Infotelecom, LLC v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company et al

Filing 112

RULING denying 104 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 10/17/2011. (Oliver, T.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

INFOTELECOM, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.,
ET AL.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:11-CV-739 (JCH)

OCTOBER 17, 2011

RULING RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. No. 104)
I.

INTRODUCTION
Defendants, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (d/b/a AT&T Illinois), Indiana Bell

Telephone Company (d/b/a AT&T Indiana), Michigan Bell Telephone Company (d/b/a
AT&T Michigan), Nevada Bell Telephone Company (d/b/a AT&T Nevada), the Ohio Bell
Telephone Company (d/b/a AT&T Ohio), Pacific Bell Telephone Company (d/b/a AT&T
California), the Southern New England Telephone Company (d/b/a AT&T Connecticut),
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (d/b/a AT&T Arkansas, AT&T Kansas, AT&T
Missouri, AT&T Oklahoma, and AT&T Texas), and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (d/b/a AT&T
Wisconsin) (collectively, “AT&T”) seek reconsideration of this court’s Ruling denying in
part AT&T’s Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
II.

BACKGROUND
Infotelecom, LLC (“Infotelecom”) brought this claim against AT&T, seeking a

declaratory judgment and a temporary restraining order concerning the Interconnection
Agreement (“ICA”) between the parties. See Doc. No. 1. On May 24, 2011,
Infotelecom filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and AT&T filed a Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction. Doc. Nos. 33 & 43. On July 12, 2011, the court held oral

argument regarding these motions. On July 15, 2011, the court granted AT&T’s Motion
to Dismiss with regard to Infotelecom’s Declaratory Judgment count, but denied the
Motion with regard to “the secret agreement and discriminatory treatment claims.” In
light of this Ruling, the court also terminated Infotelecom’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction as moot. See Doc. No. 80 at 26.
III.

STANDARD
A Motion for Reconsideration is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.

See Kregos v. Latest Line, Inc., 951 F.Supp. 24, 26 (D.Conn. 1996). The standard for
granting a Motion for Reconsideration is “strict,” and “reconsideration will generally be
denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked.” See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
Generally, the major reasons to grant a motion for reconsideration are “‘an intervening
change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Virgin Atl. Airways v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d
1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting 18 C. Wright , A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 4478 at 790). A motion for reconsideration may also be
granted if the court “overlooked factual matters that were put before it on the underlying
motion.” See Eisemann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395 n. 2 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal
quotations omitted).
IV.

DISCUSSION
AT&T argues that the court should reconsider its Ruling, which declined to

dismiss Infotelecom’s claims regarding a secret agreement, in violation of 47 U.S.C.
§§ 252(a)(1) and (e), and discriminatory treatment, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 202(a).

2

See Mem. Supp. Mot. for Reconsideration at 1–2. In support of its Motion, AT&T
argues that AT&T cannot be liable under section 252(a)(1) or (e) because AT&T
incumbent local exchange carriers do not act as a “common carrier,” as defined by
section 153 of the 1996 amendments to the Telecommunications Act of 1934, when
they file (or fail to file) an interconnection agreement. See Mem. Supp. Mot. for
Reconsideration at 3–4. Additionally, AT&T argues that Infotelecom has failed to state
a claim for damages, and consequently, cannot allege a private right of action for either
of these claims under 47 U.S.C. § 207. Id. at 5–6.
AT&T asserts that it “seeks to bring to the Court’s attention issues that AT&T had
no occasion to present until now.” Mem. Supp. Mot. for Reconsideration at 2. In its
Reply, AT&T reiterates this point, asserting that “AT&T never had a ‘first bite’ at
dismissing a claim for damages asserted under 47 U.S.C. § 207 and premised on
alleged violations of section 252(a)(1) and (e) . . . and section 202 . . . because
Infotelecom alleged no such claim in its Complaint and articulated no such claim in its
opposition to AT&T’s motion to dismiss.” Def.’s Reply at 2.
Given these assertions, it is clear that reconsideration is not warranted because
the court did not overlook any matters that were previously put before it. Instead, AT&T
attempts to assert arguments that the court did not have occasion to properly consider
prior to its Ruling. 1 The court cannot reconsider an issue that was not previously fully
presented to it.

1

Although these issues were briefly discussed at oral argument, as the parties acknowledge, the
court did not receive briefing from the parties regarding these specific issues. See Mem. Supp. Mot. for
Reconsideration at 2; Response in Opp. at 4 (“AT&T could have made the arguments it makes now in its
motion for reconsideration in its earlier motion to dismiss.”).

3

V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court denies AT&T’s Motion for

Reconsideration. With respect to AT&T’s request that the court require Infotelecom to
file an amended complaint, the court grants Infotelecom fourteen days to file an
amended complaint, if it wishes to do so. If no amended complaint is filed, AT&T may
file a motion to dismiss the current complaint, or any other dispositive motion, regarding
these issues, within twenty-one days thereafter.

SO ORDERED.

Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 17th day of October, 2011.

/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge

4