07-1767-c v

The Ne w Phone Co., Inc. v. TheCity of Ne w York
U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
R U LI N GS BY S U M M A R Y O R D ER D O NO T H A V E PREC EDEN TI A L EFFEC T. CI TATI O N TO S U M M A R Y O R D E R S F IL E D A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 7 , IS P E R M IT T E D A N D IS G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1 AN D FEDER A L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A B R I EF O R O T H E R P A P E R IN W H IC H A L IT IG A N T C IT E S A S U M M A R Y O R D E R , IN E A C H P A R A G R A P H IN W HI CH A CI T AT I ON APP E ARS , AT L E AS T ONE CI T AT I ON M US T E I T HER BE T O THE F E DE RAL AP PE NDI X OR BE ACCOM PA NI E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: “ ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . ” A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C OP Y OF T HA T S U M M A R Y OR D E R T OG E T HE R WI T H T HE PA PE R I N W HI CH THE S UM M ARY ORDE R I S CI T E D ON ANY PA RT Y NOT RE PR E S E NT E D BY C O U N SEL U N LE SS TH E SU M M A R Y O R D ER I S A V A I LA B LE I N A N ELE C TR O N I C D A TA B A SE W H I C H I S PU B LI C LY A C C ESSI B LE W I TH O U T P A Y M EN T O F F EE ( SU C H A S TH E D A TA B A SE A V A I L A B L E A T HT T P : / / W W W . C A 2 . U S C OU R T S . G OV / ) . I F N O C OP Y I S S E R V E D B Y R E A S ON OF T HE AV AI L ABI L I T Y OF T HE ORDE R ON S UCH A DAT ABAS E , T HE CI T AT I ON M US T I NCL UDE R E F E R E N C E T O T HA T D A T A B A S E A N D T HE D OC KE T N U M B E R OF T HE C A S E I N WHI C H T HE O R D E R W A S E N T E R E D . At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 7 day

of De cembe r, two thousand and nine
. th
Present: WI LFRED F EI NB ERG, RA LPH K . WI

NT ER, RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, Cir c uit Judg e s.

___________________________________________________ THE NEW PHONE CO., I NC., Pla int if

f- Ap pe lla nt,
-v- 07-1767-c v THE CI TY OF NEW YORK, Def endant- Appellee
.2

Appea ringfor Plaintiff-A

ppellant: May

ne Miller, New York, NY. Ap pe ari ngfo r D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lle e : F ra nc is F . Ca

puto, As sis tant C or

po ra tio n Co un se l (B ruceReg al, Michae l S. Adler, J era ld Horowitz, and Kar en M. Grif fin, Assistant Corporation Counsels, of counsel), f or Michae l A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of Ne w York, N ew Yor

k, NY. Appea l from the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w York ( Gleeson, J.).
ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e judgme nt o f s a id D istri c t Co ur t beand he reby is AF F IRMED. This is an appea l from a judgment, filed April 10, 2007, of theUnited States District Court fo r t heEa ste rn

Di stric t of

Ne w Y or k ( Gl e e so n, J.), gra

nti ngthede fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to dismiss the complaint. The judgment memorializes the district court’s orde r, filed April 6, 2007, adoptingin its entirety

the Report and Re commendation of Ma g istrate Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, fi le d N ov e mbe r 3 0, 20 06 , a nd re je c tin gNPC ’s ob

je c tio ns the re to We assume the par

ties’ familiarity

with the fac ts and proce dural history of the c ase. In an order , filed De cembe r 16, 2007, this Court gr anted the motion of plaintiff- appellant TheNew Phone Co., Inc. (“NPC”) to have theinstant appea l heard in tandem with the appe al in The Ne w Pho ne , Co ., Inc . v . N e w Y or k Ci ty Dept. Of Inf or matio n T e c hn olo gy

and Te le c omm

un ic atio ns , 06 -5 27 6. In it s d e c laratio n in su pp or t of themot ion , N PC st ate d th at “ [t]he ba sic c omp la int s in both case s arethe same – theoppressive r egulatory schemefor public pa

y telephones . . . inaugurate d by

the City [of New Yor

k] and administered with eve r more oppr ession and fa vo ri tis m . . . . ” Th at is , in bo th c a se s, NPC c ha lle ng e s L oc a l L aw 6 8, pa sse d b y Ne w Y or k Ci ty (“theCity”) in 1995, whic h enac ted a r egulatory schemefor the pla ceme nt of pay telephones on public proper

ty
. NPC asserts claims under : (1) the F ederal Tele communications Act of 1996 ( “the TCA” ), 4 7 U
. S
. C
. S e c t i o n2 5 3 ; ( 2 ) S e c t i o n9 0 o f th e N e wY o r

k S t at e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Law , P u

b
. S e r v . L. Se c tio n 9 0; a

nd (3 ) n ume ro us pr ov isi on s o f t

heF e de ra l Co ns tit

uti on . A lso in i ts d e c lara tio n in support of the motion to have the instant appe al hea rd in tandem with the a

ppeal in 06-5276, NPC avers that “ [m ]ostof the a lleg ed grounds for dismissal of the two a ctions . . . areidentical . . . .” Our revie w of the district c ourt’s grant of dismissal is de novo. See Staehr v. Har tford F in. Serv. Group, I

nc., 547 F .3d 406, 424 (2d Cir. 2008). Relying upon our

rec ent dec ision in Global Network Communications, Inc. v. City of New Y ork, 562 F .3d 145 (2d Cir. 2009), a c ase a lso involvi nga cha lleng e to L ocal L aw 68, we held in 06-5276 that NPC’s claims under theTCA fail bec ause, pur suant to the statute’s “sa feharbor” provision, 47 U.S.C. Section 253(c), the regulatory schemeset forth in L ocal L aw 68 wa s e xemp t f

ro m th e te rm s o f t

heTCA . Se e Th e Ne w Ph on e , Co ., Inc . v . N e w Y or k Ci ty Dept. Of Information Te chnology and Te lecommunications, No. 06-5276 ( 2d Cir. 2009). We believe3

that th is h oldingis e qu a lly a pp lic a bleto N PC’ s c la ims un de r t heTCAhe re , a

nd wea c c ordin g ly a ff ir m th e dis mis sa l of

tho se c la ims
. We have r eviewe d NPC’s arguments urg ing us to re versethe district court’s dismissal of its remainingclaims, and webelieve the y arewithout merit. Accordingly , we a ffirm the dismiss al of those c laims. For the re asons stated a

bove, the judgment of the district cour t is hereby

AFF IRMED.
FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk B y:

_______________________________