FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT APRI L14 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1340 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 60 53 7- CV-MGC W HOLESALE TELE COM COR PORATION, Plaintiff-C ount erDefen da nt -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us ITC DELTACOM COMM UNICATIONS, INC., De fendant-Counter- Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A pr il 14, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Th e Ho ri zon L e ve l V rate s we re re fe re nc e d
-- but no t se t out -- in I TC’ s sta nd ard fo rm c ontr a c t. 1 I TC f a xed WTC the rate sc he du le the n in ef fe c t af te r the a g re e me nt wa s si g ne d. No thi ngin t he rate schedule sug g ests a guara ntee of the then applicable rate s for the term of the a g ree ment for se rvice
.

2 Plaintiff-Appellant W holesale Tele com Corp. (“ W TC ”) appeals a final j udgm en t de ny ing it s c ro ss- m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t and g ranti ng the c ro ssm oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t of

D ef en dant- Appe lle e IT C D el ta Co m Co m m un ic at io ns , Inc . (“ ITC”). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af fir m . IT C i s anon -d om inant p ro vid er of te le co m m uni catio ns s er

vic es , inc lud ing loc al and l ong- dis tanc e voi ce tr an sm iss ion ; W T C i s anon -d om inant whol es al e pr ov id er o f in te rn at io na l l on g- di st an ce t el eco m m un ic at io ns ser vi ces . Bot h ITC
an d WTC pu rch as e v oi ce t ran sm is si on ser vi ces an d re se ll th es e se rv ic es . In Jan ua ry

20 03 , th e p art ie s en te redin to a co nt ract pu rs ua nt to whi ch ITC ag reedto tra ns m itW TC’s in te rn at io na l l on g- di st an ce ca ll s at “ Hor iz on Leve l V”
re ta il rate s. T he c ontra ct w as handl ed

on I T C’ s e nd b y

pe rs onne l i n th e re ta il 1 field sales office
. IT C’ s rates w ere prem ised on its retail e nd-user experience that 95% of it s in te rn at ion al tr af

fi c w as landl ine te rm inatio n. T he c ost to IT C o f
ce llu lar te rm inatio n w as c onsi de ra bly gr eate r than th at

of landl ine te rm inatio n bu t, be ca use suc h asm al l pe rc en ta ge of I T C’ s r et ai l tra ff

ic w as c el lul ar , I T C o ff

er ed a fl at r at e. T he H or iz on L ev el Vr at es quo te d to W T C w er e the sam e w he the r the3

calls term inated on land -lines or on cellular phones. W TC m ade clear to IT C that ITC’s fl atrat e was ve ry

im po rta nt in W TC’s de ci si on to co nt ract wit h ITC
. I T C i nst al le d th e lin es r equir ed to tr an sm it W T C’ s in te rn at ion al c al ls i n late January 2003 ; W TC began routing its calls through IT C’ s network on 1 February 2003
. U nde r the H or iz on L ev el V r at es , W T C i nc ur re d ac harg e of

appr oxi m at el y $37, 000 thr ough20 F eb ru ar y 200 3; I T C’ s c ost

f or r out ing W T C’ s tr af

fi c fo r thi s in it ia l p eri odwas app ro xi m at el y $1 02 ,00 0. ITC’s re ta il sal es for ce al so ad de d t wo o t h erre s el l ercu s t o m er s wh o , t o g et h erwi t h WTC, n ea rl y d o ub l ed IT C’s int er na tio na l tra ff

ic
. U nde r the H or iz on L ev el Vf la t r at es , I T C r ec oupe d on ly approxim ately

36% of its costs of provid ing service. T he retail sales f orce w as unaw ar e of

the c ost dif fe re nti al to IT C d ep en din g onw he re an in te rn at ion al c al l te rm inate d. A nd, a cc or din g to I T C, appr ova l of the H or iz on L ev el Vr at es to the se reseller s was based on a m isund erstanding abou t the volu m e of international cel lu la r tr affi c to be ex pe ct ed
. To address its err or and to rem edy the resultant cost disp arity , I TC m odified its rates, effe ctive 21 February 2003 , by im posin g a surcharge on international
ca lls te rm inatin g onc el lul ar te le phon es . I T C p ost ed

the se sur ch ar ge s onit s we bsite. IT C also inform ed W TC and the other two re sellers of the new
sur ch ar ge s and o ff

er ed e ac h of the m the opt ionto te rm inate the ir I T C c ontra ct

or4

acce pt a hi gh er ra te . The o th er t wo re se ll ers reac he d a n a gr eem en t wi th ITC. W TC ref used to accept a rate change and continu ed to send traffic over IT C’ s lines af te r the e ff ec tiv e da te of

the sur ch ar ge . I T C the re af te r bil le d W T C at the
sur ch ar ge d r at e an d r equir ed W T C t o pr ovi de se curi ty e qua l t o tw o m onths
es tim at ed usa ge . W T C m ai nta ine d th at it s a gr ee m en t w ithI T C e nti tle d it to the H or iz on L ev el Vr at e w ith out sur ch ar ge ; i t r ef

use d th e se curi ty

de m an d and
co nt in ue d t o t en de r pa ym en t at th e in it ia l Ho riz on Leve l V rat es . W T C s ough t i nj unc tiv e re lie f, spe ci fi c pe rf orm an ce and d am ag es ba se d on its a sse rt ionthat I T C ( i) br ea ch ed the ir c ontra ct ua l a gr ee m en t; (i i) e nga ge d in unj ust and unr ea sona

ble pr ac tic es and d isc ri m inatio n, in vio la tio n of 47 U
. S. C. §§ 201(b) and 20 2(a); and (iii) c omm itted fraud. IT C filed a counterclaim for bre ach of contract and ac tion o n an account. T he district court denied W TC prelim inary inj unc tiv e re lie f; I T C t er

m inate d se rv ic es to W T C o n 8 M ay 200 3. T he se rv ic e ag re em en t be tw ee n I T C and W T C p ro vid es :

Cu sto m er he re by a gr ee s to a ll the te rm s and conditi ons of thi s Agree m ent for Se rvice (“ Agre em ent”) and the term s and condi tions of the state and feder al tariff s of IT C^D eltaCom

Com m unication s, I nc. (“ IT C^D eltaCom ”), as the sam e exist or m ay be m odified in the f uture by I T C^ D el ta Co m , inc lud ing li m itatio ns o n IT C^ D el ta Co m

li ab ili tie s, f

ile d w iththe r es pe ct ive re gul at or y bod ie s and/ or

a s th e sam e m ay

appe ar on IT C^D eltaCom ’ s website ( www. itcdeltacom .c om ).5

T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at the unam big uous langua ge of

the a gr ee m en t entitled ITC to raise its rates through the tariffs posted on its we bsite. W e agre e. T he m eanin g of

the w or d “ tari ff

” as use d inthe a gr ee m en t i s c ri tic al to the parties’ s conflicting con struction o f their r espective contractual rights. Be fore IT C and W T C e nte re d in to the se rv ic e ag re em en t i n 20 03, the r eg ulatio ns ap pli ca ble to the tari ff

ing of int er na tio na l t el ec om

m uni catio ns e xpe ri en ce d a sig nif ic an t po lic y

shi ft
. I n 20 01, the F ed er al Co m m uni catio ns C om

m iss ion de te rm ine d to de tari ff

in te rn at ion al lon g di stanc e se rv ic es pr ovi de d by non dom inant carrier s (such as IT C) and, afte r a nine-m onth transition p eriod, a ll such tariff s, w ith lim ited exceptions , w ere cancelled. Report and O rder: I n the Matter of 200 0 B ie nni al Re gul at or y Re vie wP oli cy

and R ule s C onc er

nin g th e In te rn at ion al , I nte re xc hange Mark et pla ce , 16 F
. C. C. R. 10, 647; 16 F CC Rc d. 10, 647 (M ar ch20, 200 1)
. A ft er January 200 2, non -d om inant c ar

ri er s inthe pr ovi sio n of

int er na tio na l and i nte rs ta te dom es tic int er ex ch an ge se rv ic es w er e to
cease filing tariffs for such services. 47 C. F. R. § 61.19. Instead, the FCC required
non- dom inant c ar

ri er s to m ak e publ ic al ly

a va ila ble inf or m at ionabout

the ir c ur re nt
rate s; and i f the c ar

ri er m ai nta ins aw eb sit e, the r at e inf orm at ionm

ust be pos te d on the w eb sit e. 47 C. F. R. § 42
. 10. S o, a t the ti m e IT C and W T C e nte re d th ei rTh e Agre e me nt f or Se rv ic e pr ov ide s th at A la bama law a pp lie s. 2 6 ag re em en t, the re c oul d be no f ed er al r eg ulator

y tari ff f ili ng o f the H or iz on L ev el V
rate s. W TC seem s to argue that, beca use of detariff

ing, IT C could pos t no tariffs on i ts w eb sit e be ca

use no t ar if

fs c oul d be f

ile d w iththe r eg ulator

y body . N oti ng that the se rv ic e ag re em en t c ont ai ns a m er ge r cl au se , W T C m ai nta ins that the
u n i l a t e r a l p o s t i n g o f

th e r a t e s u r c h a r g e b y I T C c o u l de f f e c tn o c h a n g e i n th e t e rms of th e se rv ic e ag reem en t. Both parties assert that the contract is unam bigu ous. T hat the parties differ on the m eanin g of

ac ontra ct

te rm doe s no t r en de r the c ontra ct a m big uous and thereby defeat summ ary

j udgm ent. S ee L aw y ers T itle Ins. Cor p. v. JDC (A m erica ) Co rp . , 52 F
. 3d 1 575, 158 0 ( 11 Ci r. 199 5) ; W ay ne J. G ri ff

in E le ctri c, I nc . v. D unn th Co ns tr., Co ., 62 2 S o.2 d 3 14 , 31 7 (Al a. 19 93 ). Ins te ad , when , as h ere, we 2 de te rm ine that the c ontra ct is sus ce pti ble to onl y

one r ea sona

ble int er pr et at ion , sum m ar y j udgm en t a

ppr opr ia te ly

m ay be aw ar de d. I d. As the district court explained, the ser vice agree m ent fails to lim it the term

“ tariff ” to tariff s filed with a r egulatory

body
. To be sure , the w ord “ tariff ” does in cl ud e fi li ng s wi th an ap pr op ria te go ve rn m en t ag en cy ; b ut itis no t s o l im it ed . As the district court notedcorre ctly , “ the word ‘ tariff ’ has a m eaning ind ependent of a7

rate sc he dul e fi le d w ithar eg ulator y body . ” S ee Bl ac ks L awD ic tio nary , 8 E d. th (2004) (listin g am ong th e definitions o f tarif f “ [a] schedule listin g the rates charged for se rvices provided bya public utili ty , the U .S . P ostal Service, or a busi ne ss ( es p. one that m ust by lawf ile it s r at es w ithapub lic a ge nc y ); T he A m er ic anH er ita ge D ic tio nary of the E ngl ishL an gua ge , 4 E d. ( 2000 ) (d ef ini ng th ta rif f as “ [a] sch edul e o f pr ic es or f ees .”). T o li m it the w or d “ tari ff

s” to m atte rs f

ile d w ithar eg ulator

y body w oul d nulli fy the “ or” clause in the service agree m ent. W e conclude, a s did th e district
co urt, that the pla in l an gua ge of the se rv ic e ag re em en t c ont em plate s “ tari ff

s” ( i) fi le d w ithar eg ulator

y body or ( ii) pos te d onI T C’ s w eb sit e or ( iii ) both. B ec au se the se rv ic e ag re em en t e nti tle d un am big uous ly I T C t o m odi fy

the te rm s and conditi ons of its s tate and feder al tariff s by m odify ing th e sam e on its website,
s u mmary j u d g me n tw a s du e t o b e d e n i e dt o WT C o n i t s b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c tc l a i m. W e ha ve r ev ie w ed

and f ind w ith out m er it W T C’ s othe r cl ai m s of unj ust and
unr ea sona

ble dis cr im inatio n and f

ra ud. T he sur ch ar ge im

pose d onthe H or iz on L ev el Vr at es appl ie d to a ll cu sto m er s un de r that r at e. I T C o ff er ed W T C and the ot he r two cu st om ers th e sa m e o pt io ns ; WTC fail edto pro fferev id en ce t ha t ITC treated sim ilarly -situated custom ers diffe rently
. And the rec ord shows no m aterial dispu te about the reasonableness of the rate surchar ge or the dem and for additional8

cr ed it or both inthe li ght

of I T C’ s c ost

str uc tur e an d it s c ontra ct

ua l e nti tle m en t t o adj ust charges. About the fra ud claim , the ser

vice agree m ent contained a m erger cl au se th atdi sc la im edrep res en ta ti on s m ad e b efo re t he co nt ract was e xe cu te d. A nd a s w e ha ve e xpl ai ne d, the se rv ic e ag re em en t gu ar an te ed no r at e; ins te ad , through its incorporation of tarif fs publis hed on ITC’ s website, the service ag re em en t a llo w ed

the r at e sur ch ar ge w hic h W T C s ee ks t o la be l a s f ra udul en t. Af ter re view of a ll the argum ents, w e discern no rever sible error in the order de ny ing part ia l sum

m ar y j udgm en t t o I T C and g ranti ng s um m ar y j udgm en t t o W TC on it s b reac h o f co nt ract co un te rcl ai m . AFFIRMED.