Proceedings Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Represented US WEST, Inc., Qwest Communications, and CenturyLink, Inc. since 1996 in dozens of arbitrations, rate-making proceedings, and civil proceedings involving contractual claims and issues arising under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These proceedings were before state public utilities commissions, private arbitrators, and federal courts.
Qwest Corporation v. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Represented Qwest in an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit involving whether the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission had authority to regulate rates charged by Qwest to competitive telecommunications providers for network components the providers lease from Qwest. The Eighth Circuit reversed the trial court, ruling that the Minnesota Commission is preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from relying on state law to regulate Qwest's rates.
CenturyLink v. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Prosecuted claims by CenturyLink in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington that challenged the lawfulness of conditions that the Washington commission imposed on the merger of CenturyLink and Qwest Communications. The claims allege violations of the Supremacy Clause and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. After CenturyLink filed a motion for summary judgment, the case was settled on terms favorable to the company.
Qwest Corporation v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Represented Qwest Corporation in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit involving interpretation of a rule from the Federal Communications Commission relating to the rates Qwest is permitted to charge for leasing piece-parts of its telecommunication network to competing companies. In a ruling with industry-wide implications, the Tenth Circuit reversed the Colorado commission's interpretation of the rule in favor of Qwest's interpretation.
Qwest Corporation v. Covad Communications Company and Arizona Corporation Commission
Represented Qwest against Covad Communications Company in separate arbitration proceedings before 14 different public utility commissions. A central issue in these proceedings was whether Qwest was required to lease components of its telecommunications network at cost-based rates or whether it was permitted to charge market-based rates. All but one commission ruled for Qwest, rejecting Covad's request for cost-based rates. John represented Qwest in its appeal of the single adverse arbitration decision, issued by the Arizona Public Utilities Commission. In a decision that had national implications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the Arizona Commission.
Level 3 Communications v. Qwest Corporation
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Represented Qwest Corporation in an appeal brought by Level 3 Communications in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that sought to reinstate a claim for millions of dollars in reciprocal compensation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. After briefing and oral argument, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Level 3's appeal in an unpublished decision.
MCImetro Access Transmission Services v. Qwest Corporation
Defended Qwest successfully in an arbitration claim that sought $50 million under a disputed contract.
Ace Telephone Association v. Qwest Corporation and Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
Represented Qwest in an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit involving a rate that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission set for an element of Qwest's telecommunications network known as switching. A coalition of competitive local exchange carriers had prevailed in district court on their claim that the Minnesota commission had improperly set at zero the rate for the usage-based component of switching. In a decision that had significant financial implications for the Minnesota local exchange market, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court, upholding Qwest's position that the rate was proper. See Ace Telephone Association v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 432 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2005)
