Public Service Telephone Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission , 404 F. App'x 439 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-11036 DECEMBER 9, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-01437-CC
PUBLIC SERVICE TELEPHONE COMPANY,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
CHUCK EATON, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Georgia Public
Service Commission,
ROBERT B. BAKER, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia
Public Services Commission,
H. DOUG EVERETT, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia
Public Service Commission,
ANGELA E. SPEIR, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia
Public Service Commission,
ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC f/k/a Alltel Communications et al.,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
No. 10-11037
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-01438-CC
PUBLIC SERVICE TELEPHONE COMPANY,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
CHUCK EATON,
in his official capacity as Chairman
of the Georgia Public Service Commission,
ROBERT B. BAKER,
in his official capacity as Commissioner
of the Georgia Public Service Commission,
H. DOUG EVERETT,
in his official capacity as Commissioner
of the Georgia Public Service Commission,
ANGELA E. SPEIR,
in her official capacity as Commissioner
of the Georgia Public Service Commission,
VERIZON WIRELESS OF THE EAST LP, et al.,
d/b/a Verizon Wireless,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 9, 2010)
Before BARKETT, MARTIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Public Service Telephone Company (“PSTC”) appeals from the district
court’s final judgment affirming two related orders of the Georgia Public Service
Commission (the “Commission”) in favor of Alltel Communications and Verizon
Wireless. PSTC contends that the Commission and district court erred in failing to
give clear effect to the terms of interconnection agreements entered into by the
parties within the framework of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. PSTC
asserts that the Commission’s orders violate federal law and requests that this
Court reverse the district court’s order and enjoin the enforcement of the
Commission’s orders. We have considered the various orders of the Commission
and district court, as well as the briefs and oral argument of the parties, and find
no reversible error.
In this review of the administrative decision by the Commission, we apply a
two-tiered standard of review. Issues of federal law are reviewed de novo. MCI
Worldcom Commc’ns, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 446 F.3d 1164, 1170
(11th Cir. 2006). The Commission's factual findings and application of state law,
however, including its interpretation and application of the parties’
interconnection agreements, are reviewed under an “arbitrary and capricious”
standard. Id.; see also Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc. v. MCImetro Access
Transmission Servs., Inc., 317 F.3d 1270, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(recognizing authority of Georgia Public Service Commission to interpret and
3
enforce interconnection agreements). “A finding that a decision was arbitrary or
capricious requires us to find no rational basis for the decision. Once we find a
rational connection between the evidence and the decision, we must defer to the
agency’s expertise.” Tackitt v. Prudential Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir.
1985) (citations omitted); see also Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United
States, 566 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir. 2009) (“The arbitrary and capricious
standard is exceedingly deferential. We are not authorized to substitute our
judgment for the agency’s as long as its conclusions are rational.” (quotations and
citations omitted)).
On this record, and under our deferential standard of review, we cannot say
that the Commission’s findings and subsequent orders based thereupon were
arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying
PSTC’s request to enjoin the enforcement of the Commission’s orders.
AFFIRMED
4