Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02440/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02440-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AT&T CORP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DATAWAY INC,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-02440 (EDL)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO

DISMISS

AT&T Corporation (“AT&T”) and Dataway, Inc. (“Dataway”) both filed motions to dismiss

which came on for hearing on January 15, 2008. Having read all the papers submitted and carefully

considered the relevant legal authority, the court hereby DENIES both motions for the reasons stated

at the hearing.

AT&T filed a complaint pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 203 of the Federal Communications Act, 47

U.S.C. 201, et seq. (“Federal Communications Act”). AT&T claims that it billed Dataway for

telecommunication calls and related services and claims that payment is due. Dataway moved to

dismiss the complaint. For the reasons stated at the hearing, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction,

that venue is proper, that service was sufficient, and that the complaint states a claim.

AT&T also moved to dismiss the first, second, third, and fifth claims for relief of the

Counterclaim of Dataway for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). As stated at the hearing,

AT&T did not demonstrate that the federal tariff requirements preempt the state causes of action

here, as neither party addressed the ramifications of the detariffed telecommunications marketplace. 

See, e.g., Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2003). As stated at the hearing, this denial is

Case 3:07-cv-02440-EDL Document 76 Filed 01/16/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

without prejudice to reconsidering these issues in future dispositive motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02440-EDL Document 76 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 2