MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. Paetec Communications, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1013
MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-04-1479-CMH-BRP)
Argued: September 21, 2006 Decided: October 25, 2006
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and Richard L.
VOORHEES, United States District Judge for the Western District of
North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Sean Abram Lev, KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN,
TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON
BRIEF: Tony S. Lee, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; John B.
Messenger, PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Fairport, New York, for
Appellant. Jeffrey A. Rackow, Washington, D.C.; Scott H.
Angstreich, KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc. (“MCI”) filed this lawsuit
against Paetec Communications, Inc. (“Paetec”) to recover
telecommunications access charges that it paid for a period of
time, but later challenged as unsupported by tariff1.
Specifically, MCI alleges that Paetec unlawfully charged it for
routing toll-free calls from third-party wireless carriers to MCI’s
network when that service was not within the Paetec tariffs, either
federal or state, to which MCI subscribed. MCI paid the charges
initially because Paetec’s invoices did not separately state them.
When the charges were disaggregated and MCI became aware of them,
it withheld payment of two monthly invoices from Paetec in an
effort to recoup its funds and subsequently brought this action for
damages.
In its answer, Paetec raised as an affirmative defense a
provision from its tariffs requiring 90-days notice of a billing
dispute and also asserted counterclaims, both statutory and
equitable, to recover the balances of the two invoices that MCI
refused to pay. Paetec then filed a motion for partial summary
judgment based on the 90-day notice provision. The district court
denied the motion concluding that a party could not use a tariff to
1
A tariff is a public document that sets forth the services
offered by a telecommunications carrier, the fees charged for those
services, and the terms on which those services are offered. AT&T
Commn’cs of S. States, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc., 268 F.3d
1294, 1296 n.4 (11th Cir. 2001).
3
shorten unilaterally the two-year statute of limitations for tariff
overcharges under the Federal Communications Act. MCI Worldcom
Network Servs., Inc. v. Paetec Commc’ns, Inc., No. 04-1479, at 2-3
(E.D. Va. May 16, 2005).
Both parties then moved for summary judgment on the merits.
The district court granted MCI’s motion and denied Paetec’s cross-
motion. MCI Worldcom Network Servs, Inc. v. Paetec Commc’n, Inc.,
No. 04-1479 (E.D. Va. Aug. 31, 2005). In granting MCI’s motion,
the district court rejected Paetec’s argument that its access
tariffs included the service of transmitting to MCI interstate
toll-free calls made by end-users of other telecommunications
carriers for two reasons. First, under the circumstances
presented, MCI was not a “customer” of Paetec with respect to the
service in question. Id. at 7-9. Second, even if MCI could be
considered a customer, the court concluded that the service Paetec
performed for MCI was not within its tariffs. Id. at 9-11. In
denying Paetec’s cross-motion, the district court held that the
filed rate doctrine2 precluded equitable counterclaims and that MCI
acted lawfully in withholding payment on the two invoices as an
offset for the disputed charges. Id. at 11-13. Paetec now appeals
the district court’s rulings.
2
Under the filed rate doctrine, a carrier is expressly
prohibited from collecting charges for services that are not
described in its tariff. See Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cent. Office
Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214, 222 (1998).
4
Having reviewed the parties' briefs and the applicable law,
and having had the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the grant of
summary judgment to MCI and the denials of summary judgment to
Paetec on the reasoning of the district court. See Paetec
Commc’ns, Inc., No. 04-1479 (E.D. Va. Aug. 31, 2005); Paetec
Commc’ns, Inc., No. 04-1479 (E.D. Va. May 16, 2005).
AFFIRMED
5