That Arkansas' Video Service Act doesn't expressly bar municipalities from bringing claims doesn't mean it confers a right for municipalities to do so, an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said Tuesday, upholding a lower court's dismissal of the city of Ashdown's suit seeking video service provider franchise fees from Netflix and Hulu. Judges Steven Colloton, Roger Wollman and David Stras, in a docket 21-3435 opinion inked by Wollman, said it's the state Public Service Commission's right and duty under the VSA to bring a claim. Read as a whole, the VSA's aim is establishing and regulating a statewide franchising system, and recognizing Ashdown's right of action would circumvent that intent, the judges said. Oral argument was in September (see 2209200046).
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen Mix for Colorado in a minute order Wednesday (docket 1:21-cv-03004) said plaintiffs and defendants in Qwest v. Peerless Network must “make a showing in writing” by Nov. 10 explaining why “private mediation is not feasible under the circumstances of this case.” At issue in her order is the plaintiffs’ Sept. 7 motion to stay the case and refer the outstanding complex and technical issues in the proceeding to the FCC (see 2210200050). Failure to respond by the Nov. 10 deadline will result in the denial of the motion, she said. The case involves negotiated interconnect agreements and the access tariffs associated with them. Qwest, Level 3 and Global Crossing sued Peerless affiliates in eight states in November alleging that they engaged in a scheme of avoiding mandatory switched access charges, thereby giving them an unfair competitive advantage in the toll-free marketplace. The defendants countersued in March alleging the companies used unfair and unsupported billing methods, to the detriment of the Peerless affiliates.
The disputes between CenturyLink Communications as the “successor” plaintiff to Qwest, Level 3, WilTel and Global Crossing and defendant Peerless Network “have been long-standing and continue to evolve,” said Centurylink in a motion for partial summary judgment Friday (docket 1:18-cv-03114) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The case dates to a May 2018 complaint in which Peerless and its affiliates were accused of “systematic overcharging” for contracted and tariffed services. CenturyLink and the other named plaintiffs “have relationships with thousands of telecommunications carriers, and Peerless generates more disputes than any other carrier by an order of magnitude,” said the motion. “Even as this action has been ongoing, Plaintiffs were forced to file another lawsuit in Colorado against Peerless on entirely different claims,” it said. The motion seeks reimbursement of the funds already paid to Peerless, plus credits for the amounts previously withheld from Peerless. On the tariff-based claims at issue in the complaint, CenturyLink also seeks a declaratory ruling that Peerless can no longer assess those charges.
Issues central to the case involving defendant Peerless Network in its legal fight with plaintiffs Qwest, Level 3 and Global Crossing should be referred to the FCC “under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,” said the plaintiffs in a legal brief Thursday (docket 1:21-cv-03004) in U.S. District Court for Colorado. The case was moved last week into a proceeding under a magistrate judge for alternative dispute resolution (see 2210130069).
Northern Valley Communications and the FCC filed a joint stipulation with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to dismiss the company's appeal of an FCC order requiring Northern Valley to remove its tariff revisions and submit new revisions (see 2006110072). Both sides will cover the costs and fees of the appeal, they said Friday.
U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico in Denver signed an order Thursday granting the unopposed motion of defendant Peerless Network in its legal fight with Qwest, Level 3 Communications and Global Crossing to stay the case and move the proceeding before Magistrate Judge Kristen Mix in Denver for alternative dispute resolution. The ADR process ultimately “will help facilitate settlement and/or resolution of this matter while avoiding the potentially significant delay and cost associated with further litigation or a referral to the FCC,” said Peerless’ Oct. 7 motion (docket 1:21-cv-03004). The case involves negotiated interconnect agreements and the access tariffs associated with them. Qwest, Level 3 and Global Crossing sued Peerless affiliates in eight states in November, alleging among other accusations that they engaged in a scheme of avoiding mandatory switched access charges, thereby giving them an unfair competitive advantage in the toll-free marketplace. The defendants countersued in March alleging the companies used unfair and unsupported billing methods, plus other accusations.