MCI Communication Services Inc. et al v. AT & T Communications of Texas LLC et al

Filing 93

TRANSFER ORDER WITH SIMULTANEOUS SEPARATION AND REMAND OF CERTAIN CLAIMS re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2587) Transferring 26 action(s) to Judge Sidney A Fitzwater in the Northern District of Texas.Signed by Judge Marjorie O. Rendell, Acting Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 12/16/2014. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2587 et al. (dn)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: INTRAMTA SWITCHED ACCESS
CHARGES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2587

TRANSFER ORDER WITH SIMULTANEOUS
SEPARATION AND REMAND OF CERTAIN CLAIMS

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in one Western District of Louisiana action and common
defendants in the remaining 27 actions listed on Schedule A1 move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to
centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of Texas or, alternatively, the
Northern District of Georgia or the Eastern District of Michigan. Movants also request that the Panel
transfer only Sprint’s counterclaims against CenturyLink and separate and remand CenturyLink’s
original claims against Sprint to the Western District of Louisiana. The litigation consists of 28
actions pending in 21 districts, as listed on Schedule A.2
Responding parties have taken a variety of positions in response to this motion for
centralization. More than 100 defendant LECs in approximately 50 actions and potential tag-along
actions support centralizing all CenturyLink and non-CenturyLink cases, as does plaintiff Verizon.3
More than 35 defendant LECs in two actions oppose centralization, as does plaintiff Sprint
Communications Co., LP (Sprint). More than 60 defendant LECs in approximately eighteen actions
and potential tag-along actions oppose inclusion of claims against them (most of these LECs
alternatively support inclusion of all claims against them, including those pending in non-CenturyLink
cases). More than 40 defendant LECs in five non-CenturyLink cases oppose inclusion of the nonCenturyLink cases. At least two groups of defendants favor the Northern District of Georgia as
transferee district, in the first instance or in the alternative. One of these groups also supports

*

Judge Sarah S. Vance and Judge Charles R. Breyer took no part in the decision of this

matter.
1

Movants are 79 commonly-owned and commonly-managed subsidiaries of
CenturyLink, Inc. (collectively, CenturyLink). These subsidiaries are local exchange carriers (LECs)
that provide local telephone services throughout much of the country. Besides CenturyLink LECs,
the actions on the motion name over 300 other LECs as defendants.
2

The Panel is aware of 45 additional actions pending in 27 districts, most of which do
not involve CenturyLink (the non-CenturyLink cases). These actions and any other related actions
are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.
3

MCI Communications Service, Inc. and Verizon Select Services, Inc.

-2centralization in the Northern District of Texas. Verizon suggests centralization in the District of
Minnesota or, alternatively, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Southern District of Ohio, or the
Northern District of Texas. Sprint supports centralization in the District of Minnesota or another
convenient court without a congested docket, and suggests the Eastern District of Michigan or the
Western District of Missouri as possibilities.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these 28 actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Texas will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
The subject actions share factual issues arising from allegations that defendant LECs improperly billed
Verizon and Sprint for switched access charges for IntraMTA calls—calls originated and terminated
in the same major trading area. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
The parties opposing centralization argue that these actions share common legal issues, but
do not share sufficient issues of fact, and that most common factual issues will be undisputed. Those
parties supporting centralization point to various issues of fact that they contend will be in dispute,
including alleged implied-in-fact contracts based on plaintiffs’ uniform conduct in paying these
charges for the past eighteen years without complaint. We are persuaded that there are sufficient
complex common questions of fact to warrant centralization here. We also are persuaded that
centralization will lessen the risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings on, for example, whether certain legal
issues in this litigation should be referred to the Federal Communications Commission.
Several smaller LEC defendants argue that centralization will be inconvenient. We find that
the sheer number of parties and courts involved here favors Section 1407 centralization rather than
informal coordination. Moreover, while transfer of a particular action might inconvenience some
parties to that action, such transfer often is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the
litigation taken as a whole. See, e.g. In re: Crown Life Ins. Premium Life Ins. Litig., 178 F. Supp.
2d 1365, 1366 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
Most parties agree that, if the Panel deems centralization to be appropriate, all CenturyLink
and non-CenturyLink actions should be included. This order applies to only the 28 actions on
CenturyLink’s Section 1407 motion for centralization. The non-CenturyLink actions are potential
tag-along actions and their inclusion will be considered in due course. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1,
and 7.2.
No party opposes CenturyLink’s request to sever and remand CenturyLink’s original claims
in the Western District of Louisiana CenturyTel action, relating to VoIP calls, and to include only
Sprint’s counterclaims regarding IntraMTA calls. We agree that the VoIP claims are not related to
the common IntraMTA call claims present in all other actions, and they will be separated and
remanded.
The Northern District of Texas is an appropriate transferee district for pretrial proceedings

-3in this litigation. Several defendants support centralization there, and Verizon agrees it would be an
appropriate transferee district. Dallas, Texas is an easily accessible and central location. Judge
Sidney A. Fitzwater, who is presiding over a case brought by Verizon, is an experienced transferee
judge who we are confident will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the
Northern District of Texas, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Sidney A.
Fitzwater for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT CenturyLink’s claims against Sprint in the Western
District of Louisiana CenturyTel action are separated and simultaneously remanded, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407(a), to the Western District of Louisiana.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Marjorie O. Rendell
Acting Chair
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: INTRAMTA SWITCHED ACCESS
CHARGES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2587

SCHEDULE A

District of Delaware
MCI COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. AT&T COMMUNICATIONS
OF TEXAS LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01138
Northern District of Florida
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP v. EMBARQ FLORIDA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:14-00230
Southern District of Florida
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. CENTURYLINK
COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-23305
Northern District of Georgia
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. v. BELLSOUTH
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01657
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. ACN COMMUNICATION
SERVICES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02878
Central District of Illinois
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, ET AL. v. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE,
ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-02212
Southern District of Indiana
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. v. INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY INCORPