IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

FARMERS 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

COOPERATIVE, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK 

SERVICES INC. and QWEST 

COMMUNICATIONS 

CORPORATION, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv-00790-WC 

ANSWER TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, COUNTERCLAIMS AND AMENDED 

CROSS-CLAIMS OF VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES INC.

Defendant Verizon Business Network Services Inc. (“Verizon Business”) hereby submits 

this Answer to Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Farmers Telecommunications 

Cooperative, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), and files Counterclaims against Plaintiff and Cross-claims against 

Qwest Communications Corporation (“Qwest”). Except for those allegations expressly admitted 

herein, Verizon Business denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Paragraph 1 contains legal conclusions as to which no response is necessary. To 

the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations in paragraph 1 are denied. 

2. Paragraph 2 contains legal conclusions as to which no response is necessary. To 

the extent an answer is deemed required, these allegations in paragraph 2 are denied. 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 1 of 20
PARTIES

3. Verizon Business is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 and, therefore, denies the allegations in 

paragraph 3. 

4. Verizon Business admits the allegations in paragraph 4. 

5. Verizon Business is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 and, therefore, denies the allegations in 

paragraph 5. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6. Verizon Business admits that Plaintiff is sometimes referred to as an incumbent 

local exchange carrier (“ILEC”) and that Plaintiff is providing telecommunications services in 

Alabama. Verizon Business is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in the remaining portions of paragraph 6 and, therefore, 

denies the allegations. 

7. Verizon Business is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 7 and, therefore, denies the allegations in 

paragraph 7. 

8. Insofar as the paragraph 8 contains allegations regarding the actions of third 

parties, Verizon Business is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 and, therefore denies the allegations. The 

tariff referenced in paragraph 8 speaks for itself and respectfully directs the Court to the tariff for 

its meaning and effect, and denies all inconsistent allegations. 

2

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 2 of 20
9. Verizon Business admits that the North American Numbering Plan Administrator 

(“NANPA”) assigns Carrier Identification Codes (“CICs”) and that NANPA is an entity selected 

by the Federal Communications Commission to administer the numbering plan for the Public 

Switched Telephone Network. Verizon Business is without knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the remaining portions of paragraph 

9 and, therefore, denies the allegations. 

10. Verizon Business is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 and, therefore, denies the allegations 

in paragraph 10. 

11. Verizon Business admits that it entered into a contractual relationship with Qwest 

whereby Qwest used Verizon’s network to transport interexchange traffic. As relevant to the 

traffic at issue here, that relationship was discontinued in 2003. 

12. Verizon Business admits that Farmers provided Verizon with access to Farmers’ 

network in order to terminate traffic. Verizon Business denies that Farmers provided such access 

through “special access.” Verizon Business admits that 5040 Ritter Road is the address of a 

company utilized by Verizon Business to receive and process bills. Insofar as paragraph 12 

alleges Plaintiff’s actions are in accordance with its tariff, paragraph 12 contains legal 

conclusions as to which no response is necessary. To the extent an answer to the allegations that 

Plaintiff’s actions are in accordance with its tariff, these allegations are denied. Verizon 

Business is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations contained in the remaining portions of paragraph 12 and, therefore, denies the 

allegations. 

3

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 3 of 20
13. Verizon Business admits that it and Qwest terminated their contractual 

relationship, referred to in paragraph 11, in the year 2003. Verizon Business admits that it 

remitted payment to Plaintiff for invoices from Plaintiff from at least January 2003 to April 

2006. 

14. Verizon Business admits the allegations contained in paragraph 14. 

15. Verizon Business is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 15 and, therefore, denies the allegations 

in paragraph 15. 

COUNT ONE

16. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 

1 through 15 as though fully set forth here. 

17. The tariff referenced in paragraph 17 speaks for itself and Verizon Business 

respectfully directs the Court to the tariff for its meaning and effect, and denies all inconsistent

allegations. Verizon Business denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 17. 

18. The tariff referenced in paragraph 18 speaks for itself and Verizon Business 

respectfully directs the Court to the tariff for its meaning and effect, and denies all inconsistent

allegations. Verizon Business denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 18. 

19. Verizon Business admits that it did not advise Farmers that it was discontinuing 

the use of CIC 432 in the year 2003. Verizon Business denies that it was legally required to 

provide any such notice. 

20. Verizon Business admits that until April 2006, Verizon Business has consistently 

paid the bills received from Plaintiff for CIC 0432 since January 2003 and that Verizon Business 

is demanding a refund of overpayments made since January 2003. Verizon Business is without 

4

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 4 of 20
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations 

contained in paragraph 20 and, therefore, denies the allegations. 

21. Verizon Business admits that Plaintiff purports to seek the relief requested in 

paragraph 21. Verizon Business denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in paragraph 

21. Verizon denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 21. 

22. Verizon Business admits that Plaintiff purports to seek the relief requested in 

paragraph 22. Verizon Business denies Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in paragraph 22. 

Verizon denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 22. 

COUNT TWO

23. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 

1 through 22 as though fully set forth here. 

24. Paragraph 24 contains legal conclusions as to which no response is necessary. To 

the extent an answer to such allegations is deemed required, these allegations are denied. 

25. Verizon Business admits that Plaintiff purports to seek the relief requested in 

paragraph 25. The remaining portions of paragraph 25 contain legal conclusions as to which no 

response is necessary. To the extent an answer to such allegations is deemed required, these 

allegations are denied. 

COUNT THREE

26. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 

1 through 25 as though fully set forth here. 

27. Verizon Business admits that it paid bills for over three years prior to Verizon 

Business’s June 15, 2006 request for repayment referenced in paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 

Verizon Business denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 27. 

5

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 5 of 20
28. Verizon Business admits that Plaintiff purports to seek the relief requested in 

paragraph 28. The remaining portions of paragraph 28 contain legal conclusions as to which no 

response is necessary. To the extent an answer to such allegations is deemed required, these 

allegations are denied. 

COUNT FOUR

29. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 

1 through 28 as though fully set forth here. 

30. Verizon Business admits that Plaintiff purports to seek the relief requested in 

paragraph 30. The remaining portions of paragraph 30 contain legal conclusions as to which no 

response is necessary. To the extent an answer to such allegations is deemed required, these 

allegations are denied. 

31. The tariff referenced in paragraph 31 speaks for itself and Verizon Business 

respectfully directs the Court to that document for its meaning and effect, and denies all 

inconsistent allegations. The remaining portions of paragraph 31 contain legal conclusions as to 

which no response is necessary. To the extent an answer to such allegations is deemed required, 

these allegations are denied. 

32. Verizon Business admits that Plaintiff purports to seek the relief requested in 

paragraph 32. The remaining portions of paragraph 32 contain legal conclusions as to which no 

response is necessary. To the extent an answer to such allegations is deemed required, these 

allegations are denied. 

COUNT FIVE

33. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 

1 through 32 as though fully set forth here. 

6

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 6 of 20
34. Paragraph 34 contains legal conclusions as to which no response is necessary. To 

the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations in paragraph 34 are denied. 

35. Paragraph 35 contains legal conclusions as to which no response is necessary. To 

the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations in paragraph 35 are denied. 

36. Verizon Business admits that Plaintiff purports to seek the relief requested in 

paragraph 36. The remaining portions of paragraph 36 contain legal conclusions as to which no 

response is necessary. To the extent an answer to such allegations is deemed required, these 

allegations are denied. 

COUNT SIX

37. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 

1 through 36 as though fully set forth here. 

38. Paragraph 38 contains legal conclusions as to which no response is necessary. To 

the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations in paragraph 38 are denied 

39. The allegations set forth in this paragraph 39 refer to another named defendant 

and therefore no response is required from Verizon Business. 

40. The allegations set forth in this paragraph 40 refer to another named defendant 

and therefore no response is required from Verizon Business. 

41. The allegations set forth in this paragraph 41 refer to another named defendant 

and therefore no response is required from Verizon Business. 

42. Verizon Business is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 42 and, therefore, denies the allegations 

contained in paragraph 42. 

7

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 7 of 20
43. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph 43 refer to another named 

defendant, no response is required from Verizon Business. To the extent that Paragraph 43 

contains legal conclusions, no response is necessary. 

44. Verizon Business admits that Plaintiff purports to seek the relief requested in 

paragraph 44. The remaining portions of paragraph 44 contain legal conclusions as to which no 

response is necessary. To the extent an answer to such allegations is deemed required, these 

allegations are denied. 

PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF

45. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 

1 through 44 as though fully set forth here. 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by breach of contract and/or tariff by 

Plaintiff or Qwest. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because Verizon Business is not liable 

under the terms of the contract or tariff. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because there is no consideration provided 

to Verizon Business under the contract. 

8

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 8 of 20
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the Plaintiff’s and/or Qwest’s unjust 

enrichment. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of mistake of fact. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff and/or Qwest has unclean 

hands. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the filed rate doctrine to the extent

Farmers billed Verizon Business in contravention of the rates, terms and conditions contained in 

Farmers’s tariff. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because granting the relief requested would 

impose on Verizon Business, Plaintiff, and/or Qwest “unjust and unreasonable discrimination” 

and/or an “undue or unreasonable preference or advantage” in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 202(a). 

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The claims asserted in the Complaint that the statute of limitations limits the available 

recovery to Verizon Business are barred by the doctrine of equitable tolling. 

9

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 9 of 20
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Any relief sought by plaintiff is completely offset by Verizon Business’s counterclaim 

damages, cross-claim damages and/or the doctrines of indemnification and contribution. 

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCE

Verizon Business asserts that any judgment against Verizon Business must be offset by 

the amount of any settlement reached between Plaintiff and any defendant. 

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Verizon Business hereby reserves the right, upon completion of its investigation and 

discovery, to file such additional defenses, counterclaims, cross-claims and/or additional 

defendant complaints as may be appropriate. 

COUNTERCLAIMS

1. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference its responses to above 

paragraphs 1 through 45 as though fully set forth here. 

2. Pursuant to a contract, Verizon Business provided Qwest with access to Verizon 

Business’s network and services for the purposes of Qwest providing interexchange 

telecommunications services terminating in, among other places, Farmers’s territory in Alabama. 

3. In order to properly route traffic and to bill interexchange carriers, such as Qwest, 

for their use of Verizon Business’s network and any associated services or charges, Verizon 

Business tracks traffic based on a unique Carrier Identification Code (“CIC”) that is assigned to 

each carrier. CIC 0432 was assigned to Qwest. 

4. Qwest agreed to pay for services provided by Verizon Business. 

5. Qwest had a contractual duty to notify Verizon Business in writing at least thirty 

days before Qwest desired to change its long distance service provider and/or have Qwest’s CIC 

10

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 10 of 20
identified with another carrier. Verizon Business requires this notice to allow Verizon Business 

to notify local exchange companies and ensure charges are billed to the correct party. 

6. Qwest was also under a contractual duty to provide the appropriate Letters of 

Authorization (“LOAs”) that would allow Verizon business to coordinate the changes with local 

exchange carriers, such as Farmers. 

7. At some point in early 2003, Qwest stopped utilizing Verizon Business as a 

provider of long distance services as relevant to the events in the Counterclaims here. 

8. On information and belief after reasonable investigation, Verizon did not receive 

notification from Qwest that Qwest desired to change its long distance service provider. On 

information and belief after reasonable investigation, Verizon did not receive notification from

Qwest that Qwest desired to have its CIC translated to another carrier. On information and belief 

after reasonable investigation, Verizon Business did not receive the appropriate LOAs from

Qwest. 

9. When traffic that is carried over Verizon Business’s network traverses or 

terminates on Farmers’s network, Farmers bills Verizon Business for access charges for the use 

of Farmers’s network. Farmers should not bill access charges to Verizon Business for traffic that 

is not routed from Verizon Business’s network. 

10. Farmers incorrectly billed Verizon Business for access charges for traffic that is 

attributable to CIC 0432 from early 2003 to early 2006. 

11. Farmers knew or should have known that it was improperly billing Verizon 

Business for access charges applicable to CIC 0432. 

12. Qwest knew or should have known that it should have been paying Farmers for 

access charges applicable to CIC 0432. 

11

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 11 of 20
13. Verizon reasonably and in good faith relied upon the accuracy of the bills 

provided by Farmers and paid Farmers more than $639,000 for access charges that were not 

applicable to services provided to Verizon Business. 

COUNT ONE

14. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference into this Counterclaim all 

of the other paragraphs in this document, except to the extent contradicted by this Counterclaim.

15. Farmers provides access services pursuant to a tariff that concurs with NECA’s 

Tariff F.C.C. No. 5. Farmers’s tariff established rates terms and conditions under which Farmers 

may charge Verizon Business and other interexchange carriers for access charges. 

16. Verizon Business did not order or request the services for which Farmers billed 

Verizon Business. Farmers billed Verizon Business for services Farmers did not provide under 

the terms of the tariff to Verizon Business. Verizon Business received no consideration for 

Verizon Business’s payment of the bills received from Farmers. 

WHEREFORE, Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment 

declaring that Verizon is not liable under the terms of the tariff for services it did not order or 

receive and require that Farmers must refund any payment made by Verizon Business for 

services Verizon Business did not order or receive. 

COUNT TWO

17. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference into this Counterclaim all 

of the other paragraphs in this document, except to the extent contradicted by this Counterclaim.

18. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, Farmers incorrectly and inappropriately 

billed Verizon for access services that were attributable to Qwest under CIC 0432. 

12

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 12 of 20
19. Verizon Business had not received the required notification from Qwest of its 

intent to discontinue use of Verizon Business’s network for Qwest’s provision of long distance 

or, alternatively, Qwest’s desire to reassign CIC 0432. As a direct result, Verizon Business 

reasonably and in good faith believed, or in the alternative was induced to believe by the actions 

of Farmers and/or Qwest, that the charges Farmers billed for services attributable to CIC 0432, 

were being appropriately billed to Verizon Business because Verizon Business believed Qwest 

was using Verizon Business’s network. 

20. Verizon Business was mistaken as to the facts underlying the charges billed to 

Verizon Business, and but for these mistaken facts, Verizon would not have paid the charged 

billed by Farmers. 

21. Verizon was under no legal obligation to pay for the access charges attributable to 

CIC 0432. 

WHEREFORE Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment 

declaring that Verizon is entitled to restitution equal to the amount of all payments made by 

Verizon Business as a result of the mistaken facts.

COUNT THREE

22. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference into this Counterclaim all 

of the other paragraphs in this document, except to the extent contradicted by this Counterclaim.

23. Section 2.1.4 of NECA’s Tariff F.C.C. No. 5 requires Farmers to “provide to the 

customer . . . services offered in other applicable sections of this tariff at rates and charges 

specified therein.” 

13

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 13 of 20
24. By incorrectly overcharging Verizon Business for services Verizon Business did 

not order or receive, Farmers breached its duty to provide Verizon Business with services under 

the tariff “at rates and charges specified” within the tariff. 

25. Section 2.4.1(B) of NECA’s Tariff F.C.C. No. 5 requires that Farmers “shall bill 

on a current basis all charges incurred by and credits due to the customer under this tariff 

attributable to services established or discontinued during the preceding billing period.” 

26. By incorrectly billing Verizon Business for services Verizon Business did not 

order or receive, Farmers breached its duty to bill for “charges incurred by . . . the customer 

under this tariff attributable to services established . . . during the preceding billing period.” 

WHEREFORE, Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment 

declaring that Farmers breached its obligations under the tariff and, as a result, Farmers must 

refund any payment made by Verizon Business for services not ordered by or provided to 

Verizon Business under the terms of the tariff or for services provided to Qwest, together with 

such other costs as the Court deems appropriate. 

COUNT FOUR

27. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference into this Counterclaim all 

of the other paragraphs in this document, except to the extent contradicted by this Counterclaim.

28. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Farmers billed Verizon Business in 

contravention of the rates, terms and conditions contained in Farmers’s tariff. 

WHEREFORE, Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment 

declaring that Farmers violated the Filed Rate Doctrine and that Farmers may not retain any 

payment made by Verizon Business beyond those required by the tariff. 

14

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 14 of 20
COUNT FIVE

29. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference into this Counterclaim all 

of the other paragraphs in this document, except to the extent contradicted by this Counterclaim.

30. 47 U.S.C. § 202(a) reads 

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or 

unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, 

regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like 

communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or 

device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or 

advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or 

to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any 

undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. 

31. Farmers is a “common carrier” under this section, pursuant to the definition 

provided in 47 U.S.C. § 153(10). 

32. Farmers unjustly and/or unreasonably discriminated against Verizon Business by 

inappropriately billing Verizon Business for services it did not order or receive. Furthermore, 

Farmers gave an undue and/or unreasonable preference or advantage to Qwest by not charging 

Qwest for services Farmers provided to Qwest. 

WHEREFORE, Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment 

declaring that Farmers violated 47 U.S.C. 202(a) and that Farmers must refund to Verizon 

Business the payments Farmers obtained as a result discriminatory practices. 

COUNT SIX

33. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference into this Counterclaim all 

of the other paragraphs in this document, except to the extent contradicted by this Counterclaim.

34. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Farmers has unclean hands and has been 

unjustly enriched due to its improper conduct and discriminatory billing practices. 

15

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 15 of 20
35. It is contrary to the principles of equity for Farmers to retain the benefits resulting 

from Farmers’ unjust actions. 

36. Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment declaring 

that Farmers has been unjustly enriched and, as a result, Farmers must refund any payment made 

by Verizon Business as a result of Farmers’s improper billing practices, together with such 

interest and costs as this court deems appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, In the alternative, to the extent the Court finds that Qwest is liable in 

whole or in part for payment of the disputed access charges, Verizon Business respectfully 

requests that this Court enter judgment declaring that Farmers has been unjustly enriched 

because Farmers would inappropriately double-recover and that equity requires that Farmers 

refund Verizon’s previous payments of the access charges attributable to Qwest. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference all of the other paragraphs in this 

document, except to the extent contradicted by this Prayer for Relief. 

WHEREFORE, Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter 

judgment in favor of Verizon Business and against Farmers for the amount Farmers billed to 

Verizon Business attributable to CIC 0432 between early 2003 to early 2006; and 

WHEREFORE, Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Honorable Court also 

find Farmers liable to Verizon Business for interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and such other and 

further relief as the nature of the case may require. 

16

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 16 of 20
CROSS-CLAIM

1. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, Qwest’s failure to provide the required 

notifications and letters of authorizations resulted in Qwest receiving access to Farmer’s network 

without being billed for such access. 

2. Instead, Verizon Business was billed for the access services provided by Farmers 

to Qwest and, based on Qwest’s failure to notify Verizon Business pursuant to the terms of the 

contract, Verizon Business paid access charges that were attributable to Qwest. 

3. Qwest knew or should have known during the applicable period that Qwest was 

receiving access to Farmer’s network without paying access charges. 

COUNT ONE

4. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference into this Cross-Claim all 

of the other paragraphs in this document, except to the extent contradicted by this Cross-Claim.

5. By failing to provide the required notifications and letters of authorizations, 

Qwest breached its contract with Verizon Business. 

6. As a direct and proximate result of Qwest’s breach of contract, Verizon Business 

was billed for the access services provided by Farmers to Qwest and Verizon Business paid the 

access charges that were attributable to Qwest 

7. Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment declaring 

that Qwest has breached its contract with Verizon Business and, as a result, Qwest must pay 

Verizon Business an amount equal to the payments Verizon Business paid to Farmers for access 

charges attributable to Qwest. 

17

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 17 of 20
COUNT TWO

8. Verizon Business adopts and incorporates by reference into this Cross-Claim all 

of the other paragraphs in this document, except to the extent contradicted by this Cross-Claim.

9. Qwest has unclean hands and has been unjustly enriched due to its improper 

conduct. 

10. It is contrary to the principles of equity for Qwest to retain the benefits resulting 

from Qwest’s unjust actions. 

11. Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment declaring 

that Qwest has been unjustly enriched and, as a result, Qwest must pay Verizon Business an 

amount equal to the payments Verizon Business paid to Farmers for access charges attributable 

to Qwest. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter 

judgment in favor of Verizon Business and against Qwest for the amount Farmers billed to 

Verizon Business attributable to CIC 0432 between early 2003 to early 2006; and 

WHEREFORE, Verizon Business respectfully requests that this Honorable Court also 

find Qwest liable to Verizon Business for interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and such other and 

further relief as the nature of the case may require. 

JURY DEMAND 

Verizon Business respectfully requests trial by struck jury on all claims, counterclaims

and cross-claims asserted by and against Verizon Business. 

18

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 18 of 20
DATED: May 8, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

 

s/ Robin H. Jones 

Bryan O. Balogh (ASB-6298-042B)

Robin H. Jones (ASB-0769-R51J) 

STARNES & ATCHISON LLP 

100 Brookwood Place 

Seventh Floor 

Post Office Box 598512 

Birmingham, Alabama 35259-8512 

205.868.6000 

205.868.6099 (fax) 

Scott H. Angstreich (pro hac vice) 

Robert A. Klinck (pro hac vice) 

KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, 

 EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C. 

1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

202.326.7900 

202.326.7999 (fax) 

 

 Attorneys for Defendant

Verizon Business Network Services Inc. 

19

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 19 of 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on May 8, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing using the 

CM/ECF system, which will provide electronic service copies to the following: 

Dana H. Billingsley dana@wilkersonbryan.com, cathy@wilkersonbryan.com 

Leigh Anne Hodge lhodge@balch.com, jglover@balch.com 

Jonathan Michael Hooks jonathan@wilkersonbryan.com, 

Robin Garrett Laurie rlaurie@balch.com, dearly@balch.com 

Joseph Seawell Moore jsmoore@balch.com, dharris@balch.com 

Mark Douglas Wilkerson mark@wilkersonbryan.com, cathy@wilkersonbryan.com 

Notice will be delivered by other means to: 

Jana Eisinger 

QWest Services Corporation 

1801 California Street 

Suite 900 

Denver, CO 80202 

Patrick H. Tate 

P.O. Box 680593 

Fort Payne, AL 35968 

 

 

 __s/ Robin H. Jones___________________

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 44 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 20 of 20