Nuvox Communications, Inc. v. Sanford

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1312
NUVOX COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
NEWSOUTH COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
versus
JO ANNE SANFORD, Chairman; J. RICHARD CONDER,
Commissioner; ROBERT V. OWENS, JR.,
Commissioner; SAM J. ERVIN, IV, Commissioner;
LORINZO L. JOYNER, Commissioner; JAMES Y.
KERR, II, Commissioner; MICHAEL F. WILKINS,
Commissioner (in their official capacities as
Commissioners of the North Carolina Utilities
Commission); BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cv-00207-BR)
Argued: November 29, 2006 Decided: July 12, 2007
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and David A. FABER, Chief
United States District Judge for the Southern District of West
Virginia, sitting by designation.
Judgment vacated and appeal dismissed as moot in part and not ripe
in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Robert Jeffery Aamoth, KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, L.L.P.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Karen Elizabeth Long, Special
Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Edward Smoot Finley, Jr., HUNTON &
WILLIAMS, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Henry
J. Campen, Jr., Melanie Black Dubis, PARKER, POE, ADAMS &
BERNSTEIN, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina; John J. Heitmann,
Stephanie A. Joyce, KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, L.L.P., Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Roy Cooper, North Carolina Attorney General,
Grayson G. Kelley, Chief Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees,
Commissioners. Christopher J. Ayers, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee BellSouth Telecommunications,
Incorporated.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
For the reasons explained below, we vacate the judgment
of the district court and dismiss this appeal as moot in part and
not ripe in part.
I.
This case involves a dispute between BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) and NuVox Communications, Inc.
(NuVox) regarding the terms on which BellSouth can audit NuVox’s
use of certain telephone network elements called Enhanced Extended
Links (EELs). NuVox uses EELs of BellSouth pursuant to two
different interconnection agreements between the carriers. (We
will at times refer to one of the agreements as the NuVox Agreement
and the other as the NewSouth Agreement.) Both agreements allow
NuVox to convert higher-cost special access circuits to lower-cost
EELs provided that NuVox self-certify that it is using the circuits
to provide a “significant amount of local exchange service” as
defined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). J.A. 166,
731. When certain conditions are met, both the NuVox and NewSouth
Agreements grant BellSouth the right to audit NuVox to ensure that
it is complying with the local usage requirements.
Plaintiff-appellant NuVox filed a verified complaint in
the district court on March 28, 2005, against defendants-appellees
BellSouth and the commissioners of the North Carolina Utility
3
Commission (NCUC) in their official capacities, seeking relief from
three orders issued by the NCUC in 2004 and 2005. In the first of
the three orders at issue, the NCUC decided that BellSouth was
entitled to conduct an audit (the NewSouth audit) of EELs use under
the terms of the NewSouth Agreement. In the Matter of BellSouth
Telecomms., Inc. v. NewSouth Commc’ns, Corp., Order Granting
Summary Disposition and Allowing Audit, Docket No. P-772, Sub 7
(Aug. 24, 2004). In the second order the NCUC denied a motion to
reconsider its order authorizing the NewSouth audit. Id., Order
Denying Motion for Reconsideration, Docket No. P-772, Sub 7 (Jan.
20, 2005). The third order issued by the NCUC authorized BellSouth
to conduct an audit (the NuVox audit) on EELs use under the NuVox
Agreement. In the Matter of the Enforcement of Interconnection
Agreement Between BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. and NuVox Telecomms.,
Inc., Order Granting Motion for Summary Disposition and Allowing
Audit, Docket No. P-913, Sub 7 (Feb. 21, 2005).
In its complaint in the district court, NuVox sought
declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the three NCUC
orders. NuVox alleged that the NCUC had misinterpreted the terms
of both interconnection agreements in authorizing the audits.
Specifically, NuVox asserted that federal law incorporated into the
agreements requires: (1) that BellSouth “demonstrate a concern”
prior to being authorized to audit and (2) that NuVox be allowed to
4
challenge the independence of an auditor before an audit is
initiated.
The district court did not reach the merits of the
dispute because it concluded that NuVox’s complaint does not arise
under federal law. As a result, the court dismissed the complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
NuVox appealed, arguing that a substantial question of federal law
is raised by the issue of whether the NCUC’s interpretation of the
interconnection agreements resulted in the denial of what NuVox
asserts are federal rights. NuVox argues in the alternative that
the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under Section
252(e)(6) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104,
110 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 251 et seq.
On March 27, 2007, after the case had been argued before
this court, NuVox submitted a Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) Notice of
Supplemental Authority, informing us of an FCC decision issued the
day before that bears on this appeal. The FCC issued a Memorandum
Opinion and Order on March 26, 2007, approving of the merger of
BellSouth with AT&T. FCC approval of the merger was contingent
upon a number of conditions including the requirement that:
AT&T/BellSouth shall cease all ongoing or threatened
audits of compliance with the Commission’s EELs
eligibility criteria (as set forth in the Supplemental
Order Clarification’s significant local use requirement
and related safe harbors, and the Triennial Review
Order’s high capacity EEL eligibility criteria), and
shall not initiate any new EELs audits.
5
In the Matter of AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corp. Application for
Transfer of Control, WC Docket No. 06-74, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, Appendix F at 149 (Mar. 26, 2007) (FCC Merger Order). In
its Rule 28(j) notice NuVox asserted that this merger condition
renders as moot the disputes surrounding both the NuVox audit and
the NewSouth audit. We requested and received supplemental
briefing on the issues of mootness and ripeness from the parties,
and we turn now to those issues.
II.
Federal courts have no jurisdiction to decide moot
questions. Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 363 (4th Cir. 2003).
Because of the case or controversy requirement found in Article III
of the Constitution, “federal courts are without power to decide
questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case
before them.” De Funis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1979)
(quoting North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)).
Both NuVox and BellSouth assert that the appeal of the
NCUC’s February 21, 2005, order in Docket P-913 authorizing the
NuVox audit is moot. Although the NCUC authorized an audit under
the NuVox Agreement more than two years ago, BellSouth never began
the audit as a result of an injunction issued by the district court
in this case. As a result, on February 16, 2007, BellSouth and
NuVox filed a joint motion in NCUC Docket P-913 requesting that the
6
NCUC vacate its February 2005 order. BellSouth and NuVox stated
the dispute arising from that order “is moot because BellSouth had
neither commenced nor completed the audit it was allowed to conduct
under the [Feb. 21, 2005] Order and the [FCC] merger condition bars
BellSouth from proceeding with that audit.” In light of the fact
that BellSouth no longer seeks to enforce the February 2005 order
in NCUC Docket P-913, we agree that this appeal as it relates to
that order has been mooted.
While the parties agree that a portion of this appeal is
moot, they contest the effect of the FCC Merger Order on the NCUC
orders issued in Docket P-772 interpreting the NewSouth Agreement.
In contrast to what occurred after the NCUC issued its ruling in
Docket P-913, NuVox did not seek an injunction barring BellSouth
from beginning the NewSouth audit authorized in Docket P-772. As
a result, the auditor contracted by BellSouth released its findings
on the NewSouth audit on November 11, 2004.
BellSouth contends that the NewSouth audit was concluded
when the auditor released its findings. NuVox argues that the
record before us shows that the audit was never completed because
the auditor’s report includes a “placeholder” exhibit for a letter
needed from NuVox that NuVox has not supplied. See NuVox’s
Supplemental Br. at 14-15, Appendix E. According to NuVox, the
letter could not be drafted because the auditor has never reviewed
and verified the results found with NuVox. The dispute between the
7
parties over the significance of the missing letter and of the
audit verification procedures in general is of considerable
importance because those questions may determine whether or not the
FCC Merger Order moots any dispute about the audit authorized in
Docket P-772.
As a result of this dispute, we conclude that the issues
in this appeal relating to the NCUC’s August 2004 and January 2005
orders in Docket P-772 are not ripe for review. Drawn from both
Article III limitations and prudential considerations, ripeness is
a justiciability doctrine designed “to prevent the courts, through
premature adjudication from entangling themselves in abstract
disagreements.” Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473
U.S. 568, 580 (1985). “To determine whether the case is ripe, we
balance the fitness of the issues for judicial decision with the
hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.”
Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312, 319 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation omitted).
We have previously explained that a case “is fit for
judicial decision where the issues to be considered are purely
legal ones and where the agency rule or action giving rise to the
controversy is final and not dependent upon future uncertainties or
intervening agency rulings.” Charter Fed. Sav. Bank v. Office of
Thrift Supervision, 976 F.2d 203, 208 (4th Cir. 1992). This is not
the situation here. To determine whether there is still a
8
justiciable controversy between the parties, we would first have to
decide whether the NewSouth audit has already been completed.
Underlying this question are several disputed factual and legal
issues. It is not within our province, however, to settle the
factual disputes surrounding the audit verification procedures.
Furthermore, the considerations that favor withholding
review are not outweighed by any hardship that dismissing the
appeal may cause the parties. Significantly, we conclude that
dismissal for lack of ripeness will not prevent NuVox from raising
the same issues in the future should the appropriate trier of fact
determine that there remains a live dispute surrounding the
NewSouth audit. Another proceeding involving the NewSouth audit is
currently pending before the NCUC in its Docket P-1341, Sub 1. On
September 22, 2006, BellSouth filed a complaint under that docket
number asserting that the audit report released on November 11,
2004, shows that NuVox has breached the local usage requirements in
the NewSouth Agreement. The complaint in Docket P-1341 is based on
the NewSouth audit authorized by the NCUC in Docket P-772. Just as
it has before this court, NuVox has argued to the NCUC that the
NewSouth audit has never been completed. Thus, NuVox has urged the
NCUC to determine that the FCC Merger Order moots BellSouth’s
complaint in Docket P-1341. For its part, BellSouth has argued
that the Merger Order is inapplicable to the proceeding in Docket
P-1341 and that NuVox’s argument to the contrary must first be
9
adjudicated by the FCC and not the NCUC. This is so, BellSouth
argues, because the FCC retains exclusive jurisdiction to interpret
and enforce conditions contained in the Merger Order. The NCUC has
not ruled on these questions and has placed the proceedings in
Docket P-1341 in abeyance pending the outcome of this appeal.
We take no position at this point on whether the FCC or
the NCUC is the appropriate agency to determine these matters in
the first instance. At any rate, only after a threshold
determination has been made as to whether the NewSouth audit was
completed, or is instead ongoing or threatened, will it be clear
whether BellSouth can maintain its complaint in Docket P-1341. If
the FCC Merger Order has mooted the proceedings in Docket P-1341,
NuVox would have no need to seek any sort of relief from the
federal courts in relation to the NewSouth audit. If, however, the
FCC Merger Order has not mooted the proceedings in Docket P-1341,
and the NCUC ultimately rules in favor of BellSouth/AT&T, NuVox
could challenge that decision in federal court on the same grounds
that it challenged the orders issued in Docket P-772. Accordingly,
we vacate the district court’s judgment that NuVox’s complaint in
this case does not raise a federal question, and we then dismiss
the present appeal. In vacating the judgment of the district
10
court, we are offering no opinion on the merits of the
jurisdictional questions that were raised and may again be raised
in a future action.
JUDGMENT VACATED AND
APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT IN PART
AND NOT RIPE IN PART
11