Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-04-07035/USCOURTS-caDC-04-07035-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed June 8, 2007

No. 04-7034

APCC SERVICES, INC., ET AL.,

APPELLEES

v.

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO.,

APPELLANT

Consolidated with

04-7035

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE and

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: In APCC Services, Inc. v. Sprint

Communications Co., 418 F.3d 1238 (2005) (APCC), we

reversed the orders of the district court denying the defendants’

motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’

petition for a writ of certiorari to this court, vacated our

judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in

USCA Case #04-7035 Document #1045927 Filed: 06/08/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

light of Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v.

Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1513 (2007).

We now affirm the orders of, and remand the case to, the district

court.

The facts of this case are set forth in our previous opinion.

APCC, 418 F.3d at 1241-42. In brief, APCC et al. are a

payphone service provider (PSP) and several “aggregators,”

intermediaries between PSPs and interexchange carriers (IXCs),

that sued several IXCs to obtain compensation they claim the

IXCs owe them pursuant to a regulation of the Federal

Communications Commission. The IXCs moved to dismiss on

the grounds that the aggregators did not have standing to sue and

the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., did

not give the plaintiffs a private right of action to recover for a

violation of the regulation. The district court denied the

motions, concluding the aggregators had standing, APCC Servs.,

Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 281 F. Supp. 2d 41, 45 (2003), and that

§ 276 of the Act created a private right of action. APCC Servs.,

Inc. v. Cable & Wireless, Inc., 281 F. Supp. 2d 52, 54-57 (2003).

The district court also permitted the plaintiffs to amend their

complaint to assert that §§ 201(b), 407, and 416(c) of Title 47

provide alternate grounds for relief. Id. at 57-59. This court

reversed. The panel determined, over the dissent of Judge

Sentelle, that the aggregators had standing to sue and, over the

dissent of Chief Judge Ginsburg, that none of the provisions

cited gave the plaintiffs a right to sue in federal court; they were

remitted to filing a complaint for reparations before the FCC.

APCC, 418 F.3d at 1250.

 

The Supreme Court, however, held in Global Crossing that

a violation of the regulation at issue is a violation of § 201(b) of

the Act, for which a private right of action is authorized by

§ 207 of the Act, in effect creating a right of action to remedy a

violation of the regulation itself. 127 S. Ct. at 1516. It is now

USCA Case #04-7035 Document #1045927 Filed: 06/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

clear, therefore, that APCC et al. may pursue their case in

district court under § 201(b). Accordingly, the orders of the

district court denying the motions to dismiss are affirmed, and

the case is remanded for further proceedings. 

So ordered.

USCA Case #04-7035 Document #1045927 Filed: 06/08/2007 Page 3 of 3