SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. L.P. V. CAT COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
335 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2003)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Sprint (P), a long distance telephone service provider, sought review
of a judgment which dissolved a preliminary injunction issued against Cat Communications
(D), a reseller of local telephone service, and which significantly increased the amount of
the injunction bond in P's action for trespass and conversion.
FACTS: P contends that its network received unauthorized long distance telephone calls
from D's local service customers. The calls originated from several states, the largest
number coming from New Jersey. None of these calls were paid for. P asked D to prevent its
customers from gaining access to P's network and also to provide a billing mechanism or
billing information to facilitate P's collection efforts. D did not respond. P sued in
federal court alleging trespass, conversion, nuisance, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy,
common law fraud, and violation of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. P
requested preliminary injunctive relief. The District Court issued an order preliminarily
restraining D 'from permitting [its] customers to access or place calls on . . . Sprint's .
. . long distance network' and directing it to 'take such measures as are necessary to block
all [its] customers' ' access. P was required to post a $250,000 bond 'for payment of such
costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by . . . CAT Communications if found to
have been wrongfully enjoined.' D complied with the preliminary injunction by ordering
blocks on its customers' access to P's network. Local Exchange Carriers charged fees to D in
order to institute and maintain the blocks. One of them, Verizon, charged a non-recurring
$10.55 fee to impose a block on each D customer and a $12.41 per line monthly charge to
maintain the block. D began to accrue significant costs under the preliminary injunction. In
November 2001, D sought to terminate the preliminary injunction and increase the amount of
the injunction bond. D claimed that blocking charges stood at over $2.7 million and were
projected to rise. In January 2002, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The
original Judge had by then retired and a hearing on these motions was set for April 2002
before a new District Judge. The District Court granted summary judgment to D on P's
nuisance, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, common law fraud, and Federal Communications
Act claims, but denied summary judgment on the trespass and conversion claims. The District
Court denied P's motion for summary judgment on its trespass and conversion claims. It also
dissolved the preliminary injunction and, at the same time, increased the injunction bond to
$4.95 million. The increase in the bond amount was based on the 'accrued' blocking fees
charged to D. P appealed the dissolution of the preliminary injunction and the simultaneous
increase in the amount of the injunction bond.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment