Opinion ID: 796874
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Summary Judgment on Section 253(a)

Text: 18 Having determined what evidence is necessary to bring a successful section 253(a) claim, we now turn to the district court's order. We begin with the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Level 3 on the question of whether the City's ordinance violates section 253(a). 19 When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we review the district court's decision de novo, examining the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Martin v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 464 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir.2006). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is only appropriate when the moving party shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. We will thus find that Level 3 is entitled to summary judgment only if it has carried its burden of showing that there exists no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City's ordinance actually or effectively prohibited or materially inhibited Level 3's ability to provide telecommunications services, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 20 Level 3's own motion for summary judgment answers this inquiry. Level 3 claims [t]he proper focus of a threshold § 253(a) inquiry .. . is the scope of the regulatory authority that a city purports to wield—not whether the city has used that authority to actually exclude a provider or service. Level 3 further admits in its response to interrogatories that it cannot state with specificity what additional services it might have provided had it been able to freely use the money that it was forced to pay to the City for access to the public rights-of-way. This admission establishes that Level 3 has not carried its burden of proof on the record we have before us. 21 Without looking for actual or effective prohibition, and despite Level 3's own admissions on these matters, the district court summarily held that Chapter 23.64, incorporated into the Agreement, includes several provisions that `in combination' `have the effect of prohibiting' the ability to provide telecommunications services under 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). 22 We disagree. After a thorough review of the entire record, we find insufficient evidence from Level 3 of any actual or effective prohibition, let alone one that materially inhibits its operations. Indeed, Level 3 claims it need not, and admits it has not, made such a showing. Further, because Level 3 has not carried its burden of establishing a violation under section 253(a), the district court's section 253(c) analysis was premature. 2