• 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.).