Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 1 of 47

FILED by f?.G$" D.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.

OCT 14 2009
STEVEN M. LARiMORE CLERK U.S. DiST. CT. S. D. of FlA. -MIAMI
II!:JI(GI:!IIIO.>=.n.ui&Dftlr. ·p 'm:!?'!MI'I!'O"' !:t?tt7r'in"ll:

MILLICORP, a Florida corporation, d/b/a ConsCallHome.com,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Texas corporation; T-NETIX TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., a Texas corporation; EVERCOM SYSTEMS, INC. a Texas corporation; jointly and severally,

JTORRES

Defendants.
I

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Millicorp, d/b/a ConsCallHome.com, by and through undersigned

counsel, sues Global Tel*Link Corporation; Securus Technologies, Inc.; T-·Netix

Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. (hereinafter

collectively as "Defendants"), and alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages arising out of Defendants' violations of

the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 2 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
amended, 47 U.S.C. §201 et. seq. ("Telecommunications Act"), Defendants' common law tortious interference with Plaintiff's advantageous business relationships, civil conspiracy to commit tortious interference, and Defendants' violations of various state Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts I Consumer Protection Acts including Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"). This is also an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under various state Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts I Consumer Protection Acts including FDUTPA. This court has subject matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1332 and 1367(a), and 47 U.S.C. §207. There is a complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because the Defendants transact business in this judicial district and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in this district.
THE PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Millicorp ("Millicorp"), d/b/a ConsCallHome.com, is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Myers, Florida.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 3 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel* Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
4. Defendant Global Tel *Link Corporation ("GTL") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mobile, Alabama. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over GTL because GTL conducts substantial business activity within the state of Florida and carries on its business within the state of Florida. GTL provides telecommunications services in Florida and throughout the United States.
5. Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. ("Securus") is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over Secun1s because Securus conducts substantial business activity within the state of Florida and carries on its business within the state of Florida. Securus, through its operating companies, provides telecommunications services in Florida and throughout the United States.
6. Defendant T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. ("T-Netix") is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over T-Netix because T-Netix conducts substantial business activity within the state of Florida and carries on its business within the state of Florida. T-Netix provides telecommunications services in Florida and throughout the United States.
3

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 4 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel* Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
7. Defendant Evercom Systems, Inc. ("Evercom") is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over Evercom because Evercom conducts substantial business activity within the state of Florida and carries on its business within the state of Florida. Evercom provides telecommunications services in Florida and throughout the United States.
8. Securus is a holding company which owns 100% of its operating companies, T-Netix and Evercom. T-Netix and Evercom each hold certifications as telecommunications carriers throughout the United States. T-Netix and Evercom conduct business through a division known as Correctional Billing Services.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 9. Millicorp is a nationwide interconnected voice over internet protocol ("VOIP") provider based in Fort Myers, Florida. It is registered with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") (FRN 0018930511 ). VOIP is an internet application typically used to transmit voice communications over a broadband internet connection, rather than traditional landlines. Millicorp provides a range of VOIP services, including services for small/medium-size businesses such as IP-
4

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 5 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
based fax services under the "Millifax" brand and online PBX offerings under the "Millitalk" brand, as well as its current most popular offering and the subject of this Complaint, a VOIP offering designed to serve the needs of the friends and families of correctional facility inmates, known as ConsCallHome ("CCH"). Millicorp currently provides its services in 47 states, including but not limited to Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina.
10. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL provide inmate phone service ("IPS") via payphones located primarily in state and local confinement facilities throughout the United States, including within this judicial district. Securus, through T-Netix and Evercom (hereinafter at times collectively referred to as "Securus"), and GTL are the two dominant IPS providers in this country, having approximately 70-80% of the IPS contracts to serve state and local confinement facilities in the United States. IPS providers must comply with all state and federal regulations applicable to telecommunications common carriers, as well as meet the penological and security needs of the correctional facilities that they serve.
11. As IPS providers, Securus and GTL provide two basic different inmate services - local collect or prepaid call service and long distance collect or
5

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 6 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
prepaid call service. GTL and Securus provide these services pursuant to a contract with an inmate confinement facility. These contracts require GTL and Securus to deploy equipment inside prison walls that gives the inmate confinement facilities' employees the ability to monitor or record any call made by an inmate, as well as the ability to add or delete phone numbers on a daily basis from the phone numbers that each inmate is permitted to call.
12. These contracts also typically require Securus and GTL to pay the inmate confinement facility a percentage of their billed IPS service gross revenues, as much as sixty percent (60%) in some cases. The prices that Securus and GTL charge friends and family of inmates who use their IPS services are extraordinarily high as the result of commissions paid to confinement facilities. IPS providers such as Securus and GTL charge an average of $3.95 per call for the local set-up and service and an average of $.90 per minute for long distance services.
13. Millicorp offers friends and family members of inmates a more economical alternative. Through its CCH service offering, Millicorp provides a legitimate, secure, and very popular technological solution to Securus' and GTL's high prices.
6

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 7 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation. et al. Complaint
14. Millicorp's interconnected VOIP CCH service offering uses IP-based technology and infrastructure, similar to that provided by other interconnected VOIP providers, such as Vonage, Google Voice, Magic Jack, and Skype, and provides the friends and family of inmates with reliable and secure services with significant savings. Millicorp provides its CCH customers with a telephone number local to the same local exchange rate center as the relevant confinement facility and routes the call to the CCH customers' designated location via its IPbased network. The calls that Millicorp's CCH customers receive from inmates are at telephone numbers assigned to these customers as a part of the CCH service offering. The inmate confinement facility, through the IPS payphone provider, pre-approves all telephone numbers submitted for an inmate's calling list, including the customer's name and billing address, and has the ability to monitor and record all calls to Millicorp' s CCH customers.
15. Millicorp's CCH service does not allow CCH customers to receive collect call service from any IPS provider serving an inmate confinement facility. Instead, Millicorp's CCH service provides pre-paid interconnected VOIP service to its CCH customers through the local dial number in the community where the inmate with whom that customer wants to communicate is incarcerated. Millicorp
7

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 8 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
recovers all of its costs for the service in the price it charges its customers for its service, and the Millicorp CCH customer must have a separate pre-paid account with the selected IPS provider, such as Securus or GTL, to cover the local call charges assessed for the call by the inmate payphone provider as required by the applicable confinement facility.
16. Securus and GTL realize that Millicorp is a legitimate business competitor offering alternative services to families and loved ones of inmates at reduced rates, as do other legitimate VOIP providers such as Vonage and Google Voice. As a consequence of Millicorp's CCH service offering, Securus and GTL do not receive long distance call revenues for the local calls made to Millicorp' s CCH customers. Thus Securus and GTL desire to eliminate Millicorp and its CCH service offering from the marketplace as a competitor.
17. In late 2008, Securus and GTL began to program their inmate payphone equipment located inside confinement facility walls to block Millicorp' s services by rejecting calls to the local phone numbers that Millicorp had assigned to its CCH customers. Securus and GTL also have directed their representatives to not permit calls to customers served by Millicorp' s CCH service offering due to Millicorp's use of telephone numbers local to the prison or jail at issue. Securus
8

