for which there is a private right to compensation." N. Cnty. Commc'ns Corp. v. Cal. 

Catalog & Tech., 594 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2010). If a party asks a court to find a violation 

of section 201(b) in the absence of an FCC determination that the defendant's conduct generally 

violates that provision, then it is a request "that the federal courts fill in the analytical gap," and 

such a request cannot be granted because it would "put interpretation of a finely-tuned regulatory 

scheme squarely in the hands of private parties and some 700 federal district judges, instead of in 

the hands of the Commission." Id. (quoting Greene v. Spring Commc'ns Co., 340 F.3d 1047, 

1053 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Conboy v. AT&T Corp., 241 F.3d 242, 253 (2d Cir. 2001))). 

15 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 16 of 78 PageID: 5740
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 16 of 22 PagelD: 1308 

To support its claim that it is a violation of section 201 (b) to "warehouse" AMTS 

licenses, plaintiffs cite to FCC determinations that it is a violation of section 201(b) for a party to 

"warehouse" toll free numbers without identified subscribers. See, e.g., In re Toll Free Serv. 

Access Codes, 12 FCC Red 11162 (1997); Patients Plus, Inc. v. Long Distance Telecomm. Serv., 

12 FCC Red 13258 (1997). Although these determinations support the proposition that the FCC 

has found warehousing to be disfavored in one particular context, the determinations do not 

address the precise type of conduct at issue in this case, or even a sufficient number of similar 

types of conduct for the Court to infer the FCC's distaste for warehousing as a general practice. 

The Court cannot risk disturbing the delicate regulatory framework that the Commission is 

tasked with maintaining. Cf. Hoffman v. Rashid, 388 F. App'x 121, 123 (3d Cir. 2010) ("[I]t is 

within the purview of the Federal Communications Commission, not [plaintiff], 'to determine 

whether a particular practice constitutes a violation for which there is a private right to 

compensation.'" (quotingN. Cnty. Commc'ns Corp., 594 F.3d at 1158)).3 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' claims under the Federal Communications Act fail, 

and are dismissed. 

3 Defendants assert that plaintiffs' section 207 claim is time-barred under 47 U.S.C. § 415(b). 

Having found that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under section 207, the Court need not address 

this issue in depth. The Third Circuit has spoken on the issue, holding that "when a defendant's 

conduct is part of a continuing practice, an action is timely so long as the last act evidencing the 

continuing practice falls within the limitations period." Brenner v. Local 514, UnitedBhd. of 

Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 927 F.2d 1283, 1295 (3d Cir. 1991). Here, plaintiffs' claim is that 

the defendants' unjust and unreasonable practice is the continuing disregard of Commission 

regulations and orders, and the continued warehousing of AMTS licenses. Because these are 

ongoing activities, the statute of limitations has not yet started to run. 

16 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 17 of 78 PageID: 5741
Case 2:11 -cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 17 of 22 PagelD: 1309 

D. Sherman Act 

1. Preemption 

Defendants argue that the FCA established an elaborate framework under which the FCC 

regulates radio frequency allocation, and that the FCA therefore preempts Sherman Act claims 

because those claims may interfere with FCC radio frequency determinations. Absent from 

defendants' argument, however, is any authority to suggest that a court should abstain from 

hearing a case within its jurisdiction merely because it touches on an area subject to sophisticated 

agency regulation. Cf. Raritan Baykeeper v. Edison Wetlands Ass'n, Inc., 660 F.3d 686, 691 (3d 

Cir. 2011) (in context of primary jurisdiction doctrine, noting that "[w]hen 'the matter is not one 

peculiarly within the agency's area of expertise, but is one which the courts or jury are equally 

well-suited to determine, the court must not abdicate its responsibility'" (quoting MCI 

Telecornms. Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1004 (3d Cir. 1995) (further citations 

omitted))). 

More to the point, defendants' argument ignores 47 U.S.C. § 152, in which an uncodified 

amendment states that "nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be 

construed to modify, impair, or supersede the applicability of any of the antitrust laws." Pub. L. 

No. 104-104, § 601(b)(1) (1996). The amendment further clarifies that the term "antitrust laws" 

includes the Sherman Act. Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 601(e)(4). The legislative history of this 

amendment clarifies that when Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it sought 

to ensure that the FCC could not "confer antitrust immunity" through the course of its 

decisionmaking. See S. Rep. No. 104-230, at 178-79 (1996) (Conf. Rep.). Thus, Congress 

envisioned a system in which the FCC could consider antitrust matters when reaching decisions, 

but that the FCC's decisions would not preclude the operation of independent antitrust statutes. 

17 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 18 of 78 PageID: 5742
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 18 of 22 PagelD: 1310 

See Verizon Commc'ns, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 406 (2004) 

(holding that notwithstanding arguments for implied immunity, "the savings clause preserves 

those claims that satisfy established antitrust standards" (citation and quotation marks omitted)). 

Accordingly, the FCA does not preempt plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim. 

2. Standing 

To establish standing, plaintiffs must show that they suffered an antitrust injury, meaning 

an injury that is "the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that 

which makes defendants' acts unlawful. The injury should reflect the anti-competitive effect 

either of the violation or of anti-competitive acts made possible by the violation." Eichorn v. 

AT&T Corp., 248 F.3d 131, 140 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-OMat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977)). This injury must "reflectf] an activity's anti-competitive 

effect on the competitive market," and "an individual plaintiff personally aggrieved by an alleged 

anti-competitive agreement has not suffered an antitrust injury unless the activity has a wider 

impact on the competitive market. Id. (citations omitted). 

Defendants suggest that plaintiffs are complaining about injury to their status as 

competitors rather than an injury suffered by the overall competitive market. But plaintiffs' 

complaint pleads a broader injury than that. After recounting defendants' course of conduct, the 

complaint states that "[tjhese acts produced anti-competitive effects within the relevant 

geographic market for AMTS, are manifestly anticompetitive and constitute a per se violation of 

the Sherman Act." (Second Am. Compl. f 66.) The complaint further alleges that the conduct 

"had a wider impact on the relevant AMTS market." (Id. f 69.) These statements are not mere 

"labels and conclusions," nor are they "a formulaic recitation of the elements of the cause" or 

'"naked assertion[s]' devoid of'further factual enhancement.'" Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 19 of 78 PageID: 5743
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 19 of 22 PagelD: 1311 

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). Rather, they are the logical and plausible inferences to 

be drawn from plaintiffs' factual allegations. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have refused to 

provide necessary information about the contours of their Site-Based stations (Second Am. 

Compl. 25), that they have done so to avoid the loss of their licenses (id. ^ 30), and that their 

ultimate goal is to "warehouse" the licenses to make the neighboring Geographic licenses "less 

economically viable to competitors in upcoming auctions, so that [defendants] as the 

'Incumbent' Station licensees could succeed in the auctions with less competition and at lower 

prices" (id. 31-33). These allegations, accepted as true, present not only allegations that 

plaintiffs themselves have suffered harm, but also that defendants' conduct affects the overall 

competitive market for AMTS frequencies. Accordingly, plaintiffs have established antitrust 

standing. 

3. Sherman Act Section 1 Claim 

A claim under section one of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, consists of four elements: 

"(1) concerted action by the defendants; (2) that produced anti-competitive effects within the 

relevant product and geographic markets; (3) that the concerted actionf was] illegal; and (4).. . 

[plaintiff] was injured as a proximate result of the concerted action." Howard Hess Dental 

Labs., Inc., 602 F.3d at 253 (quoting Gordon v. Lewistown Hasp., 423 F.3d 184, 207 (3d Cir. 

2005)). Defendant alleges that the complaint fails to satisfy the first element because it does not 

allege that defendants "conspired or agreed to act in concert with any other party, let alone the 

other defendants." (Defs.' Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 39.) See also Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1961 (in 

antitrust case, insufficient to allege "parallel conduct unfavorable to competition" without "some 

factual context suggesting agreement, as distinct from identical, independent action"). 

19 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 20 of 78 PageID: 5744
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 20 of 22 PagelD: 1312 

The facts here, however, are distinguishable from the facts in Twombly. Here, plaintiff 

has stated sufficient facts to "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that" defendants 

had the requisite intent to act in concert. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 

556). First, plaintiff alleges specific reasons for the defendants' decisions to act in concert, such 

as that the defendants made a spectrum-splitting arrangement to allow each to share in the 

benefits of the AMTS licenses. {See Second Am. Compl. % 36.) Moreover, Havens learned 

through communications with PSI that PSI and Mobex were cooperating and had an intertwined 

financial stake in the AMTS spectrums at issue. (Id. ^ 38.) Cooperation could also be seen in 

other areas, such as Mobex and PSI locating stations at the same sites in order to reduce costs. 

(Id. f 39.) This cooperation extended beyond physical interactions, as Mobex and PSI jointly 

petitioned the FCC on certain matters regarding the licenses. (Id. 41.) 

The complaint alleges a history of cooperation and interactions between the companies 

on the very licenses at issue in this case. This makes plausible plaintiffs' allegation of concerted 

action, and plaintiffs have therefore stated a claim on which relief can be granted. 

4. Sherman Act Section 2 Claim 

Under 15 U.S.C. § 2, it is unlawful to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or 

combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or 

commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations." Plaintiffs alleging a conspiracy to 

monopolize must demonstrate four elements: "(1) an agreement to monopolize; (2) an overt act 

in furtherance of the conspiracy; (3) a specific intent to monopolize; and (4) a causal connection 

between the conspiracy and the injury alleged." Howard Hess Dental Labs., 602 F.3d at 253. 

To plead monopolization, "a plaintiff must allege: '(1) the possession of monopoly power in the 

relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished 

20 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 21 of 78 PageID: 5745
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 21 of 22 PagelD: 1313 

from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or 

historical accident.'" Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Cntys. Util., Inc., 

153 F.3d 129, 141 (3d Cir. 1998) (quoting Schuylkill Energy Res. v. Pa. Power & Light Co., 113 

F.3d 405, 412-13 (3d Cir), cert, denied, 522 U.S. 977 (1997)). Similarly, to claim attempted 

monopolization, "a plaintiff must allege '(0 that the defendant has engaged in predatory or 

anticompetitive conduct with (2) a specific intent to monopolize and (3) a dangerous probability 

of achieving monopoly power.'" Id. (quoting Schuykill Energy Res., 113 F.3d at 413). 

Plaintiffs' complaint specifically cites the "essential facilities doctrine," which requires 

demonstrating: "(1) control of the essential facility by a monopolist; (2) the competitor's 

inability practically or reasonably to duplicate the essential facility; (3) denial of the use of the 

facility to a competitor; and (4) the feasibility of providing the facility." Ideal Dairy Farms, Inc. 

v. John Labatt, Ltd., 90 F.3d 737, 748 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Del. Health Care, Inc. v. MCD 

Holding Co., 893 F. Supp. 1279 (D. Del. 1995)). 

Here, even assuming that the contour information is an "essential facility," plaintiffs' 

claim falls short because the complaint does not set forth a case that defendants are monopolists, 

have established a monopoly, or are attempting to establish a monopoly. Indeed, a claim of 

attempted monopolization is largely inconsistent with the overall theory of plaintiffs' case. The 

complaint does not allege that defendants were warehousing AMTS spectrum in order to 

generate a monopoly. Instead, the complaint states that defendants' goal in warehousing the 

Site-Based licenses was to make the remaining licenses less attractive to competitors, or to create 

an opportunity to reap a profit by selling or leasing their licenses to the adjacent Geographic 

licensees. (Second Am. Compl. 33.) (Notably, if this were defendant's plan, it apparently 

failed, as plaintiffs won the auctions for the Geographic licenses and now own them across most 

21 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 22 of 78 PageID: 5746
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH -PS Document 30 Filed 12/22/11 Page 22 of 22 PagelD: 1314 

of the country.) Although this practice, if true, may serve to give defendants an edge in the 

market, it does not lay any meaningful groundwork for the establishment of a monopoly, 

especially because plaintiffs own most of the Geographic licenses for New Jersey and would 

therefore appear to have a comparable bargaining position to that of defendants. Additionally, 

the FCC tightly regulates the distribution of the pertinent licenses and could be made aware of 

any potential abuses. Cf. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 540 U.S. at 412 ("One factor of particular 

importance is the existence of a regulatory structure designed to deter and remedy 

anticompetitive harm."). Accordingly, plaintiffs have failed to set forth a claim under section 

two of the Sherman Act. 

E. Administrative Exhaustion and the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine 

Defendants last argue that the Court should dismiss the complaint because plaintiffs have 

not exhausted their administrative remedies and because the primary jurisdiction doctrine 

suggests that the matter should be heard by the FCC. Because the Court has determined that 

plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the FCA, and because the FCC does not have jurisdiction 

over claims under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), the Court need not address that argument. 

V. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted as to plaintiffs' claims under 

the FCA and section 2 of the Sherman Act, and the motion is denied as to plaintiffs' claim under 

section 1 of the Sherman Act. 

December 22, 2011 

/s/ Katharine S. Hayden 

Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 23 of 78 PageID: 5747
EXHIBIT 4 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 24 of 78 PageID: 5748
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 84 Filed 07/03/12 Page 1 of 4 PagelD: 1777 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

WARREN HAVENS, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

v. 

MOBEX NETWORK SERVICES, LLC., 

et al. 

Defendants 

Civil Action No. 11-993(KSH) 

ORDER ON INFORMAL 

APPLICATION 

This matter having come before the Court by way of submissions dated July 2, 2012 and 

July 3, 2012, regarding discovery disputes; 

and the Court having considered the submissions, the record of proceedings, the claim 

and defenses, and the governing law; 

and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion delivered on the record on July 3, 2012; 

IT IS ON THIS 3rd day of July, 2012 

ORDERED that the relevant period for discovery commences November 16, 2000; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories Nos. 1,7, 8, 

11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 served upon Paging Systems, no later than July 16, 2012, Paging 

Systems1 shall produce a chart whose contents are certified as being true and accurate that 

contains columns for each of the following for each site-based license of which Paging Systems 

is or was a licensee or was listed in the FCC's Universal Licensing System as a licensee from 

November 16, 2000 to the present: (1) call sign, (2) location of the station; (3) date of grant of 

'As used herein, "Paging Systems" refers to defendants Paging Systems and Touch Tel. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 25 of 78 PageID: 5749
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 84 Filed 07/03/12 Page 2 of 4 PagelD; 1778 

authorization; (4) date of expiration; (5) whether a station was constructed, and if constructed, 

the date construction was completed or if the station was not constructed or not completed, a 

brief explanation as to why it was not constructed or completed; (6) the date the station was 

placed in operation or if it was not placed in operation, a brief explanation as to why it was not 

placed into operation; (7) whether or not the station had end users and whether such end users 

paid for use of AMTS services and the time-period the end users used the station; (8) whether or 

not the station is currently operating/on the air and if it is not, when it stopped operating/off the 

air and a brief explanation as to why it stopped operating/went off the air; and (9) the technical 

parameters that describes the "coverage area" as defined by the FCC and its regulations of the 

station;2 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Paging Systems placed in operation a station more 

than two years after the grant of authorization or placed in operation a station after an FCCimposed construction deadline, then it shall be prepared to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to 

testify on this subject; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that questions concerning Paging Systems knowledge about 

the stations of other defendants can be probed during a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a 

representative of Paging Systems and no further written response to the interrogatories seeking 

such information is required; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories No. 12, 14,3 

2Nothing herein bars plaintiffs from probing the topic of interconnection at a Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition of a representative of Paging Systems or any of the topics set forth in the this 

text. 

