MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. Paetec Communications, Inc. , 204 F. App'x 271 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1013
    MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
    Judge. (CA-04-1479-CMH-BRP)
    Argued:   September 21, 2006                 Decided:   October 25, 2006
    Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and Richard L.
    VOORHEES, United States District Judge for the Western District of
    North Carolina, sitting by designation.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED: Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellant. Sean Abram Lev, KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN,
    TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON
    BRIEF: Tony S. Lee, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; John B.
    Messenger, PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Fairport, New York, for
    Appellant.     Jeffrey A. Rackow, Washington, D.C.; Scott H.
    Angstreich, KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.,
    Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc. (“MCI”) filed this lawsuit
    against    Paetec    Communications,       Inc.   (“Paetec”)    to   recover
    telecommunications access charges that it paid for a period of
    time,     but    later    challenged       as   unsupported    by    tariff1.
    Specifically, MCI alleges that Paetec unlawfully charged it for
    routing toll-free calls from third-party wireless carriers to MCI’s
    network when that service was not within the Paetec tariffs, either
    federal or state, to which MCI subscribed.           MCI paid the charges
    initially because Paetec’s invoices did not separately state them.
    When the charges were disaggregated and MCI became aware of them,
    it withheld payment of two monthly invoices from Paetec in an
    effort to recoup its funds and subsequently brought this action for
    damages.
    In its answer, Paetec raised as an affirmative defense a
    provision from its tariffs requiring 90-days notice of a billing
    dispute    and   also    asserted   counterclaims,    both    statutory   and
    equitable, to recover the balances of the two invoices that MCI
    refused to pay.      Paetec then filed a motion for partial summary
    judgment based on the 90-day notice provision.          The district court
    denied the motion concluding that a party could not use a tariff to
    1
    A tariff is a public document that sets forth the services
    offered by a telecommunications carrier, the fees charged for those
    services, and the terms on which those services are offered. AT&T
    Commn’cs of S. States, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc., 
    268 F.3d 1294
    , 1296 n.4 (11th Cir. 2001).
    3
    shorten unilaterally the two-year statute of limitations for tariff
    overcharges under the Federal Communications Act.         MCI Worldcom
    Network Servs., Inc. v. Paetec Commc’ns, Inc., No. 04-1479, at 2-3
    (E.D. Va. May 16, 2005).
    Both parties then moved for summary judgment on the merits.
    The district court granted MCI’s motion and denied Paetec’s cross-
    motion.    MCI Worldcom Network Servs, Inc. v. Paetec Commc’n, Inc.,
    No. 04-1479 (E.D. Va. Aug. 31, 2005).       In granting MCI’s motion,
    the district court rejected Paetec’s argument that its access
    tariffs included the service of transmitting to MCI interstate
    toll-free calls made by end-users of other telecommunications
    carriers    for   two   reasons.   First,   under   the   circumstances
    presented, MCI was not a “customer” of Paetec with respect to the
    service in question.      Id. at 7-9.   Second, even if MCI could be
    considered a customer, the court concluded that the service Paetec
    performed for MCI was not within its tariffs.        Id. at 9-11.    In
    denying Paetec’s cross-motion, the district court held that the
    filed rate doctrine2 precluded equitable counterclaims and that MCI
    acted lawfully in withholding payment on the two invoices as an
    offset for the disputed charges.    Id. at 11-13.   Paetec now appeals
    the district court’s rulings.
    2
    Under the filed rate doctrine, a carrier is expressly
    prohibited from collecting charges for services that are not
    described in its tariff. See Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cent. Office
    Tel., Inc., 
    524 U.S. 214
    , 222 (1998).
    4
    Having reviewed the parties' briefs and the applicable law,
    and having had the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the grant of
    summary judgment to MCI and the denials of summary judgment to
    Paetec   on   the   reasoning   of   the   district   court.   See   Paetec
    Commc’ns, Inc., No. 04-1479 (E.D. Va. Aug. 31, 2005); Paetec
    Commc’ns, Inc., No. 04-1479 (E.D. Va. May 16, 2005).
    AFFIRMED
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1013

Citation Numbers: 204 F. App'x 271

Judges: Duncan, Per Curiam, Richard, Voorhees, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 10/25/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023