489 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2007), 04-7034, APCC Services, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co.

Docket Nº:04-7034, 04-7035.
Citation:489 F.3d 1249
Party Name:APCC SERVICES, INC., et al., Appellees v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO., Appellant.
Case Date:June 08, 2007
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Page 1249

489 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

APCC SERVICES, INC., et al., Appellees



Nos. 04-7034, 04-7035.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 8, 2007

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.

Albert H. Kramer, Leslie R. Cohen, Leon B. Kellner, Adam Proujansky, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, Roy T. Englert, Jr., Donald J. Russell, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner, Washington, DC, Michael Walter Ward, Law Office of Michael W. Ward, Buffalo Grove, IL, for Appellees.

David Paul Murray, Randy J. Branitsky, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Washington, DC, Appellant.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.



In APCC Services, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., 418 F.3d 1238 (2005) (APCC), we reversed the orders of the district court denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of

Page 1250

certiorari to this court, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 127 S.Ct. 1513, 167 L.Ed.2d 422 (2007). We now affirm the orders of, and remand the case to, the district court.

The facts of this case are set forth in our previous opinion. APCC, 418 F.3d at 1241-42. In brief, APCC et al. are a payphone service provider (PSP) and several "aggregators," intermediaries between PSPs and interexchange carriers (IXCs), that sued several IXCs to obtain compensation they claim the IXCs owe them pursuant to a regulation of the Federal Communications Commission. The IXCs moved to dismiss on the grounds that the aggregators did not have standing to sue and the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., did not give the plaintiffs a private right of action to recover for a violation of the regulation. The district court denied the motions, concluding the aggregators had standing, APCC Servs., Inc. v. AT & T Corp., 281 F.Supp.2d 41, 45 (2003), and that § 276 of the Act created a private right of action. APCC Servs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless, Inc., 281 F.Supp.2d 52, 54-57 (2003). The district court also permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to assert that §§ 201(b), 407, and 416(c) of Title 47 provide alternate grounds for relief. Id. at 57-59. This court reversed. The panel...

To continue reading