Squire et al v. Federal Communications Commission
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus (ECF No. 6 ). Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 1/23/2012. (S,L)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
PERCY SQUIRE, et al.,
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CASE NO. 4:11CV1437
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
[Resolving ECF No. 6]
This action is before the Court upon Respondent the Federal Communications
Commission’s (“FCC”) Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus (ECF No. 6). The
Court has reviewed the memorandum in support (ECF No. 6-1), memorandum in opposition
(ECF No. 8), and reply memorandum (ECF No. 9). For the reasons that follow, the Motion to
Dismiss is granted.
The Media Bureau entered an order granting applications to assign radio broadcast station
licenses. On July 13, 2011, Percy Squire, Esq. filed a Verified Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
(ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) on behalf of himself and Percy
Squire Co., LLC.1 The petition seeks an order from this Court to compel the FCC “to discharge
its statutory and regulatory mandate by 1) taking action on Petitioners’ long pending Application
for FCC Review of the Media Bureau’s approval of the application to transfer the radio licenses”
of several radio broadcast stations and 2) “to determine whether the public interest would be
served by revoking the previous authorization to transfer the stations. . . .” ECF No. 1 at 1.
Respondent moves the Court to dismiss the Verified Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
(ECF No. 1) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Petitioners have made clear that they are challenging an allegedly unreasonable delay by the FCC
in acting on Petitioners’ Application for FCC Review involving the transfer of control of five
broadcast radio station licenses. See ECF No. 8 at 2 (“The FCC has permitted Petitioner’s
application for review to lie dormant for over five years.”).
The Court holds that this Court has no jurisdiction to review a challenge to an FCC action
concerning radio licensing activities. 47 U.S.C. § 402(b) commits exclusive jurisdiction to
review FCC radio licensing actions to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. The D.C. Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction encompasses “jurisdiction over ‘any suit
seeking relief that might affect’ its future statutory power of review.” La Voz Radio de la
On November 3, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court indefinitely suspended the law
license of Mr. Squire for professional misconduct in his dealings with multiple clients.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Squire, 958 N.E.2d 914 (2011). On January 10, 2012, this Court
suspended Mr. Squire from the right to practice law in the Northern District of Ohio for
an interim period. Attorney Disciplinary Order No. 2012-1.
A limited liability company (“LLC”) cannot appear in court through a principal of
the LLC or an appointed agent not admitted to the practice of law. Gass v. Headlands
Contracting & Tunneling, Inc., No. 2008-G-2841, 2008 WL 4964656 (Ohio App. 11th
Dist. Nov. 21, 2008).
Communidad v. FCC, 223 F.3d 313, 318 (6th Cir. 2000), quoting Telecommunications Research
& Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 75 (D.C. Cir. 1984). See also George Kabeller, Inc. v.
Busey, 999 F.2d 1417, 1421-22 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that when ultimate authority to review
an action lies in the court of appeals, any unreasonable delay claim relating to the court’s
prospective jurisdiction also lies in the court of appeals). Therefore, Respondent is entitled to an
order dismissing the Verified Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (ECF No. 1) in the within action.
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus (ECF No. 6) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 26, 2012
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?