Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. v. American Cellular Network Corp., 91-7020
| Decision Date | 12 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-7020,91-7020 |
| Parties | TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC., an Iowa Corporation, et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN CELLULAR NETWORK CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Civ. No. 88-0264).
Alan N. Salpeter, Chicago, Ill., of the bar of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, by special leave of the Court, pro hac vice, with whom John B. Williams and Evan M. Tager, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants.
Allan S. Hoffman, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Before: MIKVA, Chief Judge, EDWARDS and D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. (TDS), and its subsidiary, United States Cellular Corp., appeal a district court decision dismissing two counts of a complaint, one alleging tortious interference with a contractual relationship and the other tortious interference with a prospective business relationship, against American Cellular Network Corp., and Amcell of Atlantic City, (Amcell). The district court gave preclusive effect to an FCC decision that invalidated a paragraph of the contract that was the subject of the complaint and held that, without that paragraph of the contract, TDS could not maintain its claims for tortious interference.
We reverse the district court's decision and remand for further consideration of TDS's claims. The complaint set forth a claim for tortious interference with a prospective business relationship that was based, not on the invalid paragraph, but on TDS's allegations that it had a reasonable expectation of economic advantage growing out of its option to purchase an interest in the Atlantic City cellular telephone system. We remand, therefore, for further consideration of the claims that did not depend on the existence of the invalidated paragraph.
In 1986, Ellis Thompson entered an FCC lottery to obtain a license to construct and operate the "non-wireline" cellular telephone system in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Prior to the lottery, Mr. Thompson and over 100 other applicants pooled their lottery chances by entering into an agreement (the "CMS agreement"). The CMS agreement provided that the winner of the lottery would receive a 50.01% interest in the license while the remaining 49.99% would be divided up between the other applicants. The agreement also contained a clause that prohibited "selling control of the license" without a two thirds vote.
Ellis Thompson won the lottery and received his 50.01% share. He then entered into a contract with TDS under which TDS agreed, among other things, to finance the construction of the cellular network. With this financing in place, Mr. Thompson could proceed with the application process necessary to obtain an FCC permit to build the cellular system. The agreement between TDS and Mr. Thompson also gave TDS the option to purchase Mr. Thompson's license after the cellular network was completed (at the time, FCC rules prohibited the sale of a license before the holder received a construction permit and actually built the system). Later, the agreement was amended to add a clause ("paragraph 16") prohibiting Mr. Thompson from entering into any agreement relating to the provision of goods or services costing more than $50,000 without prior consent from TDS. Paragraph 16 also required Mr. Thompson to include in any such agreement, a clause giving TDS the right to cancel the contract within 60 days after it exercised its option to buy Mr. Thompson's license.
Realizing that the CMS agreement between Mr. Thompson and the other lottery participants required a two thirds vote to transfer control of the license, TDS began its attempt to purchase enough minority shares in the pool to obtain the required two thirds vote. Amcell, a competitor of TDS, also realized that Mr. Thompson could not sell control to TDS without the two thirds majority so it too began to buy up minority shares in the CMS agreement, apparently in an attempt to block the sale of the cellular system to TDS. In its complaint, TDS alleges that Amcell acquired many of these minority interests through fraud and misrepresentation. TDS claims that Amcell misrepresented to sellers the value of Amcell stock, which the sellers received in exchange for their minority interests. TDS also claims that an agent of Amcell, The Cellular Corporation (TCC), violated an FTC consent decree by threatening minority interest holders with the prospect of having to pay "back end fees" if they sold their interests to TDS instead of Amcell.
By October of 1987, Amcell had acquired enough minority interests to block a transfer of control from Mr. Thompson to TDS and, TDS alleges, Amcell notified TDS of this fact by letter. A month later, Mr. Thompson told TDS that he intended to enter into an agreement with Amcell under which Amcell agreed to construct and maintain the Atlantic City cellular system as well as provide switching and other services. TDS objected, pointing to paragraph 16 of its agreement with Mr. Thompson which prohibited such a contract without consent from TDS. TDS also objected because the Amcell/Thompson contract did not contain the requisite cancellation clause. Despite TDS's objections, Mr. Thompson and Amcell entered into the agreement without TDS's consent and without including the cancellation clause required by paragraph 16.
Shortly after signing the agreement, Amcell petitioned the FCC for a conditional grant of Mr. Thompson's application for the Atlantic City license. Claiming that paragraph 16 of the TDS/Thompson agreement violated FCC rules and policies by allowing TDS to interfere with Mr. Thompson's control of the license, Amcell asked for the grant to be conditioned on the abrogation of paragraph 16 from the TDS/Thompson agreement. The Mobile Services Division of the Common Carrier Bureau agreed with Amcell, explaining that "we believe that paragraph 16 of Thompson's agreement with TDS does allow TDS to interfere unreasonably with the tentative selectee's business decisions." Accordingly, the Bureau granted Mr. Thompson's application "conditioned on removal of paragraph 16 from the TDS/Thompson Option Agreement." Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd. 3692, at 3 (Com.Car.Bur.1988).
The Bureau denied TDS's petition for reconsideration of its order conditioning the approval of Mr. Thompson's application on the removal of paragraph 16 from the TDS/Thompson agreement. The Bureau held that the Commission's rules and policies, embodied in its Cellular Control Notice, 1 FCC Rcd 3 (1986), required that a licensee have control, at all times, over its operations. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd. 1599, 2601 (Com.Car.Bur.1989). The Bureau then found that "the clauses in paragraph 16 of the TDS/Thompson agreement in question here are precisely the type of provisions which the Commission had in mind when it issued the guidelines in the Cellular Control Notice." Id. While the FCC proceedings were pending, TDS filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Originally the complaint alleged only two causes of action: a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations and a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations. Later TDS amended its complaint by adding five more counts, one of which alleged violations under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, et seq.
The district court then dismissed the two tortious interference claims, holding that the FCC's decision conditioning the approval of Mr. Thompson's license on the removal of paragraph 16 from the TDS/Thompson agreement "nullified paragraph 16 ... the sole source of any rights TDS might have had regarding the Atlantic City cellular telephone system." Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. v. American Cellular Network Corp., No. 88-0264, at 4 (Sept. 6, 1988) (hereinafter Memorandum Opinion ). The court concluded that, because the FCC's order was entitled to res judicata effect, TDS could not maintain the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Md. Digital Copier v. Litig. Logistics, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-2027 (TJK)
...that a federal court sitting in diversity "must apply the District's door closing statute." Tel. & Data Sys., Inc. v. Am. Cellular Network Corp. , 966 F.2d 696, 699 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam); see also Landmark Health Solutions, LLC v. Not For Profit Hosp. Corp. , 950 F. Supp. 2d 130, 13......
-
De Sousa v. Embassy of the Republic of Angola, Civil Action No. 16–367 (BAH)
...D.C. door-closing statute strips the Court of "subject matter jurisdiction" (citing Tel. & Data Sys., Inc. v. Am. Cellular Network Corp. , 966 F.2d 696, 699 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ); Hunter Innovations v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut , 605 F.Supp.2d 170, 171 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing case ......
-
Am. Civil Constr., LLC v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp.
...this one, ‘must apply the District's door closing statute.’ " 950 F.Supp.2d at 134 (quoting Tel. & Data Sys., Inc. v. Am. Cellular Network Corp. , 966 F.2d 696, 699 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam)). Interpreting the door closing statute, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has stated th......
-
Landmark Health Solutions, LLC v. Not for Profit Hosp. Corp.
...¶ 7. It only became registered on November 15, 2011. See Pl.'s Suppl., [Dckt. # 16–1] at 4. This Circuit held in Telephone & Data Systems, Inc. v. Am. Cellular Network Corp. that a federal court sitting in diversity, such as this one, “must apply the District's door closing statute.” Tel. &......