Opinion ID: 169513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: The current action is one of a number of pending judicial and administrative actions raising the question whether incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) generally, and the former Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) in particular, are required to provide refunds to independent payphone service providers (PSPs) for noncompliance with the anti-discrimination and anti-subsidization requirements in 47 U.S.C. § 276(a) and Federal Communication Commission (FCC or Commission) orders implementing § 276. [1] Plaintiff TON Services, Inc. (TON) is a Utah-based PSP which owns and operates payphones in more than thirteen states. TON filed suit against Qwest Corporation (Qwest) for violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act). [2] Qwest provides public access line (PAL) services to TON in Qwest's role as an LEC. [3] Qwest also operates its own payphones in the same region as TON, making TON both a customer of Qwest and one of its competitors. In the district court, TON alleged Qwest's failure to file tariffs and supporting cost data for the PAL services Qwest provided to TON, and the PAL rates Qwest charged TON from April 1997 through April 2002, violated the anti-discrimination and anti-subsidization provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 276(a). TON further alleged Qwest's actions violated not only § 276(a), but also § 201(b), which declares unlawful a common carrier's unreasonable and unjust practices, and § 416(c), which creates an obligation to obey FCC orders. Qwest moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss TON's complaint and, pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, asked the district court to refer TON's claims to state regulatory agencies. The district court concluded that, absent an initial administrative ruling that Qwest's filed rates from 1997 to 2002 were unlawful, the filed rate doctrine barred the relief TON sought. The court invoked the primary jurisdiction doctrine and dismissed TON's complaint without prejudice. TON moved the court to reconsider or to alter or amend the judgment. It specifically asked the court to stay its claims pending a primary jurisdiction referral to the FCC rather than dismissing its complaint. The court denied TON's motion. This court takes jurisdiction of TON's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. [4] We conclude the district court misconstrued the nature of TON's claims and that, although a primary jurisdiction referral is appropriate, the district court's dismissal of TON's action was an abuse of the court's discretion. This court, therefore, vacates the district court's dismissal of TON's complaint and remands TON's action to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.