Lumen, AT&T Agree to Settle Their Unpaid-Invoices Suit, Counterclaims

Lumen and AT&T reached an agreement to resolve all claims asserted by the parties in their case, said their joint notice of settlement Friday (docket 1:22-cv-02206) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver. Their motion asks the court to vacate their June 20 scheduling conference and to stay all discovery deadlines.

Lumen sued AT&T Aug. 26 for its “unlawful and ongoing refusal” to pay Lumen for telecom services Lumen has provided AT&T since April 2022. The month-to-month market rates thatLumen charges AT&T under its interstate service guides (ISGs) are lower than the month-to-month rates AT&T charges wholesale customers for similar month-to-month services, said Lumen’s complaint.

The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that AT&T must pay the invoiced amounts, “consistent with AT&T’s obligations under the ISGs, plus penalties for late payment.” Lumen also sought damages for AT&T’s refusal to pay for the services Lumen provided. AT&T countersued Lumen Oct. 17, alleging in its counterclaims that Lumen breached its contract with AT&T by billing AT&T “at rates higher than those the contract requires AT&T to pay.” AT&T’s countersuit asserted it “properly disputed and withheld amounts” Lumen wasn’t entitled to bill.

After Lumen brought the Aug. 26 action to collect the amounts that AT&T withheld, it also subsequently threatened to disconnect “more than 20,000 circuits that serve customers in 19 states,” unless AT&T paid in full the amounts that Lumen claimed as damages, said the countersuit. AT&T sought a preliminary injunction “to prevent Lumen from using its disconnection threat to leverage the irreparable harms to AT&T and immediate harms to the public to force AT&T to pay more than the contract requires it to pay.”

The terms of the settlement “call for certain actions to take place before the parties dismiss their claims and counterclaims with prejudice,” said their joint settlement notice. The parties anticipate those actions will occur within 90 days, it said. The parties then will either file a stipulation to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, or a status report advising the court of the status of the resolution, it said.

Good cause exists for the parties to ask the court to vacate the June 20 scheduling conference and to stay all discovery deadlines, said the notice. Requiring the parties to proceed with the conference and discovery in light of the settlement “would pose an undue burden” on the court, and would require the parties “to expend unnecessary costs,” it said.