N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

NOR THW EST PUB LIC C OM M UNIC ATIONS C OUNC IL; UNIDENTIFIED PSPS A TO Z; NPC C M EM B ER S, C e ntra l Te le phone , Inc
. ; C om m unic a tion M a na ge m e nt Se rvic e s, LLC ; Da ve l C om m u nic a tions, a

ka Phone t e l Te c hnologie s, Inc .; Inte rwe st Te l, LLC ; Inte rwe s t Te lc om

Se rvic e s C orpora tion; NSC C om

m unic a tions Public Se rvic e s C orpora tion, Na tiona l Pa y p hone Se rvic e s, LLC ; Pa c ific Northwe st Pa y phone s; Pa

rtne rs in C om

m unic a tion; T & C M a na ge m e nt, LLC ; C orba n Te c hnologie s, Inc .; Va lly Pa y Phone s, Inc
. , Pla intiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. QW EST C OR POR

ATION, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 10-36077 D.C . No. 3:09-c v-01351-B R
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding 

# FIL ED
AUG 20 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a y 7, 2013 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : GOODW IN, R EINHAR DT, a nd B ER Z O N, C i rc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts Northwe st Public C om m unic a tions C ounc il, a long with
num e rous othe r groups (c olle c tive ly , NPC C ), a p pe a l the dism issa l of thei r fe de ra l
c la im s a s ba

rre d by the re le va

n t sta tute o f lim i ta tions. W e re vie w de novo, Ge w e k e Ford v . St. J

ose ph’s Omni Pre

fe rre d C are , Inc

. , 130 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th C ir. 1997),
a nd a ffirm
. In this c onte xt, a n a c tion to re c ove r da m a ge s m ust b e brought within two y e a rs of a c c rua l, a nd a n a c tion to e nforc e a n FC C orde r for pa y m e nt m u s t be brought within
one y e a r of the orde r. 47 U.S.C . § 415(b), (f). In Dav e l C

ommc ’ns, Inc

. v . Qw e

st C orp. , 460 F
. 3 d 1 0 7 5 (9th C ir. 2006), t his
c ourt a ddre sse d the ope ra tion of § 415's t im e ba r. The Dav e l c ourt, a gre e i ng with the D.C
. C irc uit, found Da ve l w a s on i nquiry notic e of its c la im s a ga inst Qwe s t be ginning
on t he de a dline b y whic h Qwe st fa ile d t o file frau d prote ct i o n r at es . Id. a t 1091-92 ( ci t i n g Sprint C

o m mc ’ns C

o . v . F.C .C

. , 76 F.3d 1221 (D.C
. C ir. 1996)). The D a vel
c ourt e xpla ine d: As soon a s Q we st f

ai l ed t o file fraud prote c tion ra te s . . . it wa s in te c hnic a l non- co m

p lia nc e . . . a n d Da ve l wa s on inquiry n o tic e tha t it m ight be p ay ing e x c e ssive ra te s for fraud prote c tion.
. . . The fa c t tha t, until Qwe st file d its n e w fraud prote c tion ra te s in 2003 , D av el wa s n ot -2-in a position to de te rmine the pre c ise amount of t he ov e rc harge

s, o r e v e n w he the r the

c harge s w e re e x c e ssiv e at all , doe s not c ha

nge this re sult. Id. a t 1092 (e m

pha sis a dde d). He re , NPC C ’ s filing of the “ R a te C a se ” in 2 001 i s the m ost ob v i o u s ex am ple tha t NPC C wa s on notic e of its c la im s a ga ins t Q wes t. The d i stric t c ourt c orre c tly found this da te suffic ie nt to trigge r the running of the lim i ta tions pe riod. W e a lso note tha t Qwe st’ s filing of n e w ra te s in the w a ke of th e 2 0 0 3 Wisc onsin Orde r , a nd the PUC ’ s a pprova l o f t

hose ra te s, a lso p ut NPC C on notic e a s t o i ts c la im s ; the 2 003 ra te s indisputa bly notifie d NPC C tha

t the ra te s it wa s pa

y ing e a rlie r we re too high. NPC C ra ise s a lita

ny of re a sons to support its fa ilure to file the c la i m s e a rlie r. None a re pe rsua sive
. NPC C ’ s se pa

ra tion of powe rs a rgum e nt fa ils. Eve n i f the distric t c ourt la c k e d the powe r to de te rm ine a c tua l NST c om p lia nc e , tha t i s, wha t ra te would bring Qwe st into c om plia nc e , tha t que stion be a r s only on da m a ge s a nd the c ourt c ould still rightfully de te rm ine lia

bility
. Se e Dav e l , 460 F.3d a t 1092. NPC C ’ s a dm inistra

tive e xha ustion a rgum e nt fa ils. The re is a diffe re nc e be twe e n sta

tutorily -re quire d e xha

ustion, a nd e xha u stion a s a p rude ntia l doc trine
. Se e W

. Radio Se rv

s. C o. v . Qw e st C orp. , 5 30 F.3d 1 186, 1 195-96 (9th C ir. 2008). NPC C ha s p ointe d to no sta

t utorily -im

pose d e xha

u stion re quire m e nt. C

f. 47 U.S.C
. § 207

-3-(suit for da m a ge s a c tiona ble in e ithe r FC C or fe de ra l c ourt). Nor ha s NPC C provide d
a ny a uthority to e sta

b l ish tha t if a prude ntia l d oc trine might h av e b ee n invoke d, i t pre v e n ts a c c rua l of tha t c la im
. Se e , e .g. , C astro-C o rte z v . I.N .S. , 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th C ir. 2001) (e xha

ustion of judic ia l a

n d a dm inistra

tive re m e die s in § 2241 ha be a s
c a se is prude ntia l, a

nd the re fore subje c t to w a ive r of the re quire m e nt), a brogate d o n othe r grounds by

Fe rnande

z-Vargas v . Gonzale

s , 548 U.S. 30 (2006). NPC C ’ s ripe ne ss a rgum e nt a lso fa ils. W hile the ripe ne ss doc trine pre c lude s
a djudic a ting pre m a ture disa g re e m e n t s ove r a dm inistra tive polic ie s be fore form a l, fina l de te rm i na tion, Pac

. Gas & Ele c . C o. v . State Ene rgy Re

s. C onse rv ati on & D e v . C omm’n , 461 U.S. 190, 200-01 (1983), the dispute h e re c onc e rns Qwe st’ s obliga tion to pa y re funds, not the a c tua l c orre c tne ss of a ny d e te rm ina tion a s t o prope r NST ra te s by the Public Utility C o m

m ission. Fina lly , NPC C ’ s re lia

nc e on the file d ra t e doc t

rine fa ils. The file d ra te doc trine

“ ba rs suits c ha lle n ging ra

te s whic h ‘ if suc c e ssful, w ould ha ve the e ffe c t of c ha nging the file d [ra te ] .’ ” D a vel , 4 6 0 F.3d a t 1084. Aga in, t his suit doe s not c ha lle nge file d
ra te s. Thus, none of NPC C ’ s c ite d doc trine s would ha ve ha d the e ffe c t of p re ve nting
a djudic a tion in fe de ra l c o urt prior to the fina l de te rm ina tion of NST c om plia nc e , a n d the re fore the y

fa il to e s ta

blish tha t NPC C ’ s c la im s ha d not a c c rue d
.

-4-NPC C the n a rgue s for the a pplic a tion of e quit ab l e t olling, a n a rgum e nt the distric t c ourt p rope rly re

je c t e d. NPC C w a s re pre se nte d by c ounse l a nd, a s disc usse d
a bove , h a d knowle dge of its possible c l a im
. Se e J ohnson v . He nde rson , 314 F.3d 409, 414 (9th C ir. 2002) (e quita ble tolling looks to w he the r re a sona ble pla in t if

f would know of possible c la im ; re ta ining c o unse l ty pic a lly c e a se s tolling). This c a se doe s not support a pplic a tion of judic i a l e stoppe l e ithe r. In sum , we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of this c a se a s tim e ba rre d. W e do not re a c h othe r issue s brie fe d a nd a rgue d. The pa rtie s’ outsta

nding m otions to strike

a re a l l DE NIE D
. AFFIRM E D.

-5-