- On July 24, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania largely denied Sprint Nextel’s motion to dismiss the complaint that CLEC Line Systems, Inc. brought against it for the collection of unpaid access charges for the termination of interstate and intrastate interMTA traffic from Sprint’s customers. The court agreed with Sprint that Line Systems’ claims for violations of Sections 201 and 203 of the Communications Act were not well pled, but gave Line Systems a chance to repair the defective Section 201 claim in an amended complaint. The court rejected Sprint’s broader arguments that it should not face this suit as a matter of law on the ground that (1) Line Systems does not provide “exchange access” for this traffic under section 251(g) of the Act, or (2) Sprint is not an interexchange carrier by virtue of not billing customers expressly for interexchange services. The court noted that “Sprint apparently believes that its status as an ‘interexchange carrier’ depends on whether it charges its customers a separate fee for long distance calls. I reject this argument….” It also held that Sprint’s interMTA calls are subject to tariffed access charges. Line Systems, Inc. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 11-6527 (E.D. Pa.).
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
In the courts
- Arent Fox LLP
- Ross A. Buntrock , Jonathan E. Canis , Michael B. Hazzard , Stephanie A. Joyce and Adam D. Bowser
- July 30 2012
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at email@example.com.
“The Lexology newsfeed is very relevant to my practice and I like that you can tailor the newsfeed to include specific practice areas. I enjoy seeing a variety of approaches and I will read multiple articles on the...
“The Lexology newsfeed is very relevant to my practice and I like that you can tailor the newsfeed to include specific practice areas. I enjoy seeing a variety of approaches and I will read multiple articles on the same topic for the purpose of getting the fullest understanding of a new law, a court case or other legal development.”
Audrey E Mross
Labor & Employment Attorney
Munck Carter LLP