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 9 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
and GTL block calls to all Millicorp's CCH customers if the particular CCH customer's telephone number assigned by Millicorp for its service does not correspond with a rate center in the same location as the customer's billing address, or if the Securus or GTL representative learn that ConsCallHome is the provider of the customer's telephone number. Securus and GTL have engaged in these actions in numerous states, including but not limited to, Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina.
18. Initially, Securus and GTL blocked service to only a few of Millicorp's CCH customers, but soon began blocking service to the majority of the CCH customers, including some who were long-term customers in good standing. By the beginning of 2009, GTL blocked service to nearly all Millicorp customers who subscribe to Millicorp's interconnected VOIP offering, and Securus has now reached the same level of blocking ofMillicorp customers as GTL as of July 2009. Since December 1, 2008, Millicorp has actually lost a minimum of 4,000 customers due to blocking by Securus and GTL. Many of these customer losses appear to be Millicorp CCH customers that were targeted specifically by GTL and Securus due to the customer's historically high monthly usage of his or her Millicorp CCH telephone number. As a direct result of blocking of calls to
9

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 10 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
Millicorp' s CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (SOo/o-70%) average monthly revenue loss, as well as significant damage to Millicorp' s reputation and loss of goodwill. Securus and GTL have engaged in these actions in numerous states, including but not limited to, Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina.
19. Securus' and GTL's purported justification for the blocking of calls based on security concerns has no merit. No legitimate security issues exist with regard to Millicorp's service. Securus and GTL have all of the information (or the ability to request from Millicorp or its customer) needed to maintain security of communications from inmates to Millicorp's customers.
20. Inmate confinement facilities also have the complete and unhindered ability to monitor all calls to Millicorp customers and to regulate the recipients of all inmate calls to Millicorp customers. Each phone number that an inmate desires to call must be pre-approved by the inmate confinement facility before the IPS provider programs the inmate phone system to accept calls placed to that number. In most cases, an inmate desiring to include a new number on the inmate's call list must supply certain information to the inmate's counselor, including the address
10

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 11 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
where the number rings and the name of the person to whom the number at that address is registered. The inmate confinement facility is authorized to delay adding the new number to the inmate's call list until after it confirms that the number rings at the location reported by the inmate, and that no one at that address is in any of the categories of people to whom calls are barred, such as judges or prosecuting attorneys.
21. Securus and GTL have further sought to justify call blocking on grounds that Millicorp provides its services to its customers in a manner that violates inmate confinement facility security requirements because Securus allegedly does not know the identities of the Millicorp customers and therefore the calls are "not traceable". As a result, GTL and Securus claim that the inmate confinement facility cannot properly screen the Millicorp customer before an inmate calls from a confinement facility to a Millicorp customer. GTL and Securus have made these representations as it pertains to all of its facilities including, but not limited to, Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina.
22. This claim of an inability to identify Millicorp customers or Millicorp itself could not be further from the truth. In addition to providing Securus, GTL
11

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 12 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
and the relevant inmate confinement facility with the Millicorp customer's local phone number, Millicorp's customers are required by Securus and GTL to provide the full billing name and address of Millicorp's customer, as well as the name of their local service provider, such as Millicorp/ConsCallHome. All parties therefore know the precise identity of the Millicorp CCH customer and Millicorp as the local service provider, as the Millicorp customer must also setup an account with Securus or GTL to use the local number provided with Millicorp's service. This fact is verified by Securus' and GTL' s own conduct because Securus and GTL representatives are asking for the name of the local provider and are blocking calls when the customer identifies his or her local provider as ConsCallHome. Securus and GTL have clearly instructed their representatives to simply block most, if not all, calls from Millicorp's CCH customers. GTL and Securus have made these representations and engaged in these actions in numerous states, including but not limited to Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina. This conduct has damaged Millicorp.
23. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been met, satisfied or otherwise been waived.
12

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 13 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
24. As a consequence of Securus' and GTL's conduct, Millicorp has been forced to retain undersigned counsel to protect its rights and seek the remedies alleged herein. Millicorp has agreed to pay undersigned counsel a reasonable fee for their services.
COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
47 u.s.c. §201
25. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
26. This is a claim for damages against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 as a consequence of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL violating 47 U.S.C. §201.
27. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL do not have the legal authority to block calls to Millicorp customers. It is the intent of Congress as manifested in Title 47 United States Code, and is now the policy of the FCC, to encourage competition as a matter of policy under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. By blocking calls to Millicorp's customers, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are engaging in unlawful conduct to stop such competition. This unlawful conduct
13

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 14 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
has occurred m vanous states, including but not limited to Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina.
28. 47 U.S.C. §201(a) states in pertinent part: (a) It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; .... 29. The blocking of telephone calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's customers violates 47 U.S.C. §201(a) because by blocking Millicorp's calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL, as telecommunications common carriers, have failed to provide their common carrier payphone service upon reasonable request of Millicorp through its customers. 30. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged m a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers. Such a practice directly conflicts with the common carrier obligations of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under 47 U.S.C. §201 (a) to " ... furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor... ". Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have systematically and routinely denied service to Millicorp and its CCH customers when presented with
14

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 15 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
Millicorp CCH telephone numbers in confinement facilities where Securus, TNetix, Evercom or GTL provide inmate payphone services. This unlawful conduct has occurred in various states, including but not limited to Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina.
31. The blocking of telephone calls from inmates m confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers also violates 47 U.S.C. §201(b). 47 U.S.C. §20l(b) requires that all practices for a common carrier be "just and reasonable" and any practice that is "unjust and unreasonable is declared to be unlawful."
32. Denying an interconnected VOIP provider such as Millicorp and its customers, in this case the friends and family of inmates, the right to receive a call from a common carrier payphone provider is an unjust and unreasonable practice and a failure of fulfillment of an IPS provider's common carrier obligation as a payphone provider to inmate confinement facilities.
33. Under 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207, Millicorp is authorized to bring this private cause of action and Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are liable to Millicorp for the full amount of damages sustained as a consequence of violating 47 U.S.C. §20l(a) and (b).
15

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 16 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel* Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc., for compensatory and consequential damages, attorneys' fees and costs under 47 U.S.C. §206, interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II VIOLATIONS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
47 u.s.c. §202
34. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
35. This is a claim for damages against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 as a consequence of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL violating 47 U.S.C. §202.
36. 47 U.S.C. §202(a) states: (a) Charges, services, etc. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like
16

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 17 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. 37. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are providing like access to IPS services at confinement facilities nationwide to other VOIP providers such as Vonage and Google Voice, but meanwhile blocking the calls of Millicorp's CCH customers. This conduct is an unjust and unreasonable discrimination practice by Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL providing these carriers with an undue and unreasonable preference and advantage and thereby causing an undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage to Millicorp. Such conduct violates 47 U.S.C. §202(a) and is actionable under 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207. Therefore, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are liable to Millicorp for the full amount of damages sustained as a consequence of violating 47 U.S.C. §202(a). WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
17

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 18 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
Systems, Inc., for compensatory and consequential damages, attorneys' fees and costs under 47 U.S.C. §206, interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III COMMON LAW TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE 38. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein. 39. This is a claim for damages against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL for common law tortious interference. 40. Millicorp has advantageous business relationships with its CCH customers by which Millicorp provides economical VOIP communications services to friends and family members of inmates throughout the United States. 41. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have knowledge of Millicorp's advantageous business relationships with its customers. 42. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are intentionally and unjustifiably interfering with Millicorp' s advantageous business relationships by blocking calls to Millicorp's CCH customers and thereby causing Millicorp to lose the business of these customers.
18

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 19 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
43. These actions of interference by Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have resulted in damages to Millicorp.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc., for compensatory and consequential damages, punitive damages, costs, interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
ACTION FOR DAMAGES 44. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein. 45. This is a claim for actual damages under §§501.204(1) and 501.211(2), Fla.Stat. 46. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of §501.204(1), Fla.Stat.
19

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 20 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
47. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under FDUTPA.
48. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers.
49. As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of calls to Millicorp's CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (50%-70%) average monthly revenue loss. Consequently, Millicorp has suffered actual damages.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc., for actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs under§501.2105, Fla. Stat., interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
20

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 21 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
COUNTV FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 50. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein. 51. This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under §501.211(1), Fla.Stat. 52. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of §501.204(1), Fla.Stat. 53. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under FDUTPA. 54. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and
21

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 22 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
substantially injurious to Millicorp' s CCH customers as consumers. By blocking Millicorp's CCH customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and unconscionable practices under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, specifically §501.204, Fla.Stat.
55. Pursuant to §501.211(1), Fla.Stat., Millicorp seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court that Securus', T-Netix', Evercom's and GTL's conduct violates §501.204(1 ), Fla. Stat.
56. Pursuant to §501.211(1), Fla.Stat., Millicorp also seeks injunctive relief to permanently enjoin Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL from violating and continuing to violate §501.204(1), Fla.Stat. Such an injunction will not only protect Millicorp' s rights, but will also protect the rights of the friends and family members of inmates as the consuming public.
57. The granting of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. To the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under FDUTPA and the Telecommunications Act.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus
22

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 23 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. is in violation of §501.204(1), Fla.Stat. and for a judgment for permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them from violating §501.204(1), Fla.Stat. and requiring them to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs under§501.2105, Fla.Stat., and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VI TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES- CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT ACTION FOR DAMAGES 58. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein. 59. This is a claim for economic damages under §§17.46(b) and 17.50 Texas Bus. & Com. Code.
23

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 24 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
60. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls and disparaging the services or business of Millicorp by false and misleading representations of fact, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and willfully engaging in unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code.
61. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices- Consumer Protection Act.
62. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers and are disparaging the services or business of Millicorp by false and misleading representations of fact. Such conduct offends established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers.
63. As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of calls to Millicorp's CCH customers and knowingly disparaging the services or business of Millicorp by false and misleading representations of fact, Millicorp
24

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 25 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
has actually lost a significant portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (50%-70%) average monthly revenue loss. Consequently, Millicorp has suffered actual damages.
64. WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered m its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc., for economic damages, actual damages pursuant to§ 17.50(h) Texas Bus. & Com, treble damages for acting knowingly under §17.50(b)(l) Texas Bus. & Com. Code, attorneys' fees and costs under §17.50(d) Texas Bus. & Com. Code, interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VII TEXAS
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 65. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein.
66. This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under §17.50(b) (2) Texas Bus. & Com. Code.
25

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 26 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
67. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls and disparaging the services or business of Millicorp by false and misleading representations of fact, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code.
68. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices- Consumer Protection Act.
69. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp' s CCH customers and have been disparaging the services or business of Millicorp by false and misleading representations of fact. Such conduct offends established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers. By blocking Millicorp' s CCH customers' calls and disparaging the services or business of Millicorp by false and misleading representations of fact, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and unconscionable
26

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 27 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
practices under Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act,

specifically §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code.

70. Pursuant to §17.50(b) (2) Texas Bus. & Com. Code, Millicorp seeks a

declaratory judgment from this Court that Securus', T-Netix', Evercom's and

GTL's conduct violates §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code.

71. Pursuant to §17.50(b) (2) Texas Bus. & Com. Code, Millicorp also

seeks injunctive relief to permanently enjoin Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL

from violating and continuing to violate §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code. Such

an injunction will not only protect Millicorp's rights, but will also protect the

rights of the friends and family members of inmates as the consuming public.

72. The granting of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. To

the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under Texas'

Deceptive Trade Practices

Consumer Protection Act and the

Telecommunications Act.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this

Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus

Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom

Systems, Inc. is in violation of §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code and for a

27

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 28 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
judgment for permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them from violating §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code and requiring them to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs under §17.50(d) Texas Bus. & Com. Code and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VIII CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
ACTION FOR DAMAGES 73. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein. 74. This is a claim for actual damages under §§ 17200 and 17204 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. 75. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of§ 17200 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.
28

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 29 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta/. Complaint
76. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under California's Unfair Competition Law.
77. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged m a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers.
78. As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of calls to Millicorp' s CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (50%-70%) average monthly revenue loss. Consequently, Millicorp has suffered actual damages and injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc., for actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
29

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 30 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
COUNT IX CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 79. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein. 80. This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under §17203 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. 81. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of§§ 17200 and 17204 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. 82. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under California's Unfair Competition Law. 83. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and
30

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 31 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
substantially injurious to Millicorp' s CCH customers as consumers. By blocking Millicorp's CCH customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and unconscionable practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, specifically §17200 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.
84. Pursuant to §17203 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Millicorp seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court that Securus', T-Netix', Evercom's and GTL' s conduct violates §17200 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.
85. Pursuant to §§ 17203 and 17204 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Millicorp also seeks injunctive relief to permanently enjoin Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL from violating and continuing to violate §17200 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. Such an injunction will not only protect Millicorp's rights, but will also protect the rights of the friends and family members of inmates as the consuming public.
86. The granting of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. To the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under California's Unfair Competition Law and the Telecommunications Act.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus
31

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 32 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. is in violation of §17200 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code and for a judgment for permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them from violating §§17200 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, and requiring them to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT X WISCONSIN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
ACTION FOR DAMAGES 87. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein. 88. This is a claim for actual damages under §100.20 Wisconsin Stat. 89. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of§ 100.20 Wisconsin Stat.
32

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 33 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
90. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under Wisconsin's Unfair Trade Practices Act.
91. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp' s CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers.
92. As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of calls to Millicorp' s CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (50%-70%) average monthly revenue loss. Consequently, Millicorp has suffered actual damages.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc., pursuant to §100.20 (5) Wisconsin Stat. for twice the amount of actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
33

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 34 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
COUNT XI WISCONSIN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 93. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein. 94. This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under§ 100.20 Wisconsin Stat. 95. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of§ 100.20 Wisconsin Stat. 96. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under Wisconsin's Unfair Trade Practices Act. 97. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and
34

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 35 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers. By blocking Millicorp's CCH customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and unconscionable practices under Wisconsin's Unfair Trade Practices Act, specifically §100.20 Wisconsin Stat.
98. Millicorp seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court that Securus', T-Netix', Evercom's and GTL's conduct violates §100.20 Wisconsin Stat.
99. Millicorp also seeks injunctive relief to permanently enjoin Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL from violating and continuing to violate §100.20 Wisconsin Stat. Such an injunction will not only protect Millicorp's rights, but will also protect the rights of the friends and family members of inmates as the consuming public.
100. The granting of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. To the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under Wisconsin's Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Telecommunications Act.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
35

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 36 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
Systems, Inc. is in violation of §100.20 Wisconsin Stat, and for a judgment for permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them from violating §100.20 Wisconsin Stat, and requiring them to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XII VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
ACTION FOR DAMAGES 101. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein. 102. This is a claim for actual damages under §§59.1-200 and 59.1 - 204 VA Stat. 103. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and willfully engaging in unfair methods of
36

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 37 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat.
104. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under Virginia's Consumer Protection Act.
105. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers.
106. As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of calls to Millicorp' s CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (50%-70%) average monthly revenue loss. Consequently, Millicorp has suffered actual damages.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc., for actual damages, treble damages under §59.1-204 (A) VA Stat.
37

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 38 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
attorneys' fees and costs under §59.1-204 (B) VA Stat, interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XIII VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 107. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein. 108. This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under §59.1-205 VA Stat. 109. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat. 110. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under Virginia's Consumer Protection Act. 111. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to
38

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 39 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel* Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Millicorp' s CCH customers as consumers. By blocking Millicorp's CCH customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and unconscionable practices under Virginia's Consumer Protection Act, specifically §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat.
112. Pursuant to §59.1-205 VA Stat, Millicorp seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court that Securus', T-Netix', Evercom's and GTL's conduct violates §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat.
113. Pursuant to §59.1-205 VA Stat, Millicorp also seeks injunctive relief to permanently enjoin Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL from violating and continuing to violate §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat.. Such an injunction will not only protect Millicorp' s rights, but will also protect the rights of the friends and family members of inmates as the consuming public.
114. The granting of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. To the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under Virginia's Consumer Protection Act and the Telecommunications Act.
39

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 40 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. is in violation of §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat, and for a judgment for permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them from violating §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat, and requiring them to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs under§59.1-204 (B) VA Stat, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XIV NORTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
ACTION FOR DAMAGES 115. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein. 116. This is a claim for actual damages under §§75- 1.1 and 75- 16, NC Stat.
40

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 41 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at. Complaint
117. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of §75- 1.1, NC Stat.
118. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act.
119. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers.
120. As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of calls to Millicorp' s CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (50%-70%) average monthly revenue loss. Consequently, Millicorp has suffered actual damages.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus
41

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 42 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc., for actual damages, treble damages under § 75 - 16, NC Stat, attorneys' fees and costs under§ 75- 16.1, NC Stat, interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XV NORTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 121. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth herein. 122. This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under §75- 1.1 and 75- 16, NC Stat. 123. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and willfully engaging in unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of §75- 1.1, NC Stat. 124. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection under North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act.
42

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 43 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
125. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant, consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers. By blocking Millicorp's CCH customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and unconscionable practices under North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, specifically §75- 1.1, NC Stat.
126. Millicorp seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court that Securus', T-Netix', Evercom's and GTL's conduct violates §75- 1.1, NC Stat.
127. Millicorp also seeks injunctive relief to permanently enjoin Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL from violating and continuing to violate §75- 1.1, NC Stat. Such an injunction will not only protect Millicorp's rights, but will also protect the rights of the friends and family members of inmates as the consuming public.
43

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 44 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al. Complaint
128. The granting of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. To the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Telecommunications Act.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. IS m violation of §75 - 1.1, NC Stat, and for a judgment for permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them from violating §75 - 1.1, NC Stat, and requiring them to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs under §75 - 16.1, NC Stat, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
44

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 45 of 47
Millicorp v. Global Tel* Link Corporation, eta!. Complaint
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 38, Millicorp demands a jury trial as to all issues
so triable by right of a jury.
f , Dated: October / 2009
Respectfully submitted,
STEVEN M. KATZMAN, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 375861 smk@kwblaw.com CHARLES J. BENNARDINI, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 694241 cjb@kwblaw.com KATZMAN, WASSERMAN BENNARDINI & RUBINSTEIN, P.A. Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 7900 Glades Road, Suite 140 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Pho~(5 1) 477-7774
1F~: (56 ) 477-7447 ____---
JEFE . BROWN, ESQ. L ALLE, BROWN, RONAN & MULLINS, PA Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 750 South Dixie Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 jbrown@lavallebrown. com Tel: 561-395-0000 Fax: 561-395-9093
45

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 46 of 47

-.J~ 4~. (~.ev.:. 2/08)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

s·'

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff .:L;:.:e;:.:e::..;:C;.;;O;.;;U;::n:.;ty;.L._ _ _ _ __
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(c) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
SEE ATTACHED

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASE LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)
CIV:GRAHAM

.iJ (d) Check County Where Action Arose:

MIAMI- DADE 0 MONROE ,:J BROWARD 0 PALM BEACH 0 MARTIN 0 ST. LUCIE 0 INDIAN RIVER 0 OKEECHOBEE

n. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

Lll U.S. Government Plaintiff

0 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

HIGHLI\NDS

fit:Q-RRES . Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIEStPiace an "X" in one Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF

I;i.:

PTF DEF

Citizen of This State

CJ

I

I Incorporated or Principal Place

jf

:::J 4

of Business In Thi~ State

·.:J 2 U.S. Uovernment Defendant

,fo 4

D1versity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

Citize:1 of Another State ::J

'

Incorporated and Principal Place-

of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a

Foreign Natwn

Ll 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT IPiacran"X"inOneBoxOnlv)

CONTRACT

T RTS

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER STATUTES

0 II 0 Insutance

::J 120 Marine

.:J 130MillerAct

:J 140 Negotitlble lnstrumenl

::::J ISO RecoHry ofU\-erpayment

& Enforcement of Judgment

.'J 151 Medic:1rc Act

'J 1)2 Re~·overy of Defauh-=d

Student Loan!.

{Excl. Veterans)

0 153 R~covery ofOverpa~ment

of V eterau's 13enefits

:J 160 Stockholders' ~uus

::J 190 O!her Contract

:J 195 Contract Product liability

0 196 Franchist>

J

REAL PROPERTY

0 210 Land Condemnation

::J 220 Foredosure 0 230 Renl Lea!;e & Ejectment 0 240 Torts 1o I cond ::::J 245 Turt Product L1ability

:J 290 ,'\II Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY

0 310 Airplane

i::J 315 Airplane Product

Liability

:J 320 Assauh, Libel &

Slander

::::J 33U federal Employers'

Liability

0 340 Marine

"J 345 Marine PTOduct

LiabiWy

.:J J50 Motor Vehicle

C1 355 Motor Vehicle

Product Liability

.:J 3 60 Other Personal

Injury

CIVIL RIGHTS

0 441 Voting

:J 442 Employment

0 44 3 Housing/

Acl·ornmodations

LJ 444 Welfar-=

" 0

445 Amer. w/Dis~bilities Employment

::J ~~~erAmer. w/Disabilities

PERSONAL INJURY 0 610 Agriculture

0 422 Appeal28 USC 15~

:.J

U 362 Personal Injury- LJ 620 Other Food & Drug

0 423 Withdrawal

0

Med. Malpractice 0 625 Drug Related Seizure

28 USC 157

~

0 365 Persona' Injury -

ofProperty 21 USC 8SI lr----------------10

Product liability

0 630 Ltquor Lav.r.

1--LP'.w,IR'IJ'P"-~''"~o.J'"I1.'"'.U:v..IJ>Illloi.J'"IUT.li~·--I':J

0 368 Asbestos Personal ':J 640 R.R. & Truck

0 820 Copynghts

LJ

Injury Pr•Jduct

~ 6SO Airline Regs.

0 830 Patent

Liability

0 660 Occupational

0 840 Trademark

U

PERSONAL PROPERTY

Safety/Health

.J

0 370 Other Fraud

- - l _ L-'0;;__::6:;:.9::_0.;;0:.;.th~e;,:_r _ _ _ _ _...j._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0

CJ 371 Truth in Lending 0 380 Other Personal

P....---~L"A~Bi!;O=R----+---"S~OI.lC..I~.:A~L"'-'!S.!lEc~.C.JU'-i'R!l.I!.JTL.YL-----1 0

0 710 Fair Labor Standards

0 861 HIA (139511)

Property Damage 0 385 Property Damage

Act 0 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations

0 862 Black Lung (923)

CJ

0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)i

Product Liability

0 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting 0 864 SSID Title XVI

8

& Disclosure Act PRISONER PETITIONS :J 740 Railway Labor Act 0 510 Motions to Vacate i:J 790 Other Labor Litigation

!-'0;;_8;;:;6:.;5:_R~.:.:.~I:.;(~,;:4_::0;::5(1lig~))~----1 0

J.--F!:..E!!:.!!D:!E:.!:R~A~L!;:_!T.!A~X~Sc~.UC!I.!.T.2S_...j CJ

0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

1)

Sentence

0 791 Empl. Ret. lnc. Securit

or Defendaf'lt)

0

Habea'i Corpus:

Act

':J S30 Uelleral

0 871 IRS Third P<trty

·0

2b usc 7609

535 Death Pt>nslty

::::J

0

540 Man dam us & Other J

462 Naturalization App!il-atiou

0 550 Civil R1ghts

:J ~~~a~n:l:eas Corpus-Alien

4PO State Rrapponinnrn!?'nt 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Bankmg
450 Comrrerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt OrganJ.ratwn~ 4NO Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 810 Selectn·e Service
850 Securitie,;c ommod ities/ Exchange
~75 Custnmer Challenge 12 U~C 3411l
H90 Other Statutory Acti'.Jn.:8Q I Agricultural Acts ~92 Economil: StabiliL.atifln Act S93 Environmental Man~:rs 894 Energy AllocatiOn Act
K95 Freedom of (nformatton ,\;:1
lJOO Appeal of Fe:- D~termm,ttion \fnder Equ:.d An;es-; lO Justto.:e:

0 440 Other Civil Right!.

CJ 555 Prison Condition

.:J 950 Con:,.itution<~lity nf State StatUl.-;>S

V. ORIGIN
.fJ I Original Proc~cding

tPiace <tn ''X'' in One Box Only)

0 2 Remo,l'd from

0 3 Re-filcd-

State Coun

(see VI below)

0 4 Reinstated or 0
Reopened

VI. RELA TED/RE-FILED CASE(S).

~See instruc-tions second page):

a) Re-filed Case 0 YES .jJ NO JUDGE

Transferred from
5 another district

0 6 Multidistrict

(specify)

Litigatio'1

b) Related Cases DYES QJNO

DOCKET NUMBER

Appeal to District

0

7

Judge from Magistrate

Jud mcnt

Citz the U.S. Civil Statute under which you arc filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity).
VII. CAUSE OF ACTION 47 U.S.C 201 et seq; 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332 and 136'Z /iolations of Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996

ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT T THE BEST OF MY K.c"'OWLEDGE

DATE

F?JJ OFFICE USE Ui'L Y

1\MOIJNJ{" 750·t'V

RECEIPT#

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 47 of 47
Civil Action Cover Sheet (continued) I.( c) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number)
JeffM. Brown, Esq. Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Lavalle, Brown, Ronan & Mullins, P.A. 750 South Dixie Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Tel: 561-395-0000 Fax: 561-395-9093 j brown@lavallebrown. com
STEVEN M. KATZMAN, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 375861 smk@lnvblaw. com CHARLES J. BENNARDINI~ ESQ. Florida Bar No. 694241 cjb@kwblaw.com KATZl\1AN, WASSERMAN BENNARDINI & RUBINSTEIN, P.A. Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 7900 Glades Road, Suite 140 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Phone: (561) 477-7774 Fax: (561) 477-7447

 
 Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

CLOSED CIVIL CASE

Case No. 09-23093-CIV-GRAHAM/TORRES

MILLICORP, a Florida corporation, d/b/a CONSCALLHOME,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, et al.,
_____D__ef_e_n_d_a_n_t_s.___________________/
ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants Securus Technologies, Inc. ("Securus"), Evercom Systems, Inc. ("Evercom"), and T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. ( "T-Netix") , collectively known as the "Securus Defendants" Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 16] and Memorandum of Law in support of Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 18], Defendant Global Tel*Link Corporation's Motion to Dismiss or to Stay Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law
[D. E. 17] .
THE COURT has considered the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Millicorp, is a nationwide interconnected voice over Internet protocol ("VOIP") provider. It is registered with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") . VOIP is an internet

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 2 of 10
application typically used to transmit voice communications over a broadband internet connection, rather than traditional land lines. Millcorp provides a range of services including, the subject of this action, a VOIP offering designed to serve the needs of the friends and families of correctional facility inmates, known as ConsCallHome ("CCH"). Millicorp currently provides its services in 47 states, including but not limited to Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia, and North Carolina.
The Securus Defendants and Global Tel*Link Corporation ( "GTL") , provide inmate phone service ("IPS") via payphones located in state and local confinement facilities throughout the· United States. Millicorp alleges that Defendants blocked service to Millicorp's customers who subscribed to CCH, Millicorp's interconnected VIOP offering. As a direct result of the blocking of calls to Millicorp's CCH customers, Millicorp alleges that is has actually lost a significant portion of its customer base resulting in a loss of revenue, reputation and goodwill. Millicorp filed the instant fifteen count complaint against Defendants. Counts I and II allege violations of §201 and §202 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 ( the "Act"). In Count III Millicorp alleges that the Defendants tortiously interfered with Millicorp' s business relationships. In Counts IV to XV Millicorp alleges violations of several states deceptive trade practices statues.
In the instant motions, the Defendants move to dismiss the
2

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 3 of 10
complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted [D.E. 18]. Defendants also assert that dismissal is proper pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b) (1) because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Securus Defendants seek dismissal asserting that: 1) the FCC expressly permits Defendants blocking of attempts to circumvent secure inmate telecommunications systems; 2) FCC policy preempts all state claims regarding the services that the Securus Defendants provide; and 3) Plaintiff has no right, statutory, contractual, or otherwise, to divert inmate calls [D.E. 18]. In a separate motion, Defendant GTL seeks dismissal arguing that: 1) Millicorp is precluded by statue and this Court is deprived of jurisdiction to hear this action because Millicorp has already selected its remedy by invoking the FCC remedial authority; 2) federal law permits the alleged call blocking of Millicorp's services; and 3) the state claims are preempted [D.E. 17]. GTL also asserts, in the alternative to dismissal, this Court stay the action and refer Millicorp' s claims to the FCC under the primary jurisdiction doctrine [D.E. 17] II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review In examining a motion to dismiss, a court accepts the plaintiff's allegations as true and construes the complaint in the
3

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 4 of 10
plaintiff's favor. See, generally, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (noting that on a motion to dismiss there is an assumption that all allegations in the complaint are true) . To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations." Id. (citations omitted) . The complaint must contain "only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. The factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 1965. "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle [ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 1964-65. Dismissal of a complaint is proper where it is "clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Blackston v. Alabama, 30 F.3d 117, 120 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)).
In ruling on a Motion to Dismiss, the court can generally only consider that which is contained within the four corners of the complaint. See, Long v. Slaton, 508 F.3d 576, 578 n.3 (11th Cir. 2007). Under FRCP 12(b) (1) there are two types of challenges to subject matter jurisdiction: facial and factual. Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). A facial attack requires the Court to examine whether the plaintiff has
4

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 5 of 10
sufficiently alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction in its complaint. Id. In a facial attack, the allegations in the complaint are taken as true. Id. Where there is a factual attack, matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony, affidavits, depositions or documents, can be considered. Id. Because the Court's power to hear the case is in question when subject matter jurisdiction is challenged in a factual attack, the Court is free to weigh the evidence to satisfy itself that jurisdiction exists. Id. However, this ability to weigh matters contained outside of the pleadings depends on whether the factual attack implicates the merits of a plaintiff's cause of action. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs., 104 F.3d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 1997).
B. Plaintiff's Claims Under the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Counts I and II)
Here, Defendants attack on subject matter jurisdiction in this action is factual in nature. Specifically, Defendants move to dismiss Millicorp's federal claims asserting that Millicorp has already chosen to pursue a remedy before the FCC ,forclosing the current action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §207 [D.E. 46] As Defendants are asserting a factual attack, the Court may consider matters outside the pleadings in determining whether it has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.
Counts I and II of the complaint allege violations of §§ 201
5

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 6 of 10
and 202 of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Millicorp seeks damages against Defendants under 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 as a consequence of violating 47 U.S.C. §§201 and 202 [D.E. 1, ~~26 and 35]. 47 U.S.C §207 of the Communications Act provides that:
Any person claiming to be damaged by any common carrier subject to the provisions of this chapter may either make complaint to the Commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring suit for the recovery of damages for which such common carrie may be liable ... in any district court of the United States of competent jurisdiction; but such person shall not have the right to pursue both such remedies.
Defendants contend that Millicorp is precluded from bringing this action, and specifically Counts I and II, based on Millicorp's July 15, 2009 letter requesting that the FCC's Enforcement Bureau investigate the call blocking practices of GTL and Securus and Millicorp's comments and reply comments in response to the petition for declaratory ruling filed with the FCC by Securus. Millicorp, however, argues that its federal claims are not barred under the election remedies provision of §207 because: 1) it has not made any complaint to the FCC; 2) if it had filed an informal complaint, it has not complained specifically to the FCC's Market Dispute Division; and 3)it sought declaratory relief and not money damages before the FCC. In this case, the factual attack does not implicate the merits of Millicorp's cause of action.
It is clear that §207 permits an injured party to seek relief
6

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 7 of 10
in either federal court or before the FCC, but not in both. Digitel, Inc. v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., 239 F.3d 187, 190 (2nd Cir. 2001), Mexiport, Inc., v. Frontier Communications Services, Inc., 253 F.3d 573, 575 (11th Cir. 2001). Section 207 requires an election between litigation and filing a complaint with the FCC. A complaint filed with the FCC may be either formal or informal. 47 C.F.R. §1.711. The parties agree that Millicorp did not file a formal complaint with the FCC. However, the parties dispute whether Millicorp's July 15, 2009 letter requesting an investigation and subsequent comments and reply comments to Securus' petition for declaratory ruling constitute an informal complaint to the FCC. An informal complaint is in writing and contains: "(1) the name, address, and telephone number of the complainant; (2) the name of the carrier against whom the complaint is made; (3) statement of the act or omission by the carrier that contravenes the Communications Act; and (4) the relief sought." Mexiport, Inc. v. Frontier Communications Servs., Inc., 253 F.3d 573, 575 n.3 (11th Cir. 2001).
In considering Millicorp's Comments submitted to the FCC in response to Securus' petition to the FCC seeking declaratory relief, Millicorp states "in advance of the instant Securus Petition, on July 15, 2009 [Millicorp] contacted and requested the FCC's Enforcement Bureau to investigate the unlawful call blocking practices of Securus and GTL." [D. E. 17-2, p. 10] . Further,
7

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 8 of 10
footnote 23 of this same document cites, "Request for Investigation Letter to Trent Harkrader, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, from William P. Cox, Counsel for Millicorp, dated July 15, 2009." Id. While Millicorp disputes that it filed an informal complaint it concedes that its request for the FCC to initiate an investigation may contain some of the elements of an informal complaint as provided in §1.716 of the FCC's rules [D.E. 40, p.10]. In its reply comments submitted to the FCC, Millicorp concludes by requesting the FCC to "prohibit Securus,
GTL, and other res providers from blocking calls to Millicorp CCH
customers." [D.E. 17-5, p.14]. "Millicorp also asks that the Commission specifically find that use of local telephone numbers by customers of FCC regulated interconnected VIOP providers, in the manner described by Millicorp in its Comments and these Reply Comments, is lawful under federal telecommunications law and policy." [D.E. 17-5, p.14]. The Court notes that the Comments and Reply Comments submitted by Millicorp to the FCC contain many of the same allegations contained in the instant complaint and meet the requirements of an informal complaint to the FCC.
A party that files an informal complaint is precluded from also filing in district court. Digitel at 190. The Court finds that Millicorp's July 15, 2009 letter requesting the FCC to investigate alleged unlawful call blocking practices of Defendants was an invocation of the FCC's jurisdiction sufficient to trigger forum
8

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 9 of 10
selection pursuant to §207. Specifically, Millicorp's letter to the FCC addresses and requests the FCC to take action regarding the very same practices it complains of in the instant action. There is no indication that Millicorp's request for investigation to the FCC and the instant action cover different factual or legal issues. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. MFS Commc'ns Co., 901 F.Supp. 835 (D.Del. 1995) . To the contrary, it appears that Millicorp has attempted to place the same legal issues before the FCC and this Court thus precluding adjudication of these claims by this Court. Id. Millicorp' s claim that it did not make an election under §207 because it sought declaratory or injunctive relief rather than monetary damages is unpersuasive. Section 207 does not require a person to request damages at the FCC. Beehive Telephone Co., Inc. v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., 2009 WL 3297303 (D. Utah 2009) . "If a person could avoid the election of remedies provision in §207 simply by styling its FCC complaint as one for declaratory relief, §207 would be rendered meaningless." Id *2. The Court holds that §207 bars Millicorp from bringing its §§ 201 and 202 claims before this Court. Because Millicorp filed an informal complaint with the FCC it is precluded from also bringing an action in federal district court. Mexiport at 575. Further, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.
9

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 10 of 10

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motions to Dismiss

[D.E. 16 and 17] are GRANTED for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED without

prejudice. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is CLOSED for

administrative purposes, and any pending motions are DENIED as

moot.

/iJ! DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this

day

of April, 2010.

cc: All Counsel of Record

DONALD L. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

 
 Case: 1:09­cv­23093 As of: 10/16/2012 11:45 AM EDT 1 of 7
CLOSED,EGT,REF_PTRL
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09−cv−23093−DLG

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge Donald L. Graham Referred to: Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres Cause: 28:1331 Fed Question: Fed Communications Act of 1
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/14/2009 Date Terminated: 04/14/2010 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Millicorp a Florida corporation doing business as ConsCallHome.com

represented by Alexandra Sierra−De Varona Katzman Wasserman &Bennardini 7900 Glades Road Suite 140 Boca Raton, FL 33434 561−477−7774 Fax: 477−7447 Email: asd@kwblaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles J. Bennardini Katzman Wasserman &Bennardini 7900 Glades Road Suite 140 Boca Raton, FL 33434 561−477−7774 Fax: 835−1242 Email: cjb@kwblaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey M. Brown Lavalle Brown &Ronan, P.A. 750 S Dixie Highway Boca Raton, FL 33432−3004 561−395−0000 Fax: 395−9093 Email: CMartin@lavallebrown.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Mark Katzman Katzman Wasserman &Bennardini 7900 Glades Road Suite 140 Boca Raton, FL 33434 561−477−7774 Fax: 477−7447 Email: smk@kwblaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Global Tel*Link Corporation a Delaware corporation

represented by David A. Coulson Greenberg Traurig 333 NE 2 Avenue Miami, FL 33131 305−579−0500 Fax: 305−579−0717 Email: coulsond@gtlaw.com

Case: 1:09­cv­23093 As of: 10/16/2012 11:45 AM EDT 2 of 7

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Securus Technologies, Inc. a Texas corporation

represented by Eleanor Trotman Barnett Heller Waldman, P.L. 3250 Mary Street Suite 102 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 305−448−4144 Fax: 305−448−4155 Email: ebarnett@hellerwaldman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Coulson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie A. Joyce Arent Fox LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036−5339 202−857−8061 Email: joyce.stephanie@arentfox.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. a Texas corporation

represented by Eleanor Trotman Barnett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Coulson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie A. Joyce (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Evercom Systems, Inc. a Texas corporation; jointly and severally

represented by Eleanor Trotman Barnett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Coulson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie A. Joyce (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/14/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Evercom Systems, Inc., Global TelLink Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc.. Filing fee

Case: 1:09­cv­23093 As of: 10/16/2012 11:45 AM EDT 3 of 7

10/14/2009 10/23/2009 10/23/2009 10/23/2009 10/23/2009 10/23/2009 10/26/2009 10/27/2009
10/28/2009 10/28/2009 10/30/2009
10/30/2009 11/03/2009 11/05/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009
11/09/2009

$ 350.00 Receipt#: 1010008, filed by Millicorp.(mg) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
2 Summons Issued as to Evercom Systems, Inc., Global TelLink Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc.. (mg) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Securus Technologies, Inc. for T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc.. (Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Securus Technologies, Inc.. (Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
5 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Evercom Systems, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Securus Technologies, Inc. for Evercom Systems, Inc.. (Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
6 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc.. (Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Millicorp. (Brown, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
8 ORDER granting 6 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/26/2009. (ail) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
9 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer as to 1 Complaint by Evercom Systems, Inc., Global TelLink Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Coulson, David) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
10 Agreed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Response to Complaint by Global TelLink Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Coulson, David) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
11 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Global TelLink Corporation. (Coulson, David) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
12 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Evercom Systems, Inc. response due 11/9/2009; Global TelLink Corporation response due 11/9/2009; Securus Technologies, Inc. response due 11/9/2009; T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. response due 11/9/2009.. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/30/2009. (ail) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
13 MOTION for Limited Appearance, Consent to Designation and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filings for Stephanie A. Joyce. Filing Fee $75. Receipt # 101125. (cw) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
14 ORDER granting 10 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/3/2009. (tb) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
15 ORDER granting 13 Motion for Limited Appearance, Consent to Designation and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filings. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/5/2009. (ail) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
16 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc.. Responses due by 11/27/2009 (Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
17 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint or to Stay Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Global TelLink Corporation. Responses due by 11/27/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Coulson, David) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
18 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 16 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc.. (Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)

Case: 1:09­cv­23093 As of: 10/16/2012 11:45 AM EDT 4 of 7

11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009

19 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing Attachment 1 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
20 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing Attachment 2 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 2)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
21 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing Attachment 2, Exhibits 1−3 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 2, Exhibits 1−3)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
22 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing Attachment 2, Exhibits 4−6 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 2, Exhibits 4−6)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
23 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing, Attachment 2, Exhibits 7−8 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 2, Exhibits 7−8)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
24 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing Attachment 2, Exhibit 9 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 2, Exhibit 9)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
25 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing, Attachment 2, Exhibits 10−11 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 2, Exhibits 10−11)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
26 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing, Attachment 2, Exhibits 12−15 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 2, Exhibits 12−15)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
27 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing, Attachment 2, Exhibit 16, Part A (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 2, Exhibit 16, Part A)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
28 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing, Attachment 2, Exhibit 16, Part B (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 2, Exhibit 16, Part B)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
29 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing, Attachment 2, Exhibits 17−28 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 2, Exhibits 17−28)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
30 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing Attachment 3 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 3)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
31 NOTICE by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. re 18 Memorandum of Law Notice of Filing, Attachments 4−7 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 4, # 2 Exhibit Attachment 5, # 3 Exhibit Attachment 6, # 4 Exhibit Attachment 7)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
32 MOTION to Strike Request for Punitive Damages and Supporting Memorandum of Law by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix

Case: 1:09­cv­23093 As of: 10/16/2012 11:45 AM EDT 5 of 7

11/20/2009 11/20/2009 11/20/2009 11/20/2009 11/24/2009 11/25/2009 11/30/2009 11/30/2009
11/30/2009
12/02/2009
12/04/2009
12/04/2009 12/09/2009 12/10/2009 12/10/2009 12/10/2009

Telecommunications Services, Inc.. Responses due by 11/27/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1)(Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
33 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed by Millicorp. Evercom Systems, Inc. served on 10/15/2009, answer due 11/4/2009. (ail) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
34 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed by Millicorp. Securus Technologies, Inc. served on 10/15/2009, answer due 11/4/2009. (ail) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
35 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed by Millicorp. T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. served on 10/15/2009, answer due 11/4/2009. (ail) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
36 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed by Millicorp. Global TelLink Corporation served on 10/15/2009, answer due 11/4/2009. (ail) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
37 Unopposed MOTION Leave to File Additional Pages to Memoranda of Law in Response to Motions to Dismiss by Millicorp. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sierra−De Varona, Alexandra) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
38 ORDER granting 37 Unopposed MOTION Leave to File Additional Pages to Memoranda of Law in Response to Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/25/2009. (ail) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
39 RESPONSE in Opposition re 32 MOTION to Strike Request for Punitive Damages and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Millicorp. (Attachments: # 1 Case Law)(Sierra−De Varona, Alexandra) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
40 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 17 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint or to Stay Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint or to Stay Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Millicorp. (Brown, Jeffrey) Modified text on 12/1/2009 (lk). (Entered: 11/30/2009)
41 Memorandum in Opposition re 16 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint filed by Millicorp. (Attachments: # 1 Case law, # 2 Case law, # 3 Case law, # 4 Case law, # 5 Case law)(Sierra−De Varona, Alexandra) Modified text on 12/1/2009 (lk). (Entered: 11/30/2009)
42 NOTICE by Millicorp re 17 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint or to Stay Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint or to Stay Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, 40 Response in Opposition to Motion, Notice of Filing Case Law (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit "C", # 4 Exhibit "D", # 5 Exhibit "E", # 6 Exhibit "F")(Brown, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
43 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages In Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc.. (Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
44 ORDER granting 43 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 12/4/2009. (ail) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
45 NOTICE of Telephonic Status Conference: Status Conference set for 1/27/2010 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham.. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 12/9/2009. (ail) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
46 REPLY to Response to Motion re 17 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint or to Stay Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Global TelLink Corporation. (Coulson, David) Modified on 12/11/2009 (ls). (Entered: 12/10/2009)
47 REPLY to Response to Motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint filed by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc.. (Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
48 REPLY to Response to Motion re 32 MOTION to Strike Request for Punitive Damages and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc.. (Barnett,

Case: 1:09­cv­23093 As of: 10/16/2012 11:45 AM EDT 6 of 7

12/15/2009 01/20/2010 01/20/2010 01/26/2010 01/27/2010 02/04/2010
02/04/2010 02/04/2010 03/03/2010 03/08/2010 03/23/2010
03/23/2010
03/23/2010
04/14/2010

Eleanor) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
49 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY by Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. for dates of December 23, 2009 through January 2, 2010 (Barnett, Eleanor) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
50 STATUS REPORT Joint by Millicorp. (Bennardini, Charles) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
51 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Millicorp. (Bennardini, Charles) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
52 CLERK'S NOTICE − CHANGE TO CONFERENCE ID # 79790876, TOLL FREE NO. 1−866−208−6278 REMAINS THE SAME FOR TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE SET 1/27/2010. (gfw) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres: Status Conference held on 1/27/2010. (Digital 14:07:34.) (Tape #10EGT−5−536.) (cf) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
54 SCHEDULING ORDER Setting Pretrial Conference and Trial Dates: Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for 9/22/2010 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Trial set for 10/25/2010 in Miami Division before Judge Donald L. Graham. telephonic Calendar Call set for 10/20/2010 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Amended Pleadings due by 5/10/2010. Discovery due by 7/26/2010. Joinder of Parties due by 5/10/2010. Pretrial Stipulation due by 9/13/2010.. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/4/2010. (ail) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
55 ORDER of Referral to Mediation.. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/4/2010. (ail) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
56 ORDER of Reference of Motions to Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/4/2010. (ail) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
57 ORDER Scheduling Mediation before Michael Nachwalter Mediation Hearing set for 8/26/2010 10:00 AM. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 3/3/2010. (ail) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
58 NOTICE by Millicorp re 54 Scheduling Order,, Notice of Serving Rule 26 Disclosure (Brown, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
59 Notification of Ninety Days Expiring on Global Tel*Link's Motion to Dismiss and/or Stay by Millicorp re 17 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint or to Stay Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint or to Stay Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Global Tel*Link Corporation, 40 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Millicorp, 46 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Global Tel*Link Corporation (Brown, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
60 Notification of Ninety Days Expiring on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Millicorp re 47 Reply to Response to Motion filed by T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc., Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., 16 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint filed by T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc., Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., 41 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Millicorp (Brown, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
61 Notification of Ninety Days Expiring on Defendants' Motion to Strike by Millicorp re 32 MOTION to Strike Request for Punitive Damages and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc., Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., 48 Reply to Response to Motion filed by T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc., Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc., 39 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Millicorp (Brown, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
62 ORDER Granting 17 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint or to Stay Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint or to Stay Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Global Tel*Link

Case: 1:09­cv­23093 As of: 10/16/2012 11:45 AM EDT 7 of 7
Corporation,,, Granting 16 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint filed by T−Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc., Evercom Systems, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc.,,, ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 4/14/2010. (lbc) (Entered: 04/14/2010)