NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 23-3022

_____________

CORE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; CORETEL DELAWARE. INC.;

CORETEL NEW JERSEY, INC.; CORETEL VIRGINIA, LLC;

CORETEL WEST VIRGINIA, INC.,

 Appellants

v.

AT&T ENTERPRISES, LLC

_____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(District Court No. 2-21-cv-02771)

District Judge: Hon. Joshua D. Wolson

______________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

July 9, 2024

______________

Before: BIBAS, FREEMAN, RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

(Filed:August 1, 2024)

______________

OPINION*

______________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Core Communications, Inc. appeals an order of the District 

Court entering summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee AT&T Enterprises, 

LLC. We will affirm. 

I

Core Communications is a telecommunications company. It acts as an 

intermediary between toll-free callers and the recipient of the calls. Core provides what 

is known in the industry as “switched access service.” This service involves accessing a 

central database that contains information about which telephone service provider a tollfree call should be routed to and then sending the call to that provider “for their use in 

furnishing service” to the “Customers’ End Users,” that is, the recipient of the call. JA7. 

AT&T is one such telephone service provider. 

Core generates revenue by charging telephone service providers a fee as set forth 

under a “tariff.” These tariffs are regulated by and on file with the Federal 

Communications Commission as required under the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. 

§ 201.1 Although AT&T paid fees under the tariff for some time, beginning in 2018, it

suspected that most of the calls routed through Core’s system were illegitimate robocalls 

initiated to raise Core’s tariff revenue rather than genuine calls initiated by legitimate 

1 Core also holds the right to assess state tariffs, which are regulated by various state 

administrative agencies. As the District Court and the parties have, we refer to the state 

and federal tariffs collectively.
3

callers seeking to reach AT&T’s end users. AT&T, thus, stopped paying Core for its 

switched access service. 

In 2021, Core responded by suing AT&T in federal court to collect purportedly 

due but unpaid fees. AT&T filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District 

Court granted. In granting summary judgment to AT&T, the District Court concluded 

that because “[n]o one used Core’s network or facilities to originate . . . calls from or to a 

Company End User, . . . Core cannot recoup the access charges it seeks from AT&T.” 

JA11. This conclusion, the District Court reasoned, was dictated by the unambiguous 

language of the tariff. We agree.

II2

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and 

under the same standard employed by the district court. Ellis v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 

LLC, 11 F.4th 221, 229 (3d Cir. 2021). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

III

Under the unambiguous terms of its tariff, Core could collect fees from a 

telephone service provider “when originating or terminating calls from . . . a Company 

End User,” JA112, which is a “person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other entity . . . 

that subscribes to or otherwise uses [Core’s] exchange or other telecommunications 

2 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. This Court has 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
4

services . . . .” JA66. “Telecommunications Service,” in turn means “the offering of 

telecommunications for a fee.” JA73. 

The District Court correctly reasoned that under these terms, Core could collect 

fees from AT&T only when some person or entity subscribed to or paid for Core’s 

services.

3

 It is undisputed that no one subscribed to or paid Core for its services as 

defined by the tariff. Thus, Core was not entitled to payment from AT&T. 

As the District Court succinctly put it, “[n]o one used Core’s network or facilities 

to originate or terminate calls from . . . a Company End User, so Core cannot recoup the 

access charges it seeks from AT&T.” JA11 (footnote omitted). While Core urges that it 

need not have had any subscriber relationship with or charged a Company End User any 

fee for Core to nevertheless collect a fee from AT&T for a Company End User’s 

“otherwise us[ing],” JA66, its services, this argument is unavailing. 

The District Court correctly observed that the term “uses” in this context does not 

refer to the general employment of Core’s “network . . . no matter how remote and 

regardless of whether [a] user pays Core” for access. JA12 (quotation marks omitted).

Instead, the language of the tariff makes clear that “use” means the employment of Core’s 

services “for a fee.” JA12. The District Court, moreover, noted that this interpretation of 

the term comports with both the statute, which provides that the furnishing of 

“telecommunication service[s]” is to be in exchange for a fee, 47 U.S.C. § 153(53), and 

3 Federal courts have authority to interpret tariffs when the terms of the tariff are used in 

their ordinary meaning and their construction is solely an issue of law. Great N. Ry. Co. 

v. Merch. Elevator Co., 259 U.S. 285, 291 (1922). 
5

with the FCC’s decision In re Qwest Commc’ns Co., LLC v. N. Valley Commc’ns Co., 

LLC, 26 F.C.C. Rcd. 8332, 8336 (2011) (concluding that a proposed tariff was unlawful 

because “the Commission’s access service rules and orders establish that a [Local 

Exchange Carrier] may tariff access charges only if those charges are for transporting 

calls to or from an individual or entity to whom the [Local Exchange Carrier] offers 

service for a fee”).

Far from invalidating its tariff in violation of the Communications Act, as Core 

urges, the District Court gave effect to the plain and unambiguous terms of the tariff. 

And while Core is not permitted to recoup fees from AT&T under this tariff and on these 

facts, the tariff and Core’s right to fees thereunder have been left entirely undisturbed. 

Thus, to the extent that Core provides services covered by the tariff in the future, it may 

recover such fees. In this case, however, as the District Court correctly concluded, Core 

did not provide such covered services. 

IV

For these reasons, we will affirm.