3Paging Systems quotes Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 21 as seeking irrelevant information 

but this is not listed as an Interrogatory for which Plaintiffs seek court intervention so no action is 

being taken on Interrogatory No. 20. Compare ECF No. 80 at 4-6 with ECF No. 80 at 14. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 26 of 78 PageID: 5750
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 84 Filed 07/03/12 Page 3 of 4 PagelD: 1779 

and 20 served upon Paging Systems, no further response is required; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to Plaintiffs' Document Demand Nos. 19, 

20, 66, 67, and 68, no later than July 16, 2012, Paging Systems shall make available for 

inspection the responsive documents; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to Plaintiffs' Document Demands Nos. 5, 

6, 16, 17, 18, 21, 46, 47, 49, 59, 60, 64, and 68 served upon Paging Systems, no further response 

is required;4 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to Plaintiffs' Document Demands No. 63, 

no later than July 16, 2012, Paging Systems shall make available for inspection documents 

sufficient to show its advertising to attract the purchase or use of the spectrum or services under 

its AMTS licenses; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with the representation set forth on ECF 

Nos. 80 at 10 that Paging Systems agreed to do so, with respect to Plaintiffs Document Demands 

Nos.1-4, 7-15, 30, 53, 69, 70 and 71, no later than July 16, 2012, Paging Systems shall make 

available for inspection the responsive documents. If there are unresolved disputes concerning 

the production of documents in response to these demands, then no later than July 13, 2012 at 

noon, plaintiffs and Paging Systems shall present a chart that sets forth columns that identify: (1) 

the document demand about which there is a dispute, (2) the information that the plaintiffs 

actually seek, (3) an explanation why the plaintiffs need the information and why their request is 

not unduly burdensome, and (4) an explanation why the defendants believe the request is not 

4Paging Systems quotes Plaintiffs' Document Demand No. 50 as an example of an 

overbroad and burdensome document demand, but this is not listed as a Document Demand for 

which Plaintiffs seek court-intervention and therefore no action is being taken concerning this 

demand. Compare ECF No. 80 at 7-10 with ECF No. 80 at 13. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 27 of 78 PageID: 5751
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 84 Filed 07/03/12 Page 4 of 4 PagelD; 1780 

proper or is unduly burdensome; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no relief will be granted on MOBEX's complaints 

concerning the sufficiency of plaintiffs' responses to their document demands as it has taken no 

steps to inspect the documents that plaintiffs represent contain the responsive materials other 

than as follows: no later than July 16, 2012, the plaintiffs shall provide the defendants with an 

index of the general nature of the contents of the boxes that are available for the defendants' 

inspection and a log in accordance with L. Civ. R. 34.1 that sets forth responsive documents that 

have been withheld based upon a privilege or work product rule; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with respect to MOBEX's Interrogatories Nos. 2, 4, 5, 

6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16, no later than July 16, 2012, the plaintiffs shall provide narrative 

responses to each of these interrogatories mere reference to the documents contained in the 90 

boxes is insufficient; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCLM and MOBEX shall notify the United States 

Bankruptcy Court in Mssissippi of the discovery deadlines in this case and the need for access to 

the documents. Delays in access to the MCLM documents is not a basis to delay any other 

proceedings in this case including depositions. If the documents become available after 

depositions are completed and the documents show that depositions need to be reopened for the 

limited purpose of addressing the documents, then the parties may seek permission to reopen 

such depositions; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other deadlines shall remain in full force and effect. 

s/Patty Shwartz 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 28 of 78 PageID: 5752
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 94 Filed 08/06/12 Page 1 of 7 PagelD: 1836 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

WARREN HAVENS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MOBEX NETWORK SERVICES, et al., 

Civil Action No. 11-993(KSH) 

ORDER ON INFORMAL 

APPLICATION & FIFTH AMENDED 

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

Defendant 

This matter having come before the court by way of letters dated July 23, 2012, regarding 

the plaintiffs request to extend the deadline to file motions to amend the pleadings and to address 

other deadlines and to address disputes concerning defendant Paging Systems responses to the 

Plaintiffs Request for the Production of Documents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 53 and its 

responses to Category 9 of ECF No. 84; and the Court having conducted a telephone conference 

on the record on August 3, 2012; and the Court having considered the submission, the 

representations of the parties, the record of proceedings and the governing law; and for the 

reasons discussed on the record on August 3, 2012; 

IT IS ON THIS 3rd day of August, 2012 

ORDERED that the request to extend the deadline to file motions to amend pleadings 

and join parties, to complete fact discovery, to complete expert discovery, and for plaintiff to 

identify its expert is granted as set forth herein; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants' request that the Court set a schedule 

to file motions for summary judgment is granted as set forth herein; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request to set a deadline that MOBEX provide its 

supplemental responses to interrogatories and document demands three weeks after its inspection 

of the documents that are the subject of the Bankruptcy Court's Order is denied and said 

responses shall be provided no later than September 17, 2012. Plaintiffs shall take whatever 

steps they deem appropriate to gain access to the documents that are subject of the Bankruptcy 

Court Order and MOBEX shall identify a representative who may be deposed about the 

documents; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that based upon the representation that the plaintiff has 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 29 of 78 PageID: 5753
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 94 Filed 08/06/12 Page 2 of 7 PageiD; 1837 

not withheld documents that were the subject of the defendants' document demands based upon 

the assertion of the attorney client and/or work product rule, then the need for a privilege log 

pursuant to L. Civ. R. 34.1 is moot at this time. If a party comes into possession, custody or 

control of a document that was the subject of a document demand but is being withheld based 

upon a privilege or the work product rule, then the party shall produce privilege log that complies 

with L. Civ. 34.1, no later than 72 hours after the party learns of the document; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to Defendant Mobex's Interrogatories 2, 

6, 11, 12, 15 an 16, no action will be taken on Mobex's objection to the sufficiency of plaintiffs' 

supplemental response based upon the representation that the parties had not conferred before 

seeking court-intervention concerning the sufficiency of plaintiffs' supplemental responses other 

than to remind the plaintiffs of their obligation to fully comply with the July 3, 2012 Order, 

including specifically identifying the actions Mobex allegedly engaged in. Defendant Mobex 

may conduct a deposition of a representative of the plaintiffs to obtain information sought in 

these interrogatories; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to Plaintiffs' Document Demands Nos. 

1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 53, the defendants shall produce the documents filed with the FCC, 

such as Forms 601 Schedule K and G, that contain information that is responsive to the 

information that these demands seek and shall populate a chart that provides the responses to 

Category 9 of ECF No. 84 based upon the information from those documents; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

1. MOBEX shall ensure the documents in storage is preserved and relevant 

nonprivileged documents are available for inspection. 

2. The discovery served by MOBEX and served upon MOBEX shall be responded no 

later than deadline passed on June 20, 2012. MOBEX shall provide supplemental responses 

based upon the documents in the possession of Nation's Capital Archives no later than 

September 14, 2012. 

3. The discovery served upon MCLM shall be responded no later than deadline passed 

on June 10, 2012; 

4. MCLM may serve interrogatories and document demands no later than deadline 

passed on May 10, 2012, which shall be responded to no later than deadline passed on June 

20, 2012; 

5. MCLM shall provide its Rule 26 disclosures and responses to interrogatories and 

document demands no later than deadline passed on June 20, 2012. 

6. All documents shall be produced no later than deadline passed on June 19, 2012; and 

7. The request to extend the deadline to raise discovery disputes is granted and all 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 30 of 78 PageID: 5754
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 94 Filed 08/06/12 Page 3 of 7 PageiD: 1838 

discovery disputes submitted in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 9 no later than 

deadline passed on June 27, 2012 at noon; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

I. COURT DATES 

1. There shall be a telephone status conference before the Undersigned on October 

2, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. Plaintiff shall initiate the telephone call. 

2. a. There will be a settlement conference before the Undersigned on TO BE SET. 

b. Trial counsel and clients with full settlement authority are required to appear at 

the conference and they shall confirm their availability to appear on the date of the conference by 

filing a letter no later than TO BE SET. Absent exceptional, unforeseen personal circumstances, 

the confirmed settlement conference will not be adjourned. 

c. If the trial counsel and client with full settlement authority do not appear, the 

settlement conference may be cancelled or rescheduled and the noncompliant party and/or attorney 

may be sanctioned, which may include an assessment of the costs and expenses incurred by those 

parties who appeared as directed. 

3. A final pretrial conference shall be conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d) on 

November 19, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. The Final Pretrial Conference will occur even if there are 

dispositive motions pending. The Court will adjourn the Final Pretrial conference only if the 

requesting party makes a compelling showing that manifest injustice would otherwise result absent 

adjournment. 

II. DISCOVERY AND MOTION PRACTICE 

4. a. MOBEX shall provide its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 disclosures on or before deadline 

passed on May 10, 2012 

b. MCLM shall provide its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 disclosures on or before deadline 

passed on May 18, 2012, except as set forth above. 

c. No later than deadline passed on February 21, 2012, the parties shall submit a 

proposed discovery confidentiality order and certification as required by Local Civ. R. 5.3.1 

5. Discovery necessary to engage in meaningful settlement discussions: some 

discovery 

'If a party seeks to file under seal information submitted in connection with a request for nondiscovery relief, then the party shall: (1) consult Local Civ. R. 5.3 and (2) contact the Chambers of 

the Undersigned for instructions regarding the format for presenting such a motion. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 31 of 78 PageID: 5755
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 94 Filed 08/06/12 Page 4 of 7 PagelD: 1839 

6. The party groups may serve interrogatories limited to 25 single questions including 

subparts and requests for production of documents on or before deadline passed on February 21, 

2012, which shall be responded to no later than March 21, 2012 except as set forth on page 1. 

7. Absent agreement of counsel or order of the Court, the number of depositions to be 

taken by each side shall not exceed 10. No objections to questions posed at depositions shall be 

made other than as to lack of foundation, form or privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d) (3) (A). No 

instruction not to answer shall be given unless a privilege is implicated. The depositions shall be 

completed no later than September 30, 2012. 

8. Fact discovery is to remain open through September 30, 2012. No discovery 

is to be issued or engaged in beyond that date, except upon application and for good cause shown. 

9. Counsel shall confer in a good faith attempt to informally resolve any and all 

discovery disputes before seeking the Court's intervention. Should such informal effort fail to 

resolve the dispute, the matter shall be brought to the Court's attention in the first instance via a 

joint letter that sets forth: (a) the request or issue, (b) the response; (c) efforts to resolve the 

dispute; (d) why the complaining party believes the information is relevant and why the responding 

party's response continues to be deficient; and (e) why the responding party believes the response 

is sufficient. No further submissions regarding the dispute may be submitted without leave of 

Court. If necessary, the Court will thereafter schedule a telephone conference to resolve the 

dispute. 

No discovery motion or motion for sanctions for failure to provide discovery shall 

be filed before utilizing the procedures set forth in these paragraphs without prior leave of Court. 

Any unresolved discovery disputes (other than those that arise during depositions) 

must be brought before the Court no later than deadline passed on July 23, 2012 at noon. The 

Court will not entertain applications concerning discovery matters, informally or otherwise, after this 

date. If an unresolved dispute arises at a deposition, then the parties shall contact the Chambers of 

the Undersigned for assistance during the deposition. If a party does not present an unresolved 

dispute arising at a deposition during the deposition, then the right to seek court-intervention shall be 

deemed waived. 

10. Any consent order or motion to amend pleadings or parties shall be filed no later than 

August 15, 2012 at 12:00 p.m. 

11. a. Any motion for summary judgment shall be filed no later than October 12, 2012. 

Any response shall be submitted no later than October 22, 2012 and the reply shall be submitted no 

later than October 29, 2012. The return date shall be November 5, 2012 before the Hon. Katharine 

S. Hayden. Her Honor's Chambers will notify the parties if oral argument will be required; and 

b. The following protocol shall apply: 

a. Each motion for summary judgment shall be supported by a separate, short, and 

concise statement of material facts, set forth in numbered paragraphs, as to which the moving party 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 32 of 78 PageID: 5756
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 94 Filed 08/06/12 Page 5 of 7 PagelD; 1840 

contends there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried. Each fact asserted in the statement 

shall be supported by a record citation. A "record citation" is a citation to a specific page or 

paragraph of identified record material supporting the assertion. 

b. Each response in opposition shall be accompanied by a separate, short, and 

concise statement of material facts. The opposing statement shall admit, deny or qualify the facts by 

reference to each numbered paragraph of the moving party's statement of material facts and unless a 

fact is admitted, shall support each denial or qualification by a record citation. The opposing 

statement may contain in a separate section additional facts, set forth in separate numbered 

paragraphs and supported by a record citation. 

c. In the event a party seeks to submit a reply, the party shall file a formal request for 

permission to do so within the time period provided by Local Rule, attaching the proposed reply. 

Accompanying the proposed reply shall be a separate, short, and concise statement of material facts 

which shall be limited to any additional facts submitted by the opposinfi party. The reply statement 

shall admit, deny or qualify such additional facts by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the 

opposing party's statement of material facts, and unless a fact is admitted, shall support each denial 

or qualification by a record citation. 

d. Facts contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if 

supported by record citations, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted. The Court 

may disregard any statement of fact not supported by a specific citation to record material properly 

considered on summary judgment. The Court shall have no independent duty to search or consider 

any part of the record not specifically referenced in the parties' separate statement of facts. 

e. Local Rules governing electronic filing and length, font-size, and format of 

moving, opposing and reply briefs shall continue to apply as appropriate. Parties shall provide the 

Court with two hard copies of all submissions by delivering same to the Clerk's Office, Attention 

Judge Katharine Hayden. 

III. EXPERTS 

12. a. No later than August 15, 2012, the parties shall identify their affirmative experts 

and the subjects about which they will opine. 

b. All affirmative expert reports shall be delivered by September 17, 2012. 

13. All responding expert reports shall be delivered by October 17, 2012. 

14. a. All expert reports are to be in the form and content as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a) (2)(B). No expert shall testify at trial as to any opinions or base those opinions on facts not 

substantially disclosed in the experts report. 

b. All expert depositions shall be completed by October 31, 2012. 

IV. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 33 of 78 PageID: 5757
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 94 Filed 08/06/12 Page 6 of 7 PagelD: 1841 

15. A final pretrial conference shall be conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d) on 

November 19, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. The Final Pretrial Conference will occur even if there are 

dispositive motions pending. The Court will adjourn the Final Pretrial conference only if the 

requesting party makes a compelling showing that manifest injustice would otherwise result absent 

adjournment. 

16. Not later than 20 working days before the pretrial conference, the parties shall 

exchange copies of all proposed trial exhibits. Each exhibit shall be pre-marked with an exhibit 

number conforming to the party's exhibit list. 

17. All counsel are directed to assemble at the office of Plaintiffs counsel not later than 

ten (10) days before the pretrial conference to prepare the proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order in the 

form and content required by the Court. Plaintiffs counsel shall prepare the Joint Pretrial Order and 

shall submit it to all other counsel for approval and execution. 

18. With respect to non-jury trials, each party shall submit to the District Judge and to 

opposing counsel proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, trial briefs and any 

hypothetical questions to be put to an expert witness on direct examination. 

19. The original joint proposed final pretrial order shall be delivered to the CHAMBERS 

of the Undersigned no later than November 13, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. All counsel are responsible for 

the timely submission of the Order. 

20. The Court expects to engage in meaningful settlement discussions at the final pretrial 

conference. Therefore, trial counsel who actually has full settlement authority must attend the 

conference and clients or other persons with full settlement authority must be available by telephone. 

V. MISCELLANEOUS 

21. The Court may from time to time schedule conferences as may be required, either sua 

sponte or at the request of a party. 

22. Since all dates set forth herein are established with the assistance and knowledge of 

counsel, there will be no extensions except for good cause shown and by leave of Court, even with 

consent of all counsel. Any request to extend any deadline or to adjourn a court event shall be made 

no later than three days before the scheduled date and shall reflect: (1) the good cause the requesting 

party believes supports the extension or adjournment and (2) whether or not all parties consent to the 

request. Absent unforeseen emergent circumstances, the Court will not entertain requests to extend 

deadlines that have passed as of the date of the request. Absent unforeseen emergent circumstances, 

the Court will not entertain requests to extend deadlines that have passed as of the date of the 

request. 

23. A copy of every pleading, document or written communication with the Court shall be 

served on all other parties to the action. Any such communication which does not recite or contain a 

certification of such service may be disregarded by the Court. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 34 of 78 PageID: 5758
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 94 Filed 08/06/12 Page 7 of 7 PagelD: 1842 

24. Absent permission from Chambers, communications to the Court by facsimile will not 

be accepted. All communications to the Court shall be in writing or by telephone conference. 

25. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY 

RESULT IN SANCTIONS. 

s/Patty Shwartz 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 35 of 78 PageID: 5759
EXHIBIT 5 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 36 of 78 PageID: 5760
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 135 Filed 01/16/13 Page 1 of 6 PagelD: 2410 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

WARREN HAVENS, : Civil Action No. 11-993(KSH) 

Plaintiff, : 

: ORDER ON INFORMAL 

v. : APPLICATION & TENTH 

: AMENDED PRETRIAL 

: SCHEDULING ORDER 

MOBEX NETWORK SERVICES, et a!., : 

Defendant : 

This matter having come before the Court by way of letter filed January 16, 2013, 

regarding the parties joint request to extend the deadlines to produce responsive expert reports, 

depose experts, file dispositive motions, exchange information related to and submit the joint 

proposed final pretrial order and to adjourn the Final Pretrial Conference because logistical issues 

have arisen completing depositions which the parties represent will mostly occur in California 

and the need for additional time to respond to plaintiffs' six expert reports; and the Court 

providing this final extension of the deadlines associated with the Final Pretrial Conference and 

notifying the parties that no further extensions will be granted that impact the new date for the 

Final Pretrial Conference to ensure that there are no further delays in these proceedings; 

IT IS THEREFORE ON THIS 16th day of January, 2013 

ORDERED that the request to extend the expert discovery and dispositive motion 

deadlines, deadlines associated with the completion and submission of the joint final pretrial 

order and to adjourn the March 15, 2013 Final Pretrial Conference is granted as set forth herein; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

I. COURT DATES 

1. a. There will be a settlement conference before the Undersigned on TO BE SET. 

b. Trial counsel and clients with full settlement authority are required to appear at 

the conference and they shall confirm their availability to appear on the date of the conference by 

filing a letter no later than TO BE SET. Absent exceptional, unforeseen personal circumstances, 

the confirmed settlement conference will not be adjourned. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 37 of 78 PageID: 5761
Case 2!ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 135 Filed 01/16/13 Page 2 of 6 PagelD: 2411 

c. If the trial counsel and client with full settlement authority do not appear, the 

settlement conference may be cancelled or rescheduled and the noncompliant party and/or attorney 

may be sanctioned, which may include an assessment of the costs and expenses incurred by those 

parties who appeared as directed. 

2. A final pretrial conference shall be conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d) on 

April 30, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. The Final Pretrial Conference will occur even if there are dispositive 

motions pending. The Court will adjourn the Final Pretrial conference only if the requesting 

party makes a compelling showing that manifest injustice would otherwise result absent 

adjournment. 

II. DISCOVERY AND MOTION PRACTICE 

4. a. MOBEX shall provide its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 disclosures on or before deadline 

passed on May 10, 2012 

b. MCLM shall provide its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 disclosures on or before deadline 

passed on May 18, 2012, except as set forth above. 

c. No later than deadline passed on February 21, 2012, the parties shall submit a 

proposed discovery confidentiality order and certification as required by Local Civ. R. 5.3.1 

5. Discovery necessary to engage in meaningful settlement discussions: some 

discovery. 

6. The party groups may serve interrogatories limited to 25 single questions including 

subparts and requests for production of documents on or before deadline passed on February 21, 

2012, which shall be responded to no later than deadline passed on March 21, 2012. 

7. Absent agreement of counsel or order of the Court, the number of depositions to be 

taken by each side shall not exceed 10. No objections to questions posed at depositions shall be 

made other than as to lack of foundation, form or privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d) (3) (A). 

No instruction not to answer shall be given unless a privilege is implicated. The depositions shall 

be completed no later than March 14, 2013. 

8. Fact discovery is to remain open through March 14, 2013. No discovery 

is to be issued or engaged in beyond that date, except upon application and for good cause shown. 

9. Counsel shall confer in a good faith attempt to informally resolve any and all 

discovery disputes before seeking the Court's intervention. Should such informal effort fail to 

'if a party seeks to file under seal information submitted in connection with a request for 

non-discovery relief, then the party shall: (1) consult Local Civ. R. 5.3 and (2) contact the 

Chambers of the Undersigned for instructions regarding the format for presenting such a motion. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 38 of 78 PageID: 5762
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 135 Filed 01/16/13 Page 3 of 6 PagelD: 2412 

resolve the dispute, the matter shall be brought to the Court's attention in the first instance via a 

joint letter that sets forth: (a) the request or issue, (b) the response; (c) efforts to resolve the 

dispute; (d) why the complaining party believes the information is relevant and why the responding 

party's response continues to be deficient; and (e) why the responding party believes the response 

is sufficient. No further submissions regarding the dispute may be submitted without leave of 

Court. If necessary, the Court will thereafter schedule a telephone conference to resolve the 

dispute. 

No discovery motion or motion for sanctions for failure to provide discovery shall 

be filed before utilizing the procedures set forth in these paragraphs without prior leave of Court. 

Any unresolved discovery disputes (other than those that arise during depositions) 

must be brought before the Court no later than deadline passed on July 23, 2012 at noon. The 

Court will not entertain applications concerning discovery matters, informally or otherwise, after this 

date. If an unresolved dispute arises at a deposition, then the parties shall contact the Chambers of 

the Undersigned for assistance during the deposition. If a party does not present an unresolved 

dispute arising at a deposition during the deposition, then the right to seek court-intervention shall be 

deemed waived. 

10. Any consent order or motion to amend pleadings or parties shall be filed no later than 

deadline passed on August 15, 2012 at 12:00 p.m. 

11. a. Any motion for summary judgment shall be filed no later than March 29, 2013. 

Nothing herein bars a party from filing such a motion before November 21, 2012 deadline. Any 

response shall be submitted no later than April 18, 2013 and the reply shall be submitted no later 

than April 25, 2013. The return date shall be May 2,2013 before the Hon. Katharine S. Hayden. 

Her Honor's Chambers will notify the parties if oral argument will be required; and 

b. The following protocol shall apply: 

a. Each motion for summary judgment shall be supported by a separate, short, and 

concise statement of material facts, set forth in numbered paragraphs, as to which the moving party 

contends there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried. Each fact asserted in the statement 

shall be supported by a record citation. A "record citation" is a citation to a specific page or 

paragraph of identified record material supporting the assertion. 

b. Each response in opposition shall be accompanied by a separate, short, and 

concise statement of material facts. The opposing statement shall admit, deny or qualify the facts by 

reference to each numbered paragraph of the moving party's statement of material facts and unless a 

fact is admitted, shall support each denial or qualification by a record citation. The opposing 

statement may contain in a separate section additional facts, set forth in separate numbered 

paragraphs and supported by a record citation. 

c. In the event a party seeks to submit a reply, the party shall file a formal request for 

permission to do so within the time period provided by Local Rule, attaching the proposed reply. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 39 of 78 PageID: 5763
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 135 Filed 01/16/13 Page 4 of 6 PagelD: 2413 

Accompanying the proposed reply shall be a separate, short, and concise statement of material facts 

which shall be limited to any additional facts submitted by the opposing party. The reply statement 

shall admit, deny or qualify such additional facts by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the 

opposing party's statement of material facts, and unless a fact is admitted, shall support each denial 

or qualification by a record citation. 

d. Facts contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if 

supported by record citations, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted. The Court 

may disregard any statement of fact not supported by a specific citation to record material properly 

considered on summary judgment. The Court shall have no independent duty to search or consider 

any part of the record not specifically referenced in the parties' separate statement of facts. 

e. Local Rules governing electronic filing and length, font-size, and format of 

moving, opposing and reply briefs shall continue to apply as appropriate. Parties shall provide the 

Court with two hard copies of all submissions by delivering same to the Clerk's Office, Attention 

Judge Katharine Hayden. 

III. EXPERTS 

12. a. No later than deadline passed on August 15, 2012, the parties shall identify their 

affirmative experts and the subjects about which they will opine. 

b. All affirmative expert reports shall be delivered by deadline passed on 

November 30, 2012. 

13. All responding expert reports shall be delivered by February 1, 2013. 

14. a. All expert reports are to be in the form and content as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a) (2)(B). No expert shall testify at trial as to any opinions or base those opinions on facts not 

substantially disclosed in the experts report. 

b. All expert depositions shall be completed by March 8, 2013.5 

IV. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

15. A final pretrial conference shall be conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d) on 

April 30, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. The Final Pretrial Conference will occur even if there are dispositive 

motions pending. The Court will adjourn the Final Pretrial conference only if the requesting party 

makes a compelling showing that manifest injustice would otherwise result absent adjournment. 

5The absence of expert depositions does not impede the parties from preparing the Final Pretrial 

Order as they will have the reports and can preserve possible Daubert motions in the contemplated 

motion section of the Final Pretrial Order. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 40 of 78 PageID: 5764
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 135 Filed 01/16/13 Page 5 of 6 PagelD: 2414 

16. Not later than March 29, 2013. the parties shall exchange copies of all proposed trial 

exhibits. Each exhibit shall be pre-marked with an exhibit number conforming to the party's exhibit 

list. 

17. All counsel are directed to assemble at the office of Plaintiffs counsel not later than 

April 19, 2013 to prepare the proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order in the form and content required by 

the Court. Plaintiffs counsel shall prepare the Joint Pretrial Order and shall submit it to all other 

counsel for approval and execution. 

18. With respect to non-jury trials, each party shall submit to the District Judge and to 

opposing counsel proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, trial briefs and any 

hypothetical questions to be put to an expert witness on direct examination. 

19. The original joint proposed final pretrial order shall be delivered to the CHAMBERS 

of the Undersigned no later than April 22, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. All counsel are responsible for the 

timely submission of the Order. 

20. The Court expects to engage in meaningful settlement discussions at the final pretrial 

conference. Therefore, trial counsel who actually has full settlement authority must attend the 

conference and clients or other persons with full settlement authority must be available by telephone. 

V. MISCELLANEOUS 

21. The Court may from time to time schedule conferences as may be required, either sua 

sponte or at the request of a party. 

22. Since all dates set forth herein are established with the assistance and knowledge of 

counsel, there will be no extensions except for good cause shown and by leave of Court, even with 

consent of all counsel. Any request to extend any deadline or to adjourn a court event shall be made 

no later than three days before the scheduled date and shall reflect: (1) the good cause the requesting 

party believes supports the extension or adjournment and (2) whether or not all parties consent to the 

request. Absent unforeseen emergent circumstances, the Court will not entertain requests to extend 

deadlines that have passed as of the date of the request. Absent unforeseen emergent circumstances, 

the Court will not entertain requests to extend deadlines that have passed as of the date of the 

request. 

23. A copy of every pleading, document or written communication with the Court shall be 

served on all other parties to the action. Any such communication which does not recite or contain 

a certification of such service may be disregarded by the Court. 

24. Absent permission from Chambers, communications to the Court by facsimile will 

not be accepted. All communications to the Court shall be in writing or by telephone conference. 

25. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY 

RESULT IN SANCTIONS. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 41 of 78 PageID: 5765
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-PS Document 135 Filed 01/16/13 Page 6 of 6 PagelD: 2415 

s/Patty Shwartz 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 42 of 78 PageID: 5766
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 157 Filed 03/04/13 Page 1 of 2 PagelD: 2823 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

WARREN HAVENS, ET AL. 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MOBEX NETWORK SERVICES, 

ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 11-993 (KSH) 

ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION 

This matter having come before the Court by way of submission dated March 1, 2013, 

regarding the schedule for depositions; 

and the Court having considered the submission, the record of proceedings, and the 

governing law; 

and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion delivered on the record on March 3, 2013; 

IT IS ON THIS 3rd day of March, 2013 

ORDERED that the following depositions shall take place on the following dates and at 

the following locations: 

March 8,2013 Michael Fitch California 

March 20, 2013 Susan Cooper (Only if her health permits. If her health 

does not permit, defense counsel shall provide information 

concerning her condition so that the Court can set a different date 

or provide other relief). 

March 21,2013 Robert Cooper California 

March 20,2013 David Kling California 

March 21,2013 Sandra DePriest New Jersey 

March 22,2013 Donald DePriest New Jersey 

March 14 and/or 15, 2013 John Reardon New Jersey 

March 8, 2013 Charles Waters North Carolina 

March 7, 2013 Dave Shpigler New York 

March 6, 2013 Jim Chen New Jersey 

March 11,2013 Warren Havens New Jersey 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 43 of 78 PageID: 5767
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 157 Filed 03/04/13 Page 2 of 2 PagelD: 2824 

March 14,2013 Jimmy Stobaugh California 

March 13, 2013 Arnold Leong to be detennined by the parties 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dispute concerning David Predmore shall be 

presented to the Court that issued the subpoena for his testimony. If the subpoena was issued 

from this Court, then the plaintiffs shall provide the Court with a letter that includes notification 

to Mr. Predmore that it is requesting that he be compelled to comply with the subpoena and proof 

of service so that the Court can determine if it should issue an Order directing Mr. Predmore to 

show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his alleged noncompliance with the 

subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the depositions of the following shall be completed no 

later than March 28, 2013: 

Ron Lindsay 

Jeffrey Reed 

Raja Sengupt 

Mr. Jones 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that nothing herein operates to extend the fact and expert 

witness deadlines or any other deadlines other than to permit the depositions set forth herein to 

take place on the specific dates set forth herein, even if the dates set forth are beyond the fact and 

expert deposition deadlines set forth in the Tenth Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall take whatever steps that they deem 

necessary to obtain copy of the deposition transcripts needed to submit the joint proposed final 

pretrial order by April 22, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. 

s/Pattv Shwartz 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 44 of 78 PageID: 5768
EXHIBIT 6 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 45 of 78 PageID: 5769
F© PUBLIC NOTICE 

Federal Communications Commission News Media Information 2021418-0500 

Internet: http://www.fcc.gov 

TTY: 1-888-835-5322 

445 12th St., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

Report Number: 8634 Date of Report: 04/24/2013 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

Assignment of License Authorization Applications, Transfer of Control of Licensee Applications, and 

De FacfoTransfer Lease Applications, and Designated Entity Reportable Eligibility Event Applications 

Accepted for Filing 

Below is a listing of applications, subject to applicable pre-grant notice and petition procedures, that upon 

initial review were accepted for filing. The Commission may return any of the applications, if upon further 

examination, it is determined they are defective or not in conformance with the Commission's rules and 

regulations. 

Final action will not be taken on applications involving an Assignment of Authorization or Transfer of Control 

of FCC licenses, de facto transfer leases, including subleases, or transfer of control or assignment of 

existing lease rights, or designated entity reportable eligibility event earlier than 15 days following the date 

of the public notice, except for applications not requiring a prior notice period. 

Assignment of License Authorization Applications and Transfer of Control of Licensee Applications 

Applications: 14-Day Notice Period 

Purpose File Number Parties Date Received 

AA 0005723202 Assignor: Iowa Wireless Services Holding Corporation 04/19/2013 

Assignee: Brooklyn Mutual Telephone Company 

Partitioning AND/OR Disaggregation 

Call Sign or Lead Call Sign: WQMN858 

Radio Service Code(s) 

AW 

Page 1 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 46 of 78 PageID: 5770
Purpose File Number Parties Date Received 

AA 0005733853 Assignor: Paging Systems, Inc. 

Assignee: Verde Systems LLC 

04/15/2013 

FULL Assignment 

Call Sign or Lead Call Sign: WQCP808 

Radio Service Code(s) 

PC 

Applications: No Prior Notice Period Required 

Purpose File Number Parties Date Received 

TC 0005723658 Licensee: CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES INC 

Transferor: UAP HOLDING CORP 

Transferee: AGRIUM INC 

Transfer OF Control 

04/15/2013 

Call Sign or Lead Call Sign: WNDU984 

Radio Service Code(s) 

IG 

AA 0005739179 Assignor: Kimberly Clark-Professional 04/16/2013 

Assignee: Belmont Engineered Plastics 

FULL Assignment 

Call Sign or Lead Call Sign: WQQN959 

Radio Service Code(s) 

IG 

De Facto Transfer Lease Applications 

Applications: 14-Day Notice Period 

Page 2 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 47 of 78 PageID: 5771
EXHIBIT 7 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 48 of 78 PageID: 5772
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-1787 

Before the 

Federal Communications Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

In the Matter of 

PAGING SYSTEMS, INC. File No. 0005733853 

VERDE SYSTEMS LLC File No. 0005735474 

and 

SKYBRIDGE SPECTRUM FOUNDATION File No. 0005735519 

Applications for Assignment of Licenses 

ORDER AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 

Adopted: August 21,2013 Released: August 22, 2013 

By the Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: 

1. Introduction. In this Order and Order on Reconsideration, we address a petition by Maritime 

Communications/Land Mobile, LLC Debtor-in-Possession (MC/LM) (1) to dismiss or deny the abovecaptioned application of Paging System, Inc. (PSI) to assign Automated Maritime Telecommunication 

System (AMTS) spectrum to Verde Systems LLC (VSL) and (2) for reconsideration of the consent to the 

above-captioned applications of VSL and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation (Skybridge) to assign AMTS 

spectrum to PSI.1 For the reasons stated below, we dismiss the petition. 

2. Background. PSI holds AMTS Block B2 geographic3 licenses in AMTS Areas (AMTSAs) 5 

(Great Lakes) and 8 (Hawaii),4 and AMTS Block B site-based licenses in AMTSAs 6 (Southern Pacific), 

7 (Northern Pacific), and 8. VSL, Skybridge, and affiliated entities (collectively, the Havens entities)5 

1 Petition to Dismiss or Deny and Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 8,2013) (Petition). PSI filed an 

opposition, as did VSL and Skybridge. See Paging Systems, Inc., Opposition to Petition to Dismiss or Deny and 

Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 22, 2013) (PSI Opposition); Verde Systems LLC and Skybridge Spectrum 

Foundation LLC, Opposition to Petition to Dismiss or Deny and Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 22, 2013) 

(VSL/Skybridge Opposition). MC/LM filed a reply. See Reply (filed June 3, 2013) (Reply). 

2 The Commission has designated two spectrum blocks for AMTS operations: Blocks A (217.5-218/219.5-220 

MHz) and B (217-217.5/219-219.5 MHz). See 47 C.F.R. § 80.385(a)(2). 

3 In 2002, the Commission adopted a geographic licensing approach for AMTS spectrum and later assigned the 

geographic licenses by competitive bidding procedures, but provided that site-based incumbent licensees could 

continue to operate. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, Second 

Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fifth Report and Order, PR Docket No. 92-257, 17 FCC Red 6685 (2002). 

4 Stations WQCP808 and WQGF308. 

5 See, e.g., Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, EB Docket No. 11-71, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 

FCC 13-107, n.l (rel. Aug. 5, 2013). 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 49 of 78 PageID: 5773
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-1787 

hold AMTS Block B geographic licenses in all of the AMTSAs not held by PSI, including AMTSA 6.6 

PSI and the Havens entities have had numerous disputes before the Commission and in other forums. As 

part of a comprehensive settlement of these matters, PSI filed an application to assign its AMTS 

geographic licenses to VSL,7 and VSL and Skybridge filed applications to partition their licenses for 

AMTS Stations WQCP8168 and WQJW6569 to assign AMTS Block B spectrum in southern California to 

PSI. The assignments to PSI were consented to pursuant to the Commission's Immediate Approval 

Procedures,10 while the assignment to VSL remains pending. 

3. MC/LM holds AMTS Block A geographic licenses in AMTSAs 2, 4, 5, and 6.11 It filed a 

petition seeking dismissal or denial of PSI's application and reconsideration of the consent to the 

applications of VSL and Skybridge, arguing that PSI and the Havens entities have argued before the 

Commission that the other lacks the character and fitness to be a Commission licensee, which disqualifies 

them to hold the licensees they now seek to acquire.12 MC/LM argues that the proposed assignment 

transactions should not be permitted to proceed until the Commission resolves the allegations raised in the 

parties' pleadings in other proceedings.13 

4. Discussion. We conclude that MC/LM lacks standing to challenge the above-captioned 

applications, and accordingly dismiss its petition. Section 1.939(d) of the Commission's Rules requires 

that a petition to deny contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the 

petitioner is a party in interest.14 To establish standing as a party in interest, a petitioner must allege facts 

sufficient to demonstrate that grant of the subject application would cause it to suffer a direct injury.15 In 

addition, a petitioner must demonstrate a causal link between the claimed injury and the challenged 

6 Specifically, they hold AMTS Block B geographic licenses in AMTSAs 1 (Northern Atlantic), 2 (Mid-Atlantic), 3 

(Southern Atlantic), 4 (Mississippi River), 6, 7, 9 (Alaska), and 10 (Mountain). They also hold AMTS Block A 

geographic licenses in AMTSAs 1,3,7, and 8. 

7 See FCC File No. 0005733853. 

8 See FCC File No. 0005735474. 

9 See FCC File No. 0005735519. 

10 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.948(j)(2). 

11 It also holds AMTS Block A site-based licenses in AMTSAs 1-7, and AMTS Block B site-based licenses in 

AMTSAs 2, 3, 4, and 5. All of MC/LM's licenses are subject to a pending Commission proceeding to determine, 

inter alia, whether MC/LM engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor when it obtained its geographic 

licenses, failed to construct and/or maintain in operation its site-based stations, and is qualified to be and remain a 

Commission licensee. See Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Order to Show Cause, Hearing 

Designation Order, and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, EB Docket No. 11-71, 26 FCC Red 6520, 6547 U 62 

(2011). The allegations underlying the hearing proceeding were initially brought to the Commission's attention by 

the Havens entities. See id. at 6525-26 13-18. 

12 See Petition at 2-7. 

13 See id. at 3. MC/LM also states that the applications are procedurally in violation of the "greenmail" rule, 47 

C.F.R. § 1.935. See id. at 2. We agree with PSI, VSL, and Skybridge, however, that this rule is not relevant to the 

instant matter, for it applies only to requests to dismiss applications, amendments, or pleadings. See PSI Opposition 

at 4; VSL/Skybridge Opposition at 5. 

14 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(d). 

15 See, e.g., Petition for Reconsideration of Various Auction 87 Public Notices, et al, 27 FCC Red 4374, 4382 21 

(WTB MD & ASAD 2012) {Auction 87 Order)-, AT&T PCS Wireless PCS, Inc., Order, 15 FCC Red 4587, 4588 1[ 3 

(WTB CWD 2000) {AT&T Wireless) (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733 (1972); Lawrence N. Brandt, 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Red 4082 (CCB DFD 1988) {Brandt)). 

2 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 50 of 78 PageID: 5774
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-1787 

action,16 and that any injury would be redressable by the relief requested.17 Similarly, Section 1.106(b)(1) 

of the Commission's Rules provides that a petition for reconsideration filed by an entity that is not a party 

to the proceeding must demonstrate how its interests are adversely affected by the Commission's action.18 

When evaluating standing, the Commission applies the same test that courts employ in determining 

whether a person has standing under Article III to appeal a court order: the person must show "(a) a 

personal injury-in-fact that is (2) 'fairly traceable' to the defendant's conduct and (3) redressable by the 

relief requested."19 

5. MC/LM fails to meet these requirements. It bases its standing claim on the fact that it holds 

AMTS geographic licenses for the Southern Pacific and Great Lakes areas.20 It argues that if the instant 

applications are granted, MC/LM would "face economic injury by having to face new competition from 

[VSL] in the Southern Pacific geographic area and would have to face new competition from PSI in the 

Great Lakes geographic area."21 The Commission has consistently viewed the claims of injury due to 

new competition in the marketplace as remote and speculative, and not sufficient to establish a direct 

injury required to show standing.22 Moreover, MC/LM offers no explanation for how it would be 

adversely affected by competing with the Havens entities in the Great Lakes and PSI in southern 

California instead of vice versa. 

6. In the event that we find that it lacks standing, MC/LM asks that its petition be treated as an 

informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules.23 Acceptance of 

MC/LM's request pursuant to Section 1.41 is discretionary.24 In support of its request, MC/LM states 

only that treating its petitions as an informal request is desirable due to "the public interest in the 

matter."25 We find that this is insufficient.26 

16 Auction 87 Order, 27 FCC Red at 4382 f 21; AT&T Wireless, 15 FCC Red at 4588 H 3 (citing Duke Power v. 

Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 72, 78 (1978)). 

17 Auction 87 Order, 27 FCC Red at 4382 K 21; Weblink Wireless, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC 

Red 24642, 24647 f 11 (WTB 2002). 

18 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1); AT&T Corp. v. Business Telecom, Inc., Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Red 21750, 

21751-52 f 5 (2001) {AT&TCorp.). 

19 See SunCom Mobile & Data, Inc. v. FCC, 87 F.3d 1386, 1387-88 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Branton v. FCC, 993 

F.2d 906, 908 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984))); AT&T Corp., 16 FCC Red at 

21752-53 H 7. 

20 See Petition at 2. 

21 See Reply at 2. 

22 See Petition for Reconsideration of Various Auction 87 Public Notices, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 

27 FCC Red 4374, 4385 ^ 28 (WTB MD & ASAD 2012). The Commission has consistently held that claims 

predicated on the addition of new competitors in the marketplace amount to a "remote" or "speculative" injury and 

are insufficient to confer standing. See, e.g., Brandt, 3 FCC Red at 4083 f 9; Improving Public Safety 

Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Order, WT Docket 02-55, 26 FCC Red 5004 (PSHSB 2011) (800 MHz 

Order). 

23 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. 

24 See National Ready Mixed Concrete Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Red 5250, 5251 n.12 (2008); 

see also Charles T. Crawford, et al. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Red 19328, 19329 (2002) (stating 

that the Commission is not obligated to consider informal requests). 

25 See Reply at 2 n.2. 

26 See, e.g., 800 MHz Order, 26 FCC Red at 5009 H 17. In addition, as the Commission has noted, "a party cannot 

evade the procedural requirements of Section 1.106 by concurrently requesting the same relief under Section 1.41." 

See Motorola, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Red 455, 456 n.8 (2010) (quoting Motorola, Inc., 

(continued....) 

3 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 51 of 78 PageID: 5775
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-1787 

7. Conclusion. MC/LM has not demonstrated that it has standing to challenge the abovecaptioned applications. Therefore, we dismiss its petition. 

8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309, and 405 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309,405, and Sections 1.106 and 1.939 

of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.939, that the Petition to Dismiss or Deny and Petition 

for Reconsideration filed by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC Debtor-in-Possession on May 

8, 2013 IS DISMISSED, and application File No. 0005733853 SHALL BE PROCESSED consistent with 

this Order and Order on Reconsideration and the Commission's Rules. 

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 

(...continued from previous page) 

Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Red 18649, 18651 f 7 (WTB MD 2007)). 

apply equally to Section 1.939. 

4 

We see no reason why this does not 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 52 of 78 PageID: 5776
EXHIBIT 8 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 53 of 78 PageID: 5777
m "V -V- PUBLIC NOTICE 

Federal Communications Commission News Media Information 2021418-0500 

445 12th St., S.W. Internet: http://www.fcc.gov 

Washington, D.C. 20554 TTY: 1-888-835-5322 

Report Number: 9124 Date of Report: 11/13/2013 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

Site-By-Site 

Action 

Below is a listing of applications that have been acted upon by the Connmission. 

AA - Aviation Auxiliary Group 

File Number Action Date Call Sign Applicant Name Purpose Action 

0005902594 11/09/2013 WQAW452 MONTEREY PENINSULA AIRPORT DISTRICT MD D 

AF - Aeronautical and Fixed 

File Number Action Date Call Sign Applicant Name Purpose Action 

0005688005 11/09/2013 WQDU842 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc AM D 

0005714077 11/09/2013 WQOI965 Aviation Spectrum Resources, Inc AM D 

0005898030 11/07/2013 WQSS535 WINTERSET AIRPORT AUTHORITY AM G 

0005933852 11/07/2013 WXZ9 Learjet Inc AM G 

0005999821 11/06/2013 KMF6 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc CA G 

0005999822 11/06/2013 WQQI268 Aviation Spectrum Resources, Inc CA G 

0005855272 11/09/2013 WQGI706 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc MD D 

0005780399 11/09/2013 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc NE D 

0005863227 11/09/2013 Helicopter Consultants of Maui, Inc. dba Blue Hawaiian Helic NE D 

0005900109 11/09/2013 Orlando North Airpark NE D 

0005909724 11/07/2013 WQSS540 City of Wills Point NE G 

0005910897 11/07/2013 WQSS541 Covington Municipal Airport NE G 

0005999187 11/08/2013 WQSS791 Syberjet Aircraft NE G 

Page 1 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 54 of 78 PageID: 5778
LN - 902-928 MHz Location Narrowband (Non-multilateration) 

File Number Action Date Call Sign Applicant Name Purpose Action 

0005838526 11/07/2013 WPML289 FLORIDA, STATE OF RO G 

0005838527 11/07/2013 WPML292 FLORIDA, STATE OF RO G 

0005838528 11/07/2013 WPML294 FLORIDA, STATE OF RO G 

0005843742 11/07/2013 WPMM481 SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RO G 

0005844259 11/07/2013 WPMM343 The Kansas City Southern Railway Company RO G 

LP - Broadcast Auxiliary Low Power 

File Number Action Date Call Sign Applicant Name Purpose Action 

0006004542 11/08/2013 WQJW469 Meredith Corporation- Meredith Video Solutions RO G 

LW - 902-928 MHz Location Wideband (Grandfathered AVM) 

File Number Action Date Call Sign Applicant Name Purpose Action 

0006006389 11/09/2013 WPMT365 TELETRAC LICENSE INC RO G 

0006006398 11/09/2013 WPMT361 TELETRAC LICENSE INC RO G 

0006006405 11/09/2013 WPMR837 TELETRAC LICENSE INC RO G 

0006006417 11/09/2013 WPMT362 TELETRAC LICENSE INC RO G 

MC - Coastal Group 

File Number Action Date Call Sign Applicant Name Purpose Action 

0005910032 11/08/2013 WQSS770 Columbia River Bar Pilots AM G 

0006001677 11/06/2013 KTD434 Paging Systems, Inc. CA G -

0006001679 11/06/2013 WHD878 Paging Systems, Inc. CA G c

-

0006001683 11/06/2013 WHW296 Paging Systems, Inc. CA D 

0005879138 11/09/2013 ANNAPOLIS CITY HARBORMASTER OFFICE NE D 

0005992286 11/08/2013 WQSS776 MC OFFSHORE PETROLEUM, LLC NE G 

0006002028 11/08/2013 WQSS796 Freeman & Hasselwander Resorts LLC NE G 

0005981527 11/07/2013 WPYT751 Bay Harbor Company L.L.C. RM G 

0005998186 11/08/2013 KJA936 COOS BAY TOWBOAT CO INC RM G 

0005980545 11/07/2013 WHU476 LOCKWOOD BOAT WORKS INC RO G 

0005999080 11/06/2013 WHU718 FLORIDA, STATE OF RO G 

0005999082 11/06/2013 WHU722 FLORIDA, STATE OF RO G 

0005999083 11/06/2013 WHU801 FLORIDA, STATE OF RO G 

0005999084 11/06/2013 WHU805 FLORIDA, STATE OF RO G 

0005999085 11/06/2013 WPZK356 FLORIDA, STATE OF RO G 

0005999167 11/08/2013 WHG535 Cargill, Incorporated RO G 

0005999898 11/08/2013 KMD243 NORTHERN ENTERPRISES RO G 

Page 137 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 55 of 78 PageID: 5779
MC - Coastal Group 

File Number Action Date Call Sign Applicant Name Purpose Action 

0006000037 11/08/2013 WHU713 CSX TRANSPORTATION RO G 

0006000599 11/08/2013 WQZ435 BOYD LAKE MARINA INC RO G 

0006000763 11/06/2013 KA98561 VANCOUVER USA, PORT OF RO G 

0006001135 11/06/2013 KMC300 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF RO G 

0006002499 11/08/2013 WRV315 Capt. Stacy Fishing Center RO G 

0006002560 11/08/2013 WPZI640 QUINCY YACHT CLUB RO G 

0006002627 11/08/2013 WXZ413 ROWAYTON YACHT CLUB AT HICKORY BLUFF RO G 

0006003242 11/07/2013 WPZI404 NEW BUFFALO CITY OF RO G 

0006004216 11/08/2013 WHU500 SEAMARK ELECTRONICS INC RO G 

0006004419 11/08/2013 WQZ422 BREMERTON YACHT CLUB RO G 

0006005280 11/08/2013 KYX500 MARICOPA, COUNTY OF RO G 

0006005482 11/08/2013 KA5047 Pacific Gas and Electric Company RO G 

0006005489 11/08/2013 KO6038 Pacific Gas and Electric Company RO G 

0004697887 11/06/2013 WHD866 Paging Systems, Inc. WD W -

0004732667 11/06/2013 WHV362 Paging Systems, Inc. WD w" 

0004744089 11/06/2013 WHW396 Paging Systems, Inc. WD W"* 

0004902761 11/06/2013 WHU559 Paging Systems, Inc. WD Ww. 

0005641946 11/06/2013 WHW244 Paging Systems, Inc. WD w^ 

0005641947 11/07/2013 WHW296 Paging Systems, Inc. WD w -

MG - Microwave Industrial/Business Pool 

File Number Action Date Call Sign Applicant Name Purpose Action 

0005712453 11/09/2013 Harris Corporation AM D 

0005823250 11/06/2013 WQGT945 Turn Wireless, LLC AM G 

0005826784 11/07/2013 WQSS493 Day Management Corp dba Day Wireless Systems AM G 

0005826845 11/07/2013 WQSS496 Day Mangement dba Day Wireless Systems AM G 

0005848707 11/07/2013 WQLS610 Fireline Network Solutions Inc. AM G 

0005855312 11/06/2013 WNTP688 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT AM G 

0005858603 11/04/2013 WQSR574 Worldcall Interconnect, Inc. AM G 

0005863099 11/07/2013 WQPU319 Montana Internet Corporation AM G 

0005863324 11/04/2013 WNTP221 PACIFICORP AM G 

0005863326 11/04/2013 WNTS454 PACIFICORP AM G 

0005871702 11/07/2013 WQOD338 Enable Midstream Partners, LP AM G 

0005871951 11/07/2013 WQSS587 LCC Design Services AM G 

0005871952 11/07/2013 WQSS586 LCC Design Services AM G 

0005879663 11/06/2013 WQMP350 GVEC.net, Inc. AM G 

0005879726 11/06/2013 WQSS344 Guadalupe Valley Electric Coop., Inc. AM G 

0005888622 11/06/2013 WQSS354 Cascade Natural Gas, Corp. AM G 

Page 138 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 56 of 78 PageID: 5780
pa_codes30.txt 

AD Application Purpose 

AA Assignment of Authorization 

AM Amendment 

AU Administrative update 

CA Cancellation of License 

CB c Block Election 

DC Data Correction 

DU Duplicate License 

EX Request for Extension of Time 

LL Spectrum Leasing 

MD Modification 

NE New 

NT Required Notification 

RL Register Link/Location 

RM Renewal/Modification 

RO Renewal Only 

TC Transfer of Control 

WD withdrawal of Application 

AD Application Status 

1 Pending Level 1 

2 Pending Level 2 

A A Granted 

C Consented To 

D Dismissed 

G Granted 

H History Only 

I inactive 

K Killed 

M Consummated 

N Granted in Part 

P Pending Pack Filing 

Q Accepted 

R Returned 

s Saved 

T Terminated 

U unprocessable 

W withdrawn 

x NA 

Y Application has problems 

AD Notification Code 

1 First Buildout/Coverage Requirement 

2 Second Buildout/Coverage Requirement 

3 Third Buildout/Coverage Requirement 

4 Fourth Buildout/Coverage Requirement 

A All coverage requirements (for those that have neither 5 nor 10) 

C Consummation of transfer or assignment 

D Request regular authorization for facilities operating under 

developmental authority 

G Notification of compliance with yearly station commitments for 

licensees with approved extended implementation plans. 

H Final notification that construction requirements have been 

met for referenced system with approved extended implementation 

pians. 

5 Construction Requirement 

AM Operator Class Code 

A Advanced 

E Amateur Extra 

G General 

N Novice 

P Technician Plus 

Page 1 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 57 of 78 PageID: 5781
EXHIBIT 9 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 58 of 78 PageID: 5782
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 180-4 Filed 06/03/13 Page 2 of 153 PagelD: 3699 

Torosian, Linda 

Subject: FW: HAVENS: Email from FCC re stay of proceedings to facilitate settlement; and whether it 

should be included in our Opp. to MCLM's MSJ? - Fwd: FCC deferment of action on PSITouch Tel and Skytel proceedings / FW: Request for Conference Call - Confidenti 

From: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone(afcc.gov> 

Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:45 PM 

To: Warren Havens <warren.havens(S)sbcglobal.net> 

Cc: John Schauble <John.Schauble(5)fcc.gov>. David Hiil <DHill(SHallEstill.com>. Audrey Rasmussen 

<ARasmussen(5)HallEstill.com>. "davidlamarhill(5)msn.com" <davidlamarhill(5)msn.com>, Jimmy 

<istobaugh(5)telesaurus.com>. Stanislava Kimball <Stamslava,Kimball(5)fcc.gov> 

Subject: RE: Request for Conference Call - Confidential 

Mr. Havens, 

As discussed in the telecon today, the Mobility and Broadband Divisions of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will 

defer action on pending matters (including matters addressed to the Bureau or the Commission) between PSI/TT and 

Skytel for three months to allow implementation of the Settlement and consequent request for withdrawal of the 

pleadings in those matters. 

Scot Stone • 

Deputy Chief, Mobility Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

From: Warren Havens ['mailto:warren.havens@sbcalobal.netl 

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:15 PM 

To: Scot Stone 

Cc: John Schauble; David Hill; Audrey Rasmussen; davidlamarhill@msn.com: Jimmy Stobaugh 

Subject: Re: Request for Conference Call - Confidential 

Mr. Stone, 

This summarizes the telecon of today, and requests that you acknowledge by email response the "hold" granted on the 

call, described below. 

Capitalized terms used herein not defined herein are defined in the email of this morning below. 

On the call, the Licensees explained that they had reached a certain Settlement that involves, as before the FCC: 

(1) the three assignment applications identified below, and also involves - at the time that the FCC grant (or consent) 

to each of the three applications has become final (in sum, not subject to any third-party (not Skytel, PSI orTT) challenge, 

and no longer subject to any right to timely challenge, and beyond the time that the FCC may reconsider its grant on its 

own motion, and without any reversal) ~ 

(2) PSI cancellation of its AMTS site based licenses except for those within the Southern California partition area in 

the Verde Systems and Skybridge partition assignment applications to PSI described below, and 

(3) the Licensees' respective requests to withdraw all of their pleadings and dismiss the requests in the pleadings 

(formal petitions, informal requests, etc.) with prejudice as against each other, that is, all Skytel (defined below) 

companies' challenges against PSI and/ orTT (licenses, qualifications, etc.) and any and all PSI and TT challenges 

against any of the Skytel companies (licenses, qualifications, etc.) (the pleadings and pleading requests under this '(3)' 

together, the "FCC Proceedings"). 

On the call, the Licensees asked if the FCC would place a hold upon action in the FCC Proceedings during the time 

needed for items '(1)' and '(2)' above to be completed (the "Hold") (which the Licensees called a "stay" in the email of this 

morning below), which should be in the range of 2-3 months, since upon completion the Licensees will then immediately 

i 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 59 of 78 PageID: 5783
Case 2:ll-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 180-4 Filed 06/03/13 Page 3 of 153 PagelD: 3700 

execute item '(3)' making unnecessary further FCC action in the FCC Proceedings, but to accept the withdrawals and 

dismissals. In this Hold period, the FCC will accept that Licensees retain their respective pleadings and positions. 

While not discussed on the call, to have clarity, the Licensees ask that the Hold period be for three months, to the end of 

July 16. 2013. 

Also, if steps '(1)', '(2)' and '(3)' cannot be completed prior to that time, such as due to any third party challenge, then the 

Licensees will give you a status report and may seek an extension of the Hold period. 

Mr. Hill and Ms. Rasmussen have reviewed and approved this email for PSI and IT. 

Thank you and Mr. Schauble for your prompt assistance in this matter. 

Warren Havens 

President, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation / 1/2G LLC / Environmentel LLC / Verde Systems LLC / Telesaurus Holdings GB 

LLC I Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC / Berkeley California / www.scribd.com/warren havens/shelf / 510 841 

2220 x 30 I 510 848 7797 -direct 

From: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone@fcc.qov> 

To: 'Audrey Rasmussen' <ARasmussen@HallEstill.com> 

Cc: Warren Havens <warren.havens@sbcqlobal.net>; Jimmy Stobaugh <istobauqh@telesaurus.com>; David Hill 

<DHill@HallEstill.com>; "davidlamarhill@msn.com" <davidlamarhill@.msn.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:59 AM 

Subject: RE: Request for Conference Call - Confidential 

We can do it at 1:00 Eastern. 

From: Audrey Rasmussen fmailto:ARasmussen(5>HallEstill.coml 

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:26 AM 

To: Scot Stone 

Cc: Warren Havens; Jimmy Stobaugh; David Hill; davidlamarhill(5)msn.com 

Subject: Request for Conference Call - Confidential 

Mr. Stone, 

Warren Havens, Jimmy Stobaugh, David Hill and Audrey Rasmussen would like to set up a conference call with you to 

discuss procedures to request a stay in the litigation proceedings involving, on one side, Warren Havens and various 

companies he manages ("Skytel") and on the other sidePaging Systems, Inc. and Touch Tel Corp. ("PSI-TT")(Skytel and 

PSI-TT together, the Licensees"). 

The Licensees entered a Confidential Settlement Agreement last week which, when fully completed, will resolve all 

conflicts between them pending before the FCC and the US District Court in New Jersey, in respective litigation actions 

(the "Settlement"). In connection with the Settlement, the Licensees filed three applications for four total license 

assignment and partial assignments on April 13, File Nos. 0005733853 (PSI Great Lakes and Hawaii geographic AMTS 

license assignments to Verde Systems LLC) and 000573474 and 0005735519 (respectively, Verde Systems LLC and 

Skybridge Spectrum Foundations partition assignments to PSI, in Southern California). The Licensees believe these all 

should be processed under IAP; however, there was an issue with File No. 0005733853 which is presently being 

discussed with Kathy Harris. 

We would like to discuss with you how to approach such a request to stay the FCC litigation proceedings that are 

pending at various levels, jwe will be able to set up a dial in conference call at your convenience today at a convenient 

time for you. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Audrey Rasmussen 

2 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 60 of 78 PageID: 5784
EXHIBIT 10 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 61 of 78 PageID: 5785
Friedman, Kenneth 

From: Scot Stone [Scot.Stone@fcc.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:39 AM 

To: 'Jimmy Stobaugh'; David Hill; Warren Havens 

Cc: Jeff Tobias; Stanislava Kimball 

Subject: RE: Further 90-day extension / Re: 90-day further extension request / in re apps including 0005692843 and 

0005692842 

DA 13-1787 is now a final order beyond the reconsideration period. It appears to me that the parties should now be in a 

position to begin wrapping up the many loose ends. At your convenience, please give me an idea what we can expect 

regarding all the pending proceedings. 

Scot Stone 

Deputy Chief, Mobility Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

From: Jimmy Stobaugh rmailto:istobauah(a)telesaurus,com1 

Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:42 PM 

To: Scot Stone 

Cc: Jeff Tobias; David Hill; Warren Havens 

Subject: Re: Further 90-clay extension / Re: 90-day further extension request / in re apps including 0005692843 and 

0005692842 

Received, thank you. 

From: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone(a>fcc.gov> 

Date: Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:38 PM 

To: Jimmy <istobaugh(5)telesaurus.com> 

Cc: Jeff Tobias <Jeff.Tobias@fcc.gov>. David Hill <dhill(5)hallestill.com>. Warren Havens <warren.havens(a>sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: RE: Further 90-day extension / Re: 90-day further extension request / in re apps including 0005692843 and 

0005692842 

Extensions granted to January 13, 2014. 

Scot Stone 

Deputy Chief, Mobility Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

From: Jimmy Stobaugh rmailto:istobauah@telesaurus.com1 

Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:21 PM 

To: Scot Stone 

Cc: Jeff Tobias; David Hill; Warren Havens 

Subject: Further 90-day extension / Re: 90-day further extension request / in re apps including 0005692843 and 

0005692842 

Mr. Stone, 

Hello. Welcome back to work! 

You previously granted an extension of the stay-action and an extension of the deadline for filing certain 

i 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 62 of 78 PageID: 5786
pleadings until October 15, 2013. As you are well aware, due to the government shutdown, the parties were 

unable to make a further extension request of those matters past the October 15, 2013 deadline. 

Therefore, at this time, all of the parties to the below extension request and stay, hereby request a further 

extension of another 90 days. This is submitted since the parties need the additional time to consummate the 

assignment applications and conduct other related actions before the FCC, as part of completing the settlement. 

Today, Mr. Hill informed me that PSI and Touchtel (PSI-TT) would not oppose a further 90-day extension of 

the stay and extension period on all matters, and that we could make this request to you. I copy Mr. Hill here. 

If you need more information as to the reasons for this request, or otherwise with regard to this request, 

please let me know. 

Sincerely, 

Jimmy Stobaugh 

On behalf of Warren Havens for Petitioners 

From: Warren Havens <warren.havens(5)sbcglobal.net> 

Reply-To: Warren Havens <warren.havens@sbcglobal.net> 

Date: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:11 AM 

To: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone(5)fcc.gov> 

Cc: Jeff Tobias <Jeff.Tobias(5)fcc.gov>, David Hill <dhill(5)hallestill.com>. Jimmy <istobaugh@telesaurus.com> 

Subject: Re: 90-day further extension request / in re apps including 0005692843 and 0005692842 

Thank you. 

From: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone@fcc.qov> 

To: 'Warren Havens' <warren.havens@sbcalobal.net> 

Cc: Jeff Tobias <Jeff.Tobias@.fcc.qov>; David Hill <DHill@HallEstill.com>: Jimmy Stobaugh 

<istobauqh@.telesaurus.com> 

Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 9:54 AM 

Subject: RE: 90-day further extension request / in re apps including 0005692843 and 0005692842 

The extension request of the stay-action also is granted until October 15, 2013. 

Scot Stone 

Deputy Chief, Mobility Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

From: Warren Havens Fmailto:waiTen.havens@sbcglobal.net1 

Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 4:12 AM 

To: Scot Stone 

Cc: Jeff Tobias; David Hill; Jimmy Stobaugh 

Subject: Re: 90-day further extension request / in re apps including 0005692843 and 0005692842 

To clarify, this 90-day extension request is meant to apply to all matters subject of: 

(i) the below April 17 extension grant, and 

(ii) the below April 16 stay-action grant. 

2 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 63 of 78 PageID: 5787
From: Warren Havens <warren.havens@,sbcglobal.net> 

To: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone@.fcc.gov> 

Cc: jeff tobias <ieff.tobias@.fcc.gov>: David Hill <DHill@,HallEstill.com>: Jimmy Stobaugh <istobaugh@telesaurus.com> 

Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 12:55 AM 

Subject: 90-day further extension request / in re assig. apps, 0005692843 and 0005692842 

Mr. Stone, 

cc Mr. Tobias, 

In two separate emails below, for the Bureau, you stayed the subject matters until July 16, 2013, next Monday. 

On June 25th, Mr. Hill informed me that PSI and Touchtel (PSI-TT) would not oppose a further 90-day extension of the stay period on 

all matters. Mr. Hill said that we could make the request to Mr. Stone and represent that PSI-TT joins in the request. I cc Mr. Hill 

here. 

All of the parties to the below extension request, hereby request an further extension of another 90 days. This is submitted 

since the assignment applications described below and captioned above are subject to a petition to deny (and related oppositions 

and reply) and the Bureau has not yet made and issued its decision. 

If you need more information as to the reasons for this request, or otherwise with regard to this request, please let me know. 

Thank you, 

Warren Havens 

From: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone@fcc.gov> 

Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:55 AM 

To: Jimmy <istobaugh@telesaurus.com> 

Cc: "davidlamarhill@msn.com" <davidlamarhill@,msn.com>. David Hill <DHill@.HallEstill.com>. Audrey Rasmussen 

<ARasmussen@HallEstill.com>,, Warren Havens <warren.havens@,sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: RE: Addition to Re: Req for extension, re Petitions to Deny re 0005692843 and 0005692842 // Re: Request for 

Conference Call - Confidential 

1 had that date as May 2. In any event, the extension request is granted until July 16, 2013 with respect to file 

numbers 0005641936,0005641946,0005641947,0005642018, 0005692843 and 0005692842. 

Scot Stone 

Deputy Chief, Mobility Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

From: Jimmy Stobaugh lmailto:istobaugh@telesaurus.com1 

Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 2:21 PM 

To: Scot Stone 

Cc: david 1 amarhi 11 @.msn.com: David Hill; Audrey Rasmussen; Warren Havens 

Subject: Addition to Re: Req for extension, re Petitions to Deny re 0005692843 and 0005692842 // Re: Request for Conference Call -

Confidential 

Mr. Stone, 

In addition to the below request, "Petitioners", as defined below, along with PSI (who has agreed to this request too), also 

request the same 3-month extension to file petitions to deny regarding renewal application files 

numbers 0005641936, 0005641946, 0005641947, and 0005642018 for the same reasons given immediately below by Mr. 

Havens. The current deadline is May 1st. 

Sincerely, 

Jimmy Stobaugh 

On behalf of Warren Havens for Petitioners 

3 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 64 of 78 PageID: 5788
From: Warren Havens <warren.havens@sbcglobal.net> 

Reply-To: Warren Havens <warren.havens@sbcglobal.net> 

Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:05 AM 

To: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone@,fcc.gov> 

Cc: "davidlamarhill@insn.com" <davidlamarhill@rnsn.com>., Jimmy <istobaugh@telesaurus.com>. David Hill 

<DHill@HallEstill.com>, Audrey Rasmussen <ARasmussen@.HallEstill.com> 

Subject: Req for extension, re Petitions to Deny re 0005692843 and 0005692842 // Re: Request for Conference Call -

Confidential 

Mr. Stone, 

"Petitioners" -- companies I manage,* request a 3-month extension described in my email of yesterday at 5:07 pm, below, to PSI 

Counsel. As shown in their response (the ellipsis indicated a comment from them on another matter not relevant here), they agree to 

the extension request for PSI. 

Grant of this request would be consistent with your grant yesterday of the 3 month deferral period to allow for the Settlement actions 

to be completed, including the described license cancellation, and dismissals of pleadings and petition requests. Grant of the request 

will avoid further challenge petitions that will be mooted by the license cancellations and dismissals. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Warren Havens 

President 

* Skybridge Spectrum Foundation \ ATLIS Wireless LLC | V2G LLC | Environmentel LLC | Verde Systems LLC | Telesaurus 

Holdings GB LLC | Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC | Berkeley 

California | www.scribd.com/warren havens/shelf | 510 841 2220 x 30 | 510 848 7797 -direct 

From: Audrey Rasmussen <ARasmussen@,HallEstill.eom> 

To: Warren Havens <warren.havens@,sbcglobal.net>: David Hill <DHill@,HallEstill.com> 

Cc: "davidlamarhill@,msn.com" <davidlamarhill@,msn.com>: Jimmy Stobaugh <istobaugh@,telesaurus.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:52 AM 

Subject: RE: Request for Conference Call - Confidential 

Paging Systems, Inc. agrees to the request for extension as outlined below. 

* * % * 

From: Warren Havens Imailto:warren.havens@sbcglobal.net1 

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:07 PM 

To: David Hill; Audrey Rasmussen 

Cc: davidlamarhill@,msn.com: Jimmy Stobaugh 

Subject: Re: Request for Conference Call - Confidential 

Mr. Hill, Ms. Rasmussen: Re PSI renewal applications File Nos. 0005692843 and 0005692842, Call Signs WXY985 and WHW826: 

the petition to deny deadline is this Friday, April 19th. In accord with the Settlement purposes (and consistent with the FCC grant of 

the deferral below), would you agree that Skytel seeks and gets an extension of time (if the FCC grants it) to file petitions to deny of 

these two renewal applications up to the end of the 3 months deferral period the FCC just granted, and that the FCC not act on these 

renewals during this period, since if the Settlement actions before the FCC are completed, then these two licenses will be cancelled. 

From: Warren Havens <warren.havens@,sbcglobal.net> 

To: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone@.fcc.gov> 

Cc: John Schauble <John.Schauble@.fcc.gov>: David Hill <DHill@.HallEstill.com>: Audrey Rasmussen 

<ARasmussen@,HallEstill.com>: "davidlamarhill@msn.com" <davidlamarhill@,msn.com>: Jimmy Stobaugh 

<istobaugh@telesaurus.com>: Stanislava Kimball <Stanislava.Kimball@.fcc.gov> 

4 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 65 of 78 PageID: 5789
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:52 PM 

Subject: Re: Request for Conference Call - Confidential 

Thank you. 

From: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone@fcc.gov> 

To: 'Warren Havens' <warren.havens@.sbcglobal.net> 

Cc: John Schauble <John.Schauble@.fec.gov>: David Hill <DHill@,HallEstill.com>: Audrey Rasmussen 

<ARasmussen@,HallEstill.com>: "davidlamarhill@.msn.com" <davidlamarhill@msn.com>: Jimmy Stobaugh 

<istobaugh@telesaurus.com>: Stanislava Kimball <Stanislava.Kimball@.fcc. gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:45 PM 

Subject: RE: Request for Conference Call - Confidential 

Mr. Havens, 

As discussed in the telecon today, the Mobility and Broadband Divisions of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will 

defer action on pending matters (including matters addressed to the Bureau or the Commission) between PSI/TT and 

Skytel for three months to allow implementation of the Settlement and consequent request for withdrawal of the pleadings 

in those matters. 

Scot Stone 

Deputy Chief, Mobility Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

From: Warren Havens lmailto:warren.havens@,sbcglobal.netl 

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:15 PM 

To: Scot Stone 

Cc: John Schauble; David Hill; Audrey Rasmussen; davidlamarhill@.insn.com: Jimmy Stobaugh 

Subject: Re: Request for Conference Call - Confidential 

Mr. Stone, 

This summarizes the telecon of today, and requests that you acknowledge by email response the "hold" granted on the call, described 

below. 

Capitalized terms used herein not defined herein are defined in the email of this morning below. 

On the call, the Licensees explained that they had reached a certain Settlement that involves, as before the FCC: 

(1) the three assignment applications identified below, and also involves ~ at the time that the FCC grant (or consent) to each of 

the three applications has become final (in sum, not subject to any third-party (not Skytel, PSI or TT) challenge, and no longer subject 

to any right to timely challenge, and beyond the time that the FCC may reconsider its grant on its own motion, and without any 

reversal) --

(2) PSI cancellation of its AMTS site based licenses except for those within the Southern California partition area in the Verde 

Systems and Skybridge partition assignment applications to PSI described below, and 

(3) the Licensees' respective requests to withdraw all of their pleadings and dismiss the requests in the pleadings (forma! petitions, 

informal requests, etc.) with prejudice as against each other, that is, all Skytel (defined below) companies' challenges against PSI and/ 

or TT (licenses, qualifications, etc.) and any and all PSI and TT challenges against any of the Skytel companies (licenses, 

qualifications, etc.) (the pleadings and pleading requests under this '(3)' together, the "FCC Proceedings"). 

On the call, the Licensees asked if the FCC would place a hold upon action in the FCC Proceedings during the time needed for items 

'(1)' and '(2)' above to be completed (the "Hold") (which the Licensees called a "stay" in the email of this morning below), which 

should be in the range of 2-3 months, since upon completion the Licensees will then immediately execute item '(3)' making 

unnecessary further FCC action in the FCC Proceedings, but to accept the withdrawals and dismissals. In this Hold period, the FCC 

will accept that Licensees retain their respective pleadings and positions. 

While not discussed on the call, to have clarity, the Licensees ask that the Hold period be for three months, to the end of July 16, 

2013. 

5 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 66 of 78 PageID: 5790
Also, if steps '(1)', '(2)' and '(3)' cannot be completed prior to that time, such as due to any third party challenge, then the Licensees 

will give you a status report and may seek an extension of the Hold period. 

Mr. Hill and Ms. Rasmussen have reviewed and approved this email for PSI and TT. 

Thank you and Mr. Schauble for your prompt assistance in this matter. 

Warren Havens 

President, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation \ V2G LLC | Environmentel LLC | Verde Systems LLC \ Telesaurus Holdings GB 

LLC | Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC \ Berkeley California | www.scribd. com/warren havens/shelf \ 510 841 

2220 x 30 | 510 848 7797 -direct 

From: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone@,fcc.gov> 

To: 'Audrey Rasmussen' <ARasmussen@.HallEstill.com> 

Cc: Warren Havens <warren.havens@.sbcglobal.net>; Jimmy Stobaugh <istobaugh@.telesaurus.com>: David Hill 

<DHill@HallEstill.com>; "davidlamarhill@msii.com" <davidlamarhill@msn.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:59 AM 

Subject: RE: Request for Conference Call - Confidential 

We can do it at 1:0() Eastern. 

From: Audrey Rasmussen |"mailto:ARasmussen@,HallEstill.coml 

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:26 AM 

To: Scot Stone 

Cc: Warren Havens; Jimmy Stobaugh; David Hill; davidlamarhill@.msn.com 

Subject: Request for Conference Call - Confidential 

Mr. Stone, 

Warren Havens, jimmy Stobaugh, David Hill and Audrey Rasmussen would like to set up a conference call with you to 

discuss procedures to request a stay in the litigation proceedings involving, on one side, Warren Havens and various 

companies he manages ("Skytel") and on the other sidePaging Systems, Inc. and Touch Tel Corp. ("PSI-TT'XSkytel and 

PSI-TT together, the Licensees'"). 

The Licensees entered a Confidential Settlement Agreement last week which, when fully completed, will resolve all 

conflicts between them pending before the FCC and the US District Court in New Jersey, in respective litigation actions 

(the "Settlement"). In connection with the Settlement, the Licensees filed three applications for four total license 

assignment and partial assignments on April 13, File Nos. 0005733853 (PSI Great Lakes and Hawaii geographic AMTS 

license assignments to Verde Systems LLC) and 000573474 and 0005735519 (respectively, Verde Systems LLC and 

Skybridge Spectrum Foundations partition assignments to PSI, in Southern California). The Licensees believe these all 

should be processed under IAP; however, there was an issue with File No. 0005733853 which is presently being discussed 

with Kathy Harris. 

We would like to discuss with you how to approach such a request to stay the FCC litigation proceedings that are pending 

at various levels. |We will be able to set up a dial in conference call at your convenience today at a convenient time for 

YOU. 

Thank you tor your consideration in this matter. 

Audrey Rasmussen 

'This e-mail message and any aHaehmem thereto is intended only for ihc use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that, is privileged, 

eonfidcniiiil and exempt from disclosure undei applicable law. 

If the recipient or reader of this message is not (he intended recipient, you are herchy notified that any dissemination . distribution or copying of this comrnumcai.ion is strictly 

prohihiied. if you have- received this e-rnaii comrnumcation in erior, please notify us immediately by sending a reply e-mail message to [he sender. Thank you. 

iiaSllstii! ' ' " ' ' 

6 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 67 of 78 PageID: 5791
EXHIBIT 11 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 68 of 78 PageID: 5792
Friedman, Kenneth 

From: Scot Stone [Scot.Stone@fcc.gov3 

Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:51 PM 

To: 'W. Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, komS nu gridastadir' 

Cc: Stanislava Kimball; David Hill; Jimmy Stobaugh 

Subject: RE: Requestion for Dismissals: Petition for Reconsideration, Auction No. 61 (DA 05-1047) and Petition for 

Reconsideration, File Nos. 0002304206; 0002302768 

Understood. 

From: W. Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, koml nu griSastaSir rmailto:warren.havens@sbcalobal.net1 

Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:46 PM 

To: Scot Stone 

Cc: Stanislava Kimball; 'David Hill'; Jimmy Stobaugh 

Subject: Re: Requestion for Dismissals: Petition for Reconsideration, Auction No. 61 (DA 05-1047) and Petition for 

Reconsideration, File Nos. 0002304206; 0002302768 

Mr. Stone: 

Petitioners agree with Mr. Hill as to that 2009 Petition for Declaratory Ruling— i.e., it will not be 

dismissed. Thus, Petitioners hereby remove that from Exhibit 1 of their Request for Dismissal of Pleadings 

filed October 31, 2013. 

Regarding all other items on the Exhibit to my submission, Petitioners submit no change.* (I believe that 

Mr. Hill, immediately below, did not mean otherwise.) 

* See Petitioners Request for Dismissal of Pleadings, filed October 31, 2013. In this, see footnote 2 to 

Exhibit 1 (emphasis added): 

2 Petitioners only seek to withdraw their pleadings or portions of their pleadings on this list 

that pertain 

to PSI and Touch Tel and their FCC licenses (including any of their former licenses that have 

been 

assigned or transferred to third parties, as shown on FCC ULS) challenged by Petitioners. 

Petitioners are 

not here withdrawing any pleadings or portions of pleadings on this list that pertain to the 

following 

entities and their FCC licenses: Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC, Maritime 

Communications/Land Mobile LLC, Debtor-in-Possession, Mobex Network Services LLC, 

Mobex 

Communications, Inc., Regionet Wireless License LLC, or any of their predecessors, 

including but not 

limited to, Orion Telecom and Fred Daniels. 

Thank you, 

Warren Havens, for Petitioners 

From: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone@.fcc.qov> 

To: 'David Hili' <DHill@HallEstill.com>: "'W. Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, koma nd gridastaQir'" 

<warren. havens@sbcqlobal. net> 

Cc: Stanislava Kimball <Stanislava.Kimball@fcc.qov>: Jimmy Stobaugh <istobauqh@telesaurus.com> 

Sent: Thursday, Decembers, 2013 10:46 AM 

Subject: RE: Requestion for Dismissals: Petition for Reconsideration, Auction No. 61 (DA 05-1047) and Petition for 

Reconsideration, File Nos. 0002304206; 0002302768 

l 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 69 of 78 PageID: 5793
Will we be hearing anything from the Petitioners regarding whether they are withdrawing their Request for Dismissal of 

Pleadings with respect to their Request for Declaratory Ruling? 

From: David Hill fmailto:DHill@HallEstill.coml 

Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:46 AM 

To: Scot Stone; 'W. Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, koma nu gri6asta6ir' 

Cc: Stanislava Kimball; Jimmy Stobaugh 

Subject: RE: Requestion for Dismissals: Petition for Reconsideration, Auction No. 61 (DA 05-1047) and Petition for 

Reconsideration, File Nos. 0002304206; 0002302768 

Mr. Stone, 

PSI has no objection to the deletion of the Havens 2009 Petition for Declaratory Ruling from the list of pleadings to be dismissed. See 

Exhibit 1 to dismissal requests. Thus the Declaratory Ruling request would remain pending in its entirety. However, all other 

pleadings identified in Exhibit 1 are to be dismissed. 

Any questions, please let me know. 

David Hill 

From: Scot Stone [Scot.Stone@fcc.gov] 

Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 3:53 PM 

To: 'W. Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, koma nu gri3asta5ir'; David Hill 

Cc: Stanislava Kimball; Jimmy Stobaugh 

Subject: RE: Requestion for Dismissals: Petition for Reconsideration, Auction No. 61 (DA 05-1047) and Petition for 

Reconsideration, File Nos. 0002304206; 0002302768 

Gentlemen: 

I have discussed this with our Office of General Counsel, and the conclusion is that we cannot dismiss the Request for 

Declaratory Ruling solely with respect to PSI, because it requests a ruling of general applicability rather than one 

applicable only to specific facts, and any statement of what the law is would apply to PSI as much as to any other party. 

Consequently, we can dismiss the Request for Declaratory Ruling in its entirety or we can leave it pending in its 

entirety. We will not take any further action regarding the Request for Dismissal of Pleadings until you have an 

opportunity to advise us how you wish to proceed. 

Scot Stone 

Deputy Chief, Mobility Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

From: W. Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, koma nu gridastaSir fmailto:warren.havens@.sbcglobal.netl 

Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:43 PM 

To: Scot Stone 

Cc: Stanislava Kimball; David Hill; Jimmy Stobaugh 

Subject: Re: Requestion for Dismissals: Petition for Reconsideration, Auction No. 61 (DA 05-1047) and Petition for Reconsideration, 

File Nos. 0002304206; 0002302768 

Mr. Stone, 

FYI, as Mr. Stobaugh explains, this 2009 Decclaratory Ruling was filed with the Secretary's office. However, a copy was emailed to 

you. I recall discussing this with you soon after the filing to see if you had received the copy. I recall your noting that he had received 

it or were aware of it. 

To be clear, we do not seek dismissal of this as to the entities subject of the Dec Ruling request (parties in the cases in controversy 

presented) other than PSI and Touchtel (further explained below). That is reflected for the most part in our Oct 31, 2013 (signed by 

me) Request for Dismissal Pleadings, Exhibit 1, footnote 2: 

2 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 70 of 78 PageID: 5794
2. Petitioners only seek to withdraw their pleadings or portions of their pleadings on this list that pertain 

to PSI and Touch Tel and their FCC licenses (including any of their former licenses that have been 

assigned or transferred to third parties, as shown on FCC ULS) challenged by Petitioners. Petitioners are 

not here withdrawing any pleadings or portions of pleadings on this list that pertain to the following 

entities and their FCC licenses: Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC, Maritime 

Communications/Land Mobile LLC, Debtor-in-Possession, Mobex Network Services LLC, Mobex 

Communications, Inc., Regionet Wireless License LLC, or any of their predecessors, including but not 

limited to, Orion Telecom and Fred Daniels. 

As to this Dec Ruling request, and all other pleading listed in Exhibit 1: we do not seek dismissal except as the pleading applies to any 

parties but for PSI and Touchtel. Most of the other parties directly subject to some of the pleadings listed in Exhibit 1 are listed in the 

footnote 2 cited above. But in the case of this Dec Ruling, there is at least two other party, Radiolink and Randy Power. 

In addition, as to this is a Declaratory Ruling request, while it is based on the cases in controversy it presents (involving my 

companies, and others, in pending court cases based on FCC law involved in the Dec Ruling request), (i) these cases are still pending 

(the request is not moot), and (ii) the request poses issues that broadly apply ~ potentially to all common carriers and parties that may 

be damaged by a common carrier by violation of or under the Communications Act, and then seek relief in a USDC under 47 USC §§ 

206- 207, subject to any applicable preemption under 332. 

This, we do not want or Dec Ruling request that this request be dismissed, except as to the case in controversy posed regarding PSI 

and Touchel. It is among issues now before the Ninth Circuit court in our case involving Radiolink and Randy Powers (including that 

the court should seek that the FCC rule on issues in this Dec Ruling Request, whether by responding to this request, or otherwise). It 

is also among issues in our NJ USDC case reserved for a possible appeal the the Third Circuit. 

Please let me know if you have questions on the above. 

Thank you, 

Warren Havens 

From: Jimmy Stobaugh <istobaugh@,telesaurus.coni> 

To: Scot Stone <Scot.Stone@fcc.gov> 

Cc: Stanislava Kimball <Stanislava.Kimball@,fcc.gov>; Warren Havens <warren.havens@,sbcglobal.net>: David Hill 

<dhill@.hallestill.com> 

Sent: Friday, November 8, 2013 6:47 PM 

Subject: Re: Requestion for Dismissals: Petition for Reconsideration, Auction No. 61 (DA 05-1047) and Petition for Reconsideration, 

File Nos. 0002304206; 0002302768 

Mr. Stone, 

Attached is a copy of the declaratory ruling request that you have been unable to locate. As you will see, it was 

filed with the Secretary's Office in paper. The complete version with exhibits is over 500 pages. I am not 

attaching the exhibits hereto due to file size limitations of the FCC's email server. 

As for the 4 applications you list below, Mr. Hill can let you know if PSI will be keeping them pending. Within 

the Settlement Agreement, there is no obligation for PSI to cancel the license call signs subject of those 

applications. Those licenses are in the Southern California area in which Verde Systems LLC is assigning 

AMTS geographic B-block spectrum to Paging Systems. For your information, Mr. Havens's and our 

companies' challenges to File Nos. 0005335749 and 0004706991 are listed on Exhibit 1 of their Request for 

Dismissal, and they are not challenging the other two applications, File Nos. 0005641936 and 0005642018. 

Regards, 

Jimmy Stobaugh 

3 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 71 of 78 PageID: 5795
From: Scot Stone <Scot,Stone@fcc.gov> 

Date: Friday, November 8, 2013 2:20 PM 

To: "<'W. Havens>", "<Skybridge Spectrum Foundation>", Warren Havens <warren.havens@sbcglobal.net>. David Hill 

<dhill@hallestin.com> 

Cc: Jimmy <istobaugh@telesaurus.com>. Stanislava Kimball <Stanislava.Kimball@fcc.gov> 

Subject: RE: Requestion for Dismissals: Petition for Reconsideration, Auction No. 61 (DA 05-1047) and Petition for 

Reconsideration, File Nos. 0002304206; 0002302768 

Gentlemen: 

In going through our records, I'm having trouble locating this pleading: 

Declaratory Ruling Request October 14, 2009 

Petitioners filed a Request for 

Declaratory Ruling with the FCC 

concerning certain AMTS facts 

related to the California state case, 

Complaint No. CIV-463985 on 10/14/2009. 

Can you send me a copy so that I can figure out where it would be if we have it? If we don't have it, 1 will notify the 

parties to that effect and we won't need to dismiss it. 

Also, do I correctly understand that the following PS1 applications have intentionally been left pending with the 

expectation that they will be processed unopposed? 

0005335749 WHU919 PAGING SYSTEMS INC 0001546423 Renewal/Modification MC 08/02/2012 Pending 

0005641936 WHX782 Paging Systems, Inc. 0001546423 Renewal/Modification MC 02/11/2013 Pending 

0005642018 WHX281 Paging Systems, Inc. 0001546423 Renewal/Modification MC 02/11/2013 Pending 

0004706991 WHG660 Paging Systems, Inc. 0001546423 Renewal Only MC 04/27/2011 Pending 

Thanks. 

Scot Stone 

Deputy Chief, Mobility Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

From: W. Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, koma nu gri6asta5ir rmailto:warren.havens@sbcgIobal,netl 

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:47 AM 

To: Scot Stone; Jeff Tobias 

Cc: David Hill; Jimmy Stobaugh 

Subject: Re: Requestion for Dismissals: Petition for Reconsideration, Auction No. 61 (DA 05-1047) and Petition for Reconsideration, 

File Nos. 0002304206; 0002302768 

Post-filing informal note: 

The attached is same Exhibit 1 as in the filing transmitted by the immediately below email, but with some formatting, red underlining, 

added to make more clear what dates connect to what filings, etc. 

I will also file this attachment now under the lead File, No. 0001883916 for convenience. 

- W Havens 

From: "W. Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, koma nu gri3asta8ir" <warren.havens@sbcglobal.net> 

To: "scot.stone@fcc.gov" <scot.stone@fcc.gov>: "Jeff.Tobias@,fce.gov" <Jeff.Tobias@fcc.gov> 

Cc: David Hill <DHill@,HallEstill.com>: Jimmy Stobaugh <istobaugh@.telesaurus.com> 

Sent: Friday, November 1, 2013 10:55 PM 

4 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 72 of 78 PageID: 5796
Subject: Re: Requestion for Dismissals: Petition for Reconsideration, Auction No. 61 (DA 05-1047) and Petition for Reconsideration, 

File Nos. 0002304206; 0002302768 

Mr. Stone and Mr. Tobias, 

Attached is a Request for Dismiss of Pleadings, with a certification, under §1.935, by myself and my companies, listed below. 

I also attach the ULS confirmation of this Request filing which lists the File Numbers and Call Signs under which this Request was 

submitted. 

This Request is the 'companion' or 'matching' § 1.935 pleading and certification to those sent to you below by Mr. Hill for PSI and 

Touchtel. 

Erratum: On pages 3 and 8, under the same par. '(1) (b)', in the phrase "...and related to the concurrent...", a comma should be 

inserted after the word "to". 

- To make that one-character change and file again on ULS would mean entering again a few hundred File Numbers and Call Signs, 

and would complicate the record. 

- Thus, I request that you accept this Errata by this email. 

- In addition, by a copy of this email, filed as a pleading, I will place this Errata under the lead File Number in Exhibit 1 of the 

attached filing, File No. 0001883916. 

If you have any questions, please let me know and cc Mr. Stobaugh and Mr. Hill. 

Respectfully, 

/s/ 

Warren Havens 

President - Skybridge Spectrum Foundation | ATLIS Wireless LLC | V2G LLC | Environmentel LLC | Verde Systems 

LLC | Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC | Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC | Berkeley California | 510 841 

2220 | 510 848 7797 -direct | 

From: David Hill <DHill@.HallEstill.com> 

To: "scot.stone@fcc.gov" <scot.stone@.fcc.gov>:"Jeff.Tobias@,fcc.gov" <Jeff.Tobias@,fcc.gov> 

Cc: "W. Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, koma nu gri5asta3ir" <warren.havens@,sbcglobal.net>: Jimmy Stobaugh 

<istobaugh@,telesaurus.com> 

Sent: Friday, November 1, 2013 9:28 AM 

Subject: Requestion for Dismissals: Petition for Reconsideration, Auction No. 61 (DA 05-1047) and Petition for Reconsideration, 

File Nos. 0002304206; 0002302768 

Gentlemen: 

These Requests for Dismissal of Petitions for Reconsideration were filed with the FCC today. The Auction No. 

61 Request for Dismissal was filed through the FCC Secretary's Office because it did not have a file number. 

If there are any questions, please let us know. 

Thank you. 

I 

2000 M Street, NW 

Suite 520 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

P:(202)973-1210; F:(202) 973-1212 

5 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 73 of 78 PageID: 5797
EXHIBIT 12 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 74 of 78 PageID: 5798
Federal Communications Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

December 6, 2013 

Warren C. Havens 

2509 Stuart Street 

Berkeley, CA 94705 

Audrey P. Rasmussen 

David Hill 

Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C. 

2000 M Street, NW 

Suite 520, North Building 

Washington, DC 20036-3406 

Re: Request for Withdrawal and Dismissal of Pleadings 

Dear Ms. Rasmussen and Messrs. Havens and Hill: 

This letter addresses requests filed by Warren Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Verde 

Systems LLC, Environmentel LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Telesauras 

Holdings GB LLC, EnvironmenteI-2 LLC, V2G LLC, and ATLIS Wireless LLC (collectively "Havens 

Petitioners") and Paging Systems Inc. (PSI) and TouchTel Corp. (TT) (collectively "PSI-TT") for the 

dismissal of numerous pending pleadings. For the reasons set forth herein, we grant the requests as set 

forth below. 

Since 2006, the Havens Petitioners' have filed pleadings challenging various PSI-TT licenses and 

applications, and PSI-TT filed pleadings seeking review of actions taken in Auction No. 61 that resulted 

in the grant of licenses to Havens Petitioners. On November 1, 2013, the Havens Petitioners filed a 

Request for Dismissal of Pleadings2 and PSI-TT filed requests to withdraw their pending pleadings 

relating to Auction No. 61,3 pursuant to Section 1.935(a) of the Commission's Rules.4 

The Havens Petitioners and PSI-TT explain that they seek to withdraw their pleadings because 

they have entered into an agreement to settle their disputes pending before the Commission and in federal 

1 Some pleadings were filed by subsets of the Havens Petitioners and/or by additional Havens-affiliated entities. 

2 Request for Dismissal of Pleadings (filed Nov. 1,2013, errata versions filed Nov. 1 and 2, 2013, amended Dec. 5, 

2013) (Havens Request). The pleadings are listed in Exhibit 1 of the Havens Request; See Havens Request, Exhibit 

1. 

3 Request for Dismissal of Petition for Reconsideration (filed Nov. 1, 2013) (PSI-TTDA 06-1581 Request); Request 

for Dismissal of Petition for Reconsideration, First and Second Supplements and Requests for Leave to File 

Supplements to Petition for Reconsideration (filed Nov. 1, 2013) (PSI-TT DA 10-1242 Request). The PSI-TT DA 

10-1242 Request specifically seeks dismissal of (1) Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 23, 2005), (2) First and 

Second Supplements (filed Aug. 26, 2005), and (3) Requests for Leave to File Supplements to Petition for 

Reconsideration (filed June 16, 2006). These pleadings have been denied and/or dismissed, and thus are no longer 

pending. See Paging Systems, Inc., Order on Reconsideration, DA 10-1242, 25 FCC Red 8476, 8482 f][ 19-20 

(WTB 2010). On July 30, 2010, PSI filed an Application for Review of that action. Therefore, we will treat the 

PSI-TT DA 10-1242 Request as a request for dismissal of the June 30, 2010 Application for Review. 

4 47 C.F.R. § 1.935(a). 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 75 of 78 PageID: 5799
Warren C. Havens, Audrey P. Rasmussen, & David Hill Pago 2 

court.5 The requests include sworn declarations under penalty of perjury certifying that neither the 

Havens Petitioners, PSI, IT, nor their principals have received or will receive any money or consideration 

other than the mutual promises spelled out in the Settlement Agreement.6 

We have reviewed the requests and find that they raise no substantial or material question of fact 

under Section 309(d) of the Communications Act, as amended.' We also find that the requests comply 

with Section 1.935. Accordingly, we grant the requests and dismiss with prejudice the following 

pleadings and all related pleadings:8 

Pleadings filed by PSI and/or TT: 

-Petition for Reconsideration of DA 06-1581, (filed Septembers, 2006), File Nos, 0002304206, 

0002302769 

-Application for Review of DA 10-1242, (filed July 30,2010), Auction 61 

Pleadings filed by Havens Petitioners: 

-Application for Review (filed June 23, 2006), File No. 0001883916, Auction 57 

-Application for Review (filed April 9, 2007), File No. 0002296956, Auction 61 

-Application for Review (filed April 9, 2007), File No. 0002257822, Call Sign WHG545 

-Petition for Reconsideration (filed November 13, 2009), File No. 0003981232, Call Signs WPVE245-

253, WPVE255-265, WPVE271 -280, WPVE282-291, WPZG955-967 

3 See Havens Request at 2; PSI-TT DA 06-1581 Request at 2; PSI-TT DA 10-1242 Request at 2. 

"" Hayens Request at 3-4 and 12 (Certification of Warren Havens); PSI-TT DA 06-1581 Request at 4-5 (Certification 

of Susan Cooper, President, Paging Systems, Inc. and Certification of Robert Cooper, President, Touch Tel Corp.); 

PSI-TT DA 10-1242 Request at 4-5 (Certification of Susan Cooper, President, Paging Systems, Inc. and 

Certification of Robert Cooper, President, Touch Tel Corp.) Warren Havens's certification further states that the 

material consideration in the Settlement Agreement is "(i) the cancellation of certain PSI single-site Automated 

Maritime Telecommunications System ("AMTS") licenses, and (ii) the exchange of two geographic licenses from 

PSI for a portioned geographic licenses of a Petitioner in the Los Angeles market as described in FCC File Nos. 

0005733853; 0005735519; and 0005735519; and (iii) . . . the dismissal of the court case in the New Jersey US 

District Court . . . Havens Request at 12. Susan Cooper's and Robert Cooper's certifications further state that the 

material consideration in the Settlement Agreement is "the cancellation of single site Automated Maritime 

Telecommunications System ("AMTS") licenses and the exchange of two geographic licenses from PSI for a 

partitioned geographic license in the Los Angeles market as described in FCC File Nos. 0005733853; 0005735474; 

and 0005735519." PSI-TT DA 06-1581 Request at 3 and 4; PSI-TT DA 10-1242 Request at 3 and 4. 

7 47 U.S.C. § 309(d). 

8 The Havens Petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of Grant of Application File No. 0004768230 and Petitions to 

Deny Applications FCC File Nos. 0004723267, 0004723799, 0004737618, 0004744089, 0004746159, and 

0004902761 were dismissed as moot in a separate action. .See Letter dated November 12, 2013 from Scot Stone, 

Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Warren C. Havens. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 76 of 78 PageID: 5800
Warren C. Havens, Audrey P. Rasmussen, & David Hill Page 3 

-Petition for Reconsideration (filed December 16,2009), File Nos. 0002647326, 0003872179, 

0004009815, 0004009827, and 0004009834, Call Signs WHT743, WNEK514, WNTF895 

-Application for Review (filed November 22, 2010), File Nos. 0002835860, 0003346539-0003346549, 

0003377812-0003377814, 0003377819, 0003377822, 0003483180-0003483382, 0003545554, 

0003795661, 0004259981-0004259986, Call Signs WNUB735, KNKJ881, KNKL530, KNKM280, 

KNKM298-300, KNKM302, KNKM304, KNKM379, KNKM636, KPE202, KMD992, KNKG608, 

KNKD868, KNKI684, KNKJ532, KNGF892, KNGT867, WPDD838, WPDH829, KNLM677, 

WPQM994-999 

-Petition for Reconsideration (filed November 22, 2010), File Nos. 0002835860,0003346539-

0003346549, 0003377812-0003377814, 0003377819, 0003377822, 0003483180-0003483182, 

0003545554, 0003795661, 0004259981-0004259986, Call Signs WNUB735, KNKJS81, KNKL530, 

KNKM2S0, KNTKM298-300,1^^302, KNKM304, KNKM379, KNKM636, KPE202, KMD992, 

KNKG608, KNKD868, KNKI684, KNKJ532, KNGF892, KNGT867, WPDD838, WPDH829, 

KNLM677, WPQM994-999 

-Petition to Deny (filed April 8, 2011), File Nos. 0004635534, 0004641181, Call Sign WQA216, 

WQA220 

-Petition to Deny (filed May 6, 2011), File Nos. 0004668319, 0004679018, 0004687200, Call Signs, 

WQA221, WQA222, WQA227 

-Petition to Deny (filed May 27, 2011), File No. 0004697887, Call Sign. WHD866 

-Petition to Deny (filed June 3,2011), File No. 0004706991, Call Sign WHG660 

-Application for Review (filed January 9,2012), File Nos. 0002925303, 0002925304, 0004439316, 

0004445768, Call Signs WPKC922-923, WNGR945, WNGM656 

-Petition for Reconsideration (filed January 9, 2012), File Nos. 0004573759,0004573760, 0004726756, 

Call Signs WNTF429 and WCP885 

-Petition to Deny (filed March 9, 2012), File No. 0005059114, Call Sign WNTF429 

-Application for Review (filed May 16, 2012), File No. 0004687226, Call Sign WNTA626 

-Petition for Reconsideration (filed August 15, 2012), Call Signs WQA216, WQA221, WQA227, 

VVQA212, KYW912, WHV8269 

-Petition to Deny (filed September 7, 2012), File No. 0005335749, Call Sign WHU919 

-Informal Request (filed September 12, 2012), Call Sign WHX782 

-Application for Review (filed February 25, 2013), File Nos. 0004757182, 0005068796, 0004800336, 

0004825560, Call Signs WQMF673, WPDD838, WPSZ434 

9 This pleading is dismissed only in part. It remains pending with respect to Call Sign WRV374, 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 77 of 78 PageID: 5801
Warren C. Havens, Audrey P. Rasmussen, & David Hill Page 4 

-Petition for Reconsideration (filed July 15, 2013), Call Signs KCE394, KTD434, KYW912, KZV690, 

WHD866, WHD878, WHG545, WHU559, WHV362, WHW244, WHW296, WHW396, WHW826. 

WHW830, WQA207, WQA212, WQA216, WQA220, WQA221, WQA222, WQA227, WQA231, 

WXY985, WXZ40710 

We also dismiss in part as moot the Havens Petitioners' Informal Request (filed September 6, 

2012), Call Sign KYW91.2, due to the fact that PSFs request to cancel its license for Station KY W912 

was granted on August?, 2013." 

Accordingly, FF IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.331 and 1.935 of the Commission's Rules, 

47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331, 1.935, that the Request for Dismissal Of Pleadings, filed on November 1, 2013 by 

Warren Havens, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Verde Systems LLC, Environmentei LLC, Intelligent 

Transportation & Monitori ng Wireless LLC Telcsaurus Holdings GB LLC, Envir0nmentel-2 LLC, V2G 

LLC, and ATLIS Wireless LLC; the Request for Dismissal of Petition for Reconsideration filed on 

November 1, 2013 by Paging Systems Inc. and Touch Tel Corp.; and the Request for Dismissal of 

Petition for Reconsideration, First and Second Supplements, and Requests for Leave to File Supplements 

to Petition for Reconsideration filed on November 1, 2013, by Paging Systems, Inc. and Touch Tel Corp., 

ARE GRANTED and the subject pleadings ARE DISMISSED as set forth above. 

cc: Dennis Brown 

8124 Cooke Court, Suite 201 

Manassas, VA 20109-7406 

'""This pleading is dismissed only in part. It remains pending with respect to licenses held by Maritime 

Communications/Land Mobile LLC. 

This pleading remains pending with respect to Call Sign WRV374. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

/ / 0 / 

Deputy Chief, Mobility Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

(f-cr-john Schauble 

Deputy Chief, Broadband Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

Deputy Chief, Auction and Spectrum Access Division 

Wi reless Telecommunications Bureau 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 203-5 Filed 03/14/14 Page 78 of 78 PageID: 5802