Opinion ID: 185839
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Remedy for AT&T's refusal to pay

Text: 33 Atlas/Total argues that the Commission erred in denying it a remedy for AT&T's refusal to pay access charges for calls to Audiobridge between August 1, 1995 and November 22, 1995. The Commission concluded that although [Atlas/Total's] complaint refers to AT&T's failure to pay certain access charges incurred before AT&T began blocking calls to Audiobridge the complaint does not state a claim for relief based on that conduct. 16 F.C.C.R. 5726 at ¶ 37 n. 82 (emphasis in original). 34 Unlike a complaint governed by the notice pleading system of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint filed with the Commission must set forth [a]ll matters concerning a claim ... fully and with specificity and must complete[ly] identif[y]... [the] conduct complained of and the nature of the injury sustained. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720(a), 1.721(a)(6) (1994). Atlas/Total's complaint clearly seeks damages for AT&T's having blocked service to Audiobridge but never specifically alleges that Atlas is entitled to recover from AT&T access charges for calls completed before the blocking began. 35 Atlas/Total tries to salvage its claim by arguing that [t]he issue of unpaid access charges was raised in the Complaint as a component of the larger interconnection issue. There is no logical connection, however, between the alleged duty to interconnect and the payment of bills for access services; this is even more apparent once one realizes that the duty to interconnect requires only a physical linkage of facilities, not the provision of services. Therefore, we agree with the Commission that Atlas/Total's complaint failed to state a claim for AT&T's nonpayment of access charges allegedly incurred prior to November 22, 1995.