Opinion ID: 616965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Decisions of the Board and the District Court

Text: The Board issued a resolution and order on February 19, 2009, after the parties had filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Having found that the ISP Remand Order triggered the Agreement's change-of-law provision, the Board ruled in favor of Sprint on the ISP Remand Order issue and granted Sprint's claim for the application of the ISP Remand Order 's rate caps as of July 19, 2002. The Board, however, closed the case without determining the amounts that Sprint allegedly overpaid to PRTC for reciprocal compensation and without ordering PRTC to credit Sprint for said amounts. On the other hand, with respect to the transit traffic over billing dispute, the Board found, inter alia, thatbased on its reading of Section XIII.A. of the Agreementthe Board was convinced of the parties' intention to specifically limit objections to the invoices for thirty (30) days after a bill is mailed, a common practice in this type of agreement[]. The Board thus dismissed Sprint's claims against PRTC for alleged excess billing of transit traffic services. PRTC challenged the Board's order on the ISP Remand Order issue by filing a complaint in the district court. Sprint responded by filing a cross-claim against the Board and a counter-claim against PRTC challenging the Board's dismissal of Sprint's claims against PRTC for the alleged over billing of transit traffic. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court issued an opinion and order on March 18, 2010. In its order, the district court held in favor of the Board and Sprint on the ISP Remand Order dispute, ruling that Sprint was entitled to the ISP Remand Order rate caps beginning on July 19, 2002, i.e., the date PRTC offered Centennial the ISP Remand Order rates. In addition, the district court granted Sprint's request that the case be remanded to the Board for a determination of the amounts due by PRTC to Sprint as a result of its decision. Also, with respect to Sprint's claims against PRTC on account of the latter's alleged over billing of transit traffic, the district court again agreed with the Board and dismissed Sprint's claims. [11] This appeal ensued.