Source: https://www.prisonphonejustice.org/2014/NJ/James-V-GTL-Opinion-NJ/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:17:17+00:00

Document:
Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is hereby denied.
million per year as its percentage of revenue pursuant to its contract with Defendants.
also alleges that Defendants charge exorbitant rates for international calls.
Four Plaintiffs are residents of New Jersey. Plaintiffs John Crow and Barabara Skladany are residents of New York.
Plaintiff Milan Skladany was a resident of New Jersey until 2011, when he returned to the Slovak Republic.
connection fee) for each call placed in addition to the call rates per minute.
their account or will forfeit their account as a result of it being inactive for 90 days.
while incurring service charges of 20% of the amount deposited in doing so.
through ICS rates or ancillary charges.
seeking additional information that could result in revisions of the new regulations.
On November 14, 2013, Defendants appealed the new regulations in the D.C.
Circuit. Global Tel*Link v. FCC, No. 13-1281. On January 13, 2014, the D.C.
This court has original jurisdiction over this class action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
nucleus of operative facts.” Lyon v. Whisman, 45 F.3d 758, 760 (3d Cir. 1995).
Cir. 1998) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975)).
cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
also Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Serv., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008).
abstain from hearing the case on the grounds that the FCC has primary jurisdiction.
over certain issues in this case, it will stay the case rather than dismiss it.
660 F.3d 686, 691 (3d Cir. 2011); Waudby v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, No. 07470, 2007 WL 1560295, at *5 (D.N.J. May 25, 2007).
designed to achieve coordination between administrative agencies and the courts.
Cable, 523 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2008).
Indus., Inc., 660 F.3d 686, 691 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. W. Pac. R.R.
the judicial proceedings are suspended pending the agency’s adjudication of the issue within the agency’s special competence. Id.
no mechanism here for the court to request or demand that the FCC decide an issue.
whether it should stay the proceedings to allow the filing of an administrative complaint. Id.
true for the meaning of “reasonable” under Section 201 of the FCA. Oh, 76 F. Supp.
expense and delay. Alpharma, Inc. v. Pennfield Oil Co., 411 F.3d 934, 938 (8th Cir.
F.3d 1491, 1497 (10th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Elrod, 627 F.2d 813, 818 (7th Cir. 1980).
1491, 1497 (10th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Elrod, 627 F.2d 813, 818 (7th Cir. 1980).
violated the FCA, 47 U.S.C. § 201. Moreover, due to the pending appeal in the D.C.
Circuit, it is not clear that the new regulations will even remain in place.
LLC, No. 07-470, 2007 WL 1560295, at *4 (D.N.J. May 25, 2007).
provide an analogy that warrants deviating from the usual custom within this district.
can review all of these actions for reasonableness under the FCA.
open after the FCC decision.” Id., at * 5.
cause of action for lack of prosecution.
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.
good cause for lifting the stay.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 201