Source: http://tx.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170322_0000597.NTX.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-08-19 01:40:06
Document Index: 778511422

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3']

IN RE INTRAMTA SWITCHED ACCESS CHARGES LITIGATION MDL No. 2587 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Nos. 3:16-CV-0974-D, 3:16-CV-0975-D, § 3:16-CV-0977-D, 3:16-CV-0979-D, § 3:16-CV-0988-D, 3:16-CV-0989-D, § 3:16-CV-0990-D, 3:16-CV-1010-D, § 3:16-CV-1105-D, 3:16-CV-1119-D, § 3:16-CV-1122-D, 3:16-CV-1123-D, § 3:16-CV-1126-D, 3:16-CV-1443-D, § 3:16-CV-1605-D, 3:16-CV-1626-D, § 3:16-CV-1893-D, 3:16-CV-1980-D, § 3:16-CV-1985-D, 3:16-CV-2210-D, § 3:16-CV-2722-D, and 4:16-CV-0302-D.
In a prior opinion in these MDL proceedings-In re IntraMTA Switched Access Charges Litigation, 2015 WL 7252948 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2015) (Fitzwater, J.) (“IntraMTA I”)-the court addressed the question whether local exchange carriers (“LECs”) can charge interexchange carriers (“IXCs”) access fees for access services that the LECs provide the IXCs to enable them to exchange interstate wireless intraMTA calls-that is, interstate wireless calls that originate and terminate within the same Major Trading Area (“MTA”). In IntraMTA I the IXCs were the plaintiffs and the LECs were the defendants. The Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss in the instant tag-along actions present the same principal question as in IntraMTA I, although the LECs are aligned as plaintiffs and the IXCs are aligned as defendants, and the IXCs rely on arguments not raised in IntraMTA I. Because the court concludes that the LECs have pleaded plausible claims on which relief can be granted, it denies the motions to dismiss.
The court assumes that the parties are familiar with its opinion in IntraMTA I and will add to its recitation of the background facts and procedural history what is necessary to understand the present decision. Plaintiffs in these cases[1] are LECs that are suing defendants Level 3 Communications, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, “Level 3”)[2] in their capacities as IXCs.[3] The LECs allege that Level 3 ordered and used their interstate and intrastate tariffed access services to exchange calls between Level 3's long distance network and the LECs's local networks; that the LECs have timely rendered bills setting forth the charges required by the LECs's state and federal tariffs for the access services; and that, since early 2014, Level 3 has withheld payment of interstate and intrastate access charges for wireless (also known as “Commercial Mobile Radio Service” or “CMRS”) intraMTA calls, which Level 3 contends by law are not subject to access charges. The LECs assert claims for breach of federal and state tariffs, and they seek a declaratory judgment that Level 3 is obligated to pay access charges for exchanging intraMTA calls between Level 3's longdistance network and the LECs's local telephone networks.[4]
In IntraMTA I the court held, in pertinent part: