Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07271/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07271-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PAC-WEST TELECOMM, INC., et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-07271 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 13, 2007, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively grants AT&T’s motion.

The parties each shall have ten (10) minutes to address the following questions:

Case 3:06-cv-07271-JSW Document 36 Filed 04/10/07 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

1. Pac-West argues that to permit AT&T to deposit funds into the Court registry

would alter existing obligations, because an interest bearing account would not

bear the same interest that Pac-West would be entitled to receive for delinquent

payments under its tariff. (See Declaration of Jennifer Lynch, Ex. A (noting that

charges deemed delinquent will be subject to a late payment charge at the rate of

1-1/2% per month).

a. If the Court granted the motion and found that AT&T would satisfy its

obligations pending resolution of this litigation by paying amount due

under the invoices to the Court registry, would Pac-West agree that

timely payments would not be “delinquent.” If not, on what basis?

b. Given that AT&T has chosen not to pay invoices until the Court resolves

the current motion, are there any invoices that are now delinquent under

the tariff? If so, what is the amount due under those invoices and what

amount of late charge, if any, has accrued?

c. Recognizing the other objections Pac-West raises, if the Court were to

require AT&T to make payments to the Court registry in a timely

fashion, or face the 1-1/2% late charge, would that satisfy Pac-West’s

concerns about altering the legal obligations between the parties?

2. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address.

Dated: April 10, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07271-JSW Document 36 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 2