Nat'l Cable Television Coop. Inc v. Lafayette City-parish Consol. Gov't Of Lafayette
| Decision Date | 23 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-2254-KHV-DJW,10-2254-KHV-DJW |
| Parties | NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff, v. LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA, d/b/a LUS UTILITIES SYSTEM, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF LAFAYETTE,
LOUISIANA, d/b/a LUS UTILITIES SYSTEM, Defendant.
No. 10-2254-KHV-DJW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Filed: November 23, 2010
National Cable Television Cooperative, Inc. ("NCTC") brings suit against Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government of Lafayette, Louisiana d/b/a Lafayette Utilities System ("LUS") seeking declaratory judgment on two counts.1 In Count I, NCTC seeks a declaratory judgment that (1) Section 628 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 548 (hereinafter "Section 628"), does not apply to it; (2) LUS may not lawfully bring a Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") compliance action against plaintiff or its board members; and (3) if LUS pursued an FCC compliance action against NCTC, it would constitute malicious prosecution of an unmeritorious claim. Complaint (Doc. #1) at 7-8. In Count II, NCTC seeks a declaratory judgment that (1) it did not violate federal or state unfair competition laws when it denied the LUS membership application and (2)
Page 2
if LUS attempted to pursue a claim with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") under 15 U.S.C. § 45, ask the U.S. Department of Justice to reconsider its NCTC business review letter, seek a Congressional investigation or seek to enforce state unfair practices laws, such action would constitute malicious prosecution of an unmeritorious claim. Id. at 10. This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #15), which LUS filed June 21, 2010 and Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration Of Court's September 07, 2010 Order (Doc. # 28) filed September 13, 2010.2 For the following reasons,
Page 3
the Court overrules plaintiff's motion to reconsider and sustains defendant's motion to dismiss.
Defendant seeks to dismiss both counts of plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., and for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. Alternatively, defendant seeks to dismiss or stay this case under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Marcus v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, 170 F.3d 1305, 1309 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Penteco Corp.-1985A v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991)). Therefore, the law imposes a presumption against jurisdiction. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974). The Court may exercise jurisdiction only when specifically authorized to do so, see Castaneda v. INS, 23 F.3d 1576, 1580 (10th Cir. 1994), and must dismiss a claim if it becomes apparent at any stage of the proceedings that it lacks jurisdiction, Scheideman v. Shawnee Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 895 F. Supp. 279, 280 (D. Kan. 1995) (citing Basso, 495 F.2d at 909); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff bears the burden of
Page 4
showing that jurisdiction is proper, see Scheideman, 895 F. Supp. at 280, and must demonstrate that the case should not be dismissed, see Jensen v. Johnson Cnty. Youth Baseball League, 838 F. Supp. 1437, 1439-40 (D. Kan. 1993). Mere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are not enough. United States v. Spectrum Emergency Care, Inc., 190 F.3d 1156, 1160 (10th Cir. 1999).
Rule 12(b)(1) motions generally take the form of facial attacks on the complaint or factual attacks on the accuracy of its allegations. Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1002-03 (10th Cir.1995) (citing Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 1990)). In a facial challenge like defendant's, the Court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and may not consider evidence outside the complaint. Stuart v. Colo. Interstate Gas Co., 271 F.3d 1221, 1225 (10th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following facts:
NCTC is a not-for-profit Kansas corporation that serves as a cable purchasing cooperative for its members. Doc. #1 at 2. Its members are local and national cable operators. Id. NCTC enables its members to purchase cable programming and hardware at discounted bulk rates. Id. LUS is the utility department and cable operator for Lafayette, Louisiana, and is a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. Id.
LUS applied for membership in NCTC and NCTC denied its application. See Doc. #1 ¶ 8. In response, and pursuant to FCC regulations, LUS sent NCTC a pre-filing notification which put NCTC on notice that it intended to file a claim against NCTC with the FCC. Id. ¶¶ 8-13, 21-22; Ex. 1 attached to Doc. #1. The pre-filing notification alleged that NCTC engaged in anti-competitive practices in violation of Section 628(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 548. Doc. #1 ¶¶ 8-13; Ex. 1
Page 5
attached to Doc. #1. The pre-filing notice further stated that LUS would "consider" pursuing other available options, including "filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45; asking the U.S. Department of Justice to reconsider its business review letter issued to the NCTC on October 17, 2003; seeking a congressional investigation and appropriate legislation; and obtaining enforcement of the relevant state unfair trade practices acts." Doc. #1 ¶ 11 (quoting LUS pre-filing notification, Ex. 1 attached to Doc. #1). Nine days after it received the pre-filing notice, NCTC brought this action for declaratory judgment. See Doc. #1 (filed April 30, 2010).3
I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Defendant asks the Court to dismiss plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. With respect to Count I, defendant asserts that this Court cannot issue a declaratory judgment on plaintiffs claims under Section 628 of the Communications Act because the FCC in the first instance, and the court of appeals on review, have exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. Doc. #16 at 15-17. As to Count II, defendant argues that plaintiff does not allege a case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Doc. #16 at 24-28.
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only when specifically authorized to do so. Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 547-48 (1989); Castaneda, 23 F.3d at 1580; Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Martin, 969 F.2d 970, 972 (10th Cir. 1992), aff'd sub nom. Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). The law thus imposes a presumption against
Page 6
jurisdiction. Marcus, 170 F.3d at 1309. Plaintiff must overcome this presumption by showing, by more than mere conclusory allegations, that jurisdiction is proper. Jensen, 838 F. Supp. at 1439-40. Article III of the United States Constitution strictly circumscribes federal court jurisdiction to cases or controversies. U.S. Const. art. III § 2, cl. 1. Plaintiff's claims for declaratory judgment are authorized by the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 ("DJA"), which incorporates the Article III case-or-controversy requirement. It provides that "[i]n a case of actual controversy," the Court may "declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).4 MedImmune v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118, 126-27 (2007) ("case of actual controversy" in DJA refers to "cases" and "controversies" justiciable under Article III). Therefore the DJA is "procedural only," Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240 (1937), and "does not itself confer jurisdiction on a federal court where none otherwise exists," Henry v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 43 F.3d 507, 517 (10th Cir. 1994).
The DJA imposes two hurdles that a declaratory judgment plaintiff must overcome. Surefoot LC v. Sure Foot Corp., 531 F.3d 1236, 1240 (10th Cir. 2008). First, plaintiff must assert "a case of
Page 7
actual controversy" within the jurisdiction of the presiding court. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). The Supreme Court has repeatedly equated this hurdle with the Constitution's case-or-controversy requirement. Surefoot, 531 F.3d at 1240 (citing MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127-28; Aetna, 300 U.S. at 239-40). Therefore, a declaratory judgment action "must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, must be real and substantial and admit of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts." Id. at 1244 (quoting MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 138; Aetna, 300 U.S. at 240) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether a case or controversy exists is a matter of degree, Exec. Risk Indem. Inc. v. Sprint Corp., 282 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1202 (D. Kan. 2003), and turns on whether declaratory relief will have some effect in the real world, Citizens for Responsible Gov't State Political Action Comm. v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, 1182 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Becker, 186 F.3d 1261, 1266 (10th Cir....
To continue reading
Request your trial