In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees, MDL 1559.

Decision Date23 September 2004
Docket NumberNo. MDL 1559.,No. 403MD01559.,MDL 1559.,403MD01559.
PartiesIn re WIRELESS TELEPHONE FEDERAL COST RECOVERY FEES LITIGATION.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

Charles F. Speer, Speer Law Firm, Kansas City, MO, Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Obetz, Matthew A. Clement, Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C., Jefferson City, MO, Stephen M. Gorny, Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Obetz, Leawood, KS, Timothy W. Van Ronzelen, Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C., Jefferson City, MO, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Whatley Drake, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Thomas Pirmantgen, Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C., Jefferson City, MO, Ann D. White, Mager White & Goldstein, Jenkintown, PA, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Mager White & Goldstein, Coral Springs, FL, Anthony J. Bolognese, Bolognese & Associates, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, Richard D. Greenfield, Greenfield & Goodman LLC, Royal Oak, MD, Andrew S. Freidman, Bonnett Fairborn Friedman & Balint, PC, Phoenix, AZ, B.J. Wade, Glassman Edwards Wade & Wyatt. P.C., Memphis TN, H. Sullivan Bunch, Bonnett Fairborn Friedman & Blint, PC, Phoenix, AZ, John J. Stola, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, San Diego, CA, Leslie E. Hurst, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, San Diego, CA, Tameka Nichol Turner-Perry, Glassman, Edwards, Wade & Wyatt, PC, Memphis, TN, Timothy G. Blood, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP-CA, San Diego, CA, William C. Wright, Bonnett Fairborn Friedman & Balint PC, Phoenix, AZ, Jonathan S. Abady, Enery Celli Cuti Brinckerhoff & Abady, New York City, Colette D. Honorable, S. Gene Cauley, Steven A. Owings, Little Rock, AR, Donald Chidi Amamgbo, Amamgbo & Associates, Oakland, CA, Reginald Von Terrell, The Terrell Law Group, Richmond, CA, Remigius Chibueze, Amamgbo & Associates, PLC, Oakland, CA, Carol V. Gilden, Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., Chicago, IL, Douglas A. Millen, Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., Michael B. Hyman, Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., Michael E. Moskovitz, Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., Chicago, IL, Elias A. Alexiades, New Haven, CT, Andrew S. Friedman, Bonnett Fairborn Friedman & Balint, PC, Phoenix, AZ, Christa L. Collins, James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A., John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A., Tampa, FL, Mark S. Fistos, Law Office of Mark S. Fistos, Esq., Tallahassee, FL, Ann Miller, Ann Miller, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, Christopher M. Larmoyeux, Larmoyeux & Bone, West Palm Beach, FL, Anthony F. Fata, Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, James S. Shedden, Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C., Chicago, IL, Joshua Lifshitz, Bull & Lifshitz, LLP, New York City, Lawrence Wiley Schad, Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C., Chicago, IL, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, Chicago, IL, Steven J. Tomiello, Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C., Chicago, IL, David Pastor, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Edward L. Manchur, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Saugus, MA, Michael J. Kane, Mager White & Goldstein LLP, Jenkintown, PA, John E. Villafranco, Collier, Shannon, Scott, PLLC, Thomas E. Gilbertsen, Collier, Shannon, Scott, PLLC, Washington, DC, Myron M. Cherry, Myron Cherry & Associates, Gary L. Specks, Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Chicago, IL, Mark C. Rifkin, Wolf, Haldenstein, et al, New York City, Mary Jane Fait, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.

Dane H. Butswinkas, Williams & Connolly, LLP, Washington, DC, Deborah Rzasnicki Hogan, Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd., Frederic R. Klein, Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Mortiz, Ltd., Chicago, IL, Harvey M. Tettlebaum, Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, Jefferson City, MO, James P. Madigan, Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd., Chicago, IL, Paul A. Alexis, Boult Cummings Conners & Berry, Nashville, TN, Jane Christine Drummond, Husch & Eppenberger, Jefferson City, MO, Frederick W. Turner, Snyder & Snyder, LLP, Tarrytown, NY, Joseph George Galardi, Steel Hector & Davis Phillips Point West, West Palm Beach, FL, Seamus C. Duffy, Drinker Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, PA, Brant M. Laue, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Chadler E. Colgan, Armstrong Teasdale LLP-KCMO, Kansas City, MO, Daniel D. Crabtree, Stinson, Morrison, Hecker, LLP-OPKS, Overland Park, KS, J. Kent Lowry, Amstrong Teasdale LLP, Jefferson City, MO, James Joseph Sipchen, Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtd., Chicago, IL, Mark D. Hinderks, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Overland Park, KS, Richard M. Waris, Pretzel & Stouffer, CHTD., Chicago, IL William E. Hanna, Morrison & Hecker, Kansas City, MO, John McQuiston, II, Stokes Bartholomew Evans & Petree, PA, Memphis, TN, Lee Lauridsen, Sprint Law Department, Overland Park, KS, Michael Byrley Colgan, Glenn, Rasmussen, Fogarty & Hooker, PA, Tampa, FL, Scott A. Frick, Stokes Bartholomew Evans & Petree, PA, Memphis, TN, Alysa N. Zeltzer, Collier Shannon Scott, Washington, DC, Christopher J. Huber, Pepper Hamilton, Philadelphia, PA, Joseph George Galardi, Steel Hector & Davis, West Palm Beach, FL, Michael R. Johns, Dover Dixon Horne, PLLC, Little Rock, AR, Robert L. Hickok, Pepper Hamilton, Philadelphia, PA, Thomas S. Stone, Little Rock, AR, William M. Bailey, Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC, Washington, DC, Frederick W. Turner, Brian L. Ferrall, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, Amor A. Esteban, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Jeanine M. Donohue, Drinker Biddle & Reath, Michele D. Floyd, Reed Smith Crosby Heafey LLP, San Francisco, CA, Gerald J. Caruso, Rubin & Rudman, LLP, Rebecca I. Tepper, Rubin & Rudman, LLP, Boston, MA, James McNamara, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP-CA, San Diego, CA, Laura Thompson Goettsch, Niewald, Waldeck & Brown, John O'Connor, Niewald, Waldeck & Brown, Michael E. Waldeck, Niewald, Waldeck & Brown, Kansas City, MO, Cory S. Fein, Caddell & Chapman, Cynthia B. Chapman, Caddell & Chapman, Fernando de Leon, Caddell & Chapman, Houston, TX, Kenneth E. Nelson, Nelson Law Firm, PC, Kansas City, MO, Michael A. Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, Houston, TX, Mitchell A. Toups, Beaumont, TX, Dale Kenneth Irwin, Slough, Connealy, Irwin & Madden, LLC, Kansas City, MO, Jacqueline Sailer, Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP, New York City, Daniel A. Ball, Goldbert Ball, P.C., Potomac, MD, Paul L. Bittner, New Albany, OH, Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc., Del Mar, CA, Robert A. Holstein, Holstein Law Offices, LLC, Chicago, IL, Bryan D. Marcus, Bryan D. Marcus, P.C., Livonia, MI, Charles D. Chalmers, Mill Valley, CA, Samaraweera Law Office, NW Washington, DC, Utility Consumers' Action Network, San Diego, CA, Stephen Robert Clark, Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte, St. Louis, MO, Bruce Keplinger, Norris & Keplinger, LLC, Overland Park, KS, Marcus Neil Bozeman, Cauley, Geller, Bowman & Rudman, LLP, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants.

ORDER

GAITAN, District Judge.

On May 26, 2004, the Court ordered that the parties submit briefs concerning the Court's jurisdiction over the remaining actions that comprise the above-entitled proceeding and also whether the Court's December 16, 2003, All Writs Act injunction should be continued, modified or discontinued.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 13, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred to this Court five actions pending in five districts. Over the next seven months, the Panel transferred an additional twenty-one cases to this Court. The Panel found that the actions presented common, complex legal and factual questions concerning the disclosure and/or propriety of line-item fees charged by wireless telephone service providers to customers for recovering the costs of complying with one or more federally mandated telecommunication programs.

Shortly before the cases were transferred to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Nextel West Corp. and Nextel Communications, Inc. (together "Nextel"), Nextel Partners, Inc. ("Nextel Partners") and Plaintiffs in the Blando v. Nextel case, (W.D.Mo.02-921), filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a class action settlement agreement. The Court entered an Order on October 9, 2003 preliminarily approving the settlement and directing that notice be sent to the class1. A Fairness Hearing was held on January 29, 2004. On April 20, the Court entered an Order granting the parties' Motion for Final Approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement. As a result of the settlement, fifteen individual cases were dismissed. At the present time, there are eleven cases which still remain before the Court.

After the Court had approved the settlement in the Blando case, the Court invited the parties to submit briefs addressing the Court's jurisdiction over the remaining actions and also whether the All-Writs Act injunction should be continued, discontinued or modified. The Plaintiffs' Coalition argues that the remaining cases should be remanded because they were improperly removed. The plaintiffs argue that removal was improper because the Court lacks jurisdiction under the complete preemption doctrine, federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Cingular and Sprint argue that the cases were properly removed and that although plaintiffs' claims are described as state-law consumer protection, fraud and contract claims, they are really attempting to use state laws to regulate the carriers' rates in violation of the Federal Communications Act. Thus, they argue that the Court has jurisdiction under the Complete Preemption, Artful Pleading and Substantial Federal Question doctrines. The Illinois plaintiffs2 also filed a brief addressing the Court's jurisdiction. The Illinois plaintiffs argue that they are challenging the "deceptive manner in which the defendants' various fees were placed on their bills and the imposition of the fees in relation to the terms and conditions under which the Illinois Plaintiffs contracted for the provision of wireless service." (...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Castro v. Collecto, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • 27 Octubre 2009
    ...Aug. 13, 2008) (not reported). 159. Id. at *1. 160. Id. at *4. 161. Id. 162. Id. at *5. 163. In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 343 F.Supp.2d 838, 850 (W.D.Mo.2004) (citation 164. Id. at 851-52. 165. Moriconi v. AT & T Wireless PCS, LLC, 280 F.Supp.2d 867, 875-7......
  • Cobble v. Trump
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • 24 Junio 2020
    ..."to save the economy and protect the nation" in light of the federal "bank bailout plan") (citing In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 343 F. Supp. 2d 838, 843 (W.D. Mo. 2004); In re Snavely, 314 B.R. 808, 818 (9th Cir. 2004)). For all of these reasons, the Court will dismiss......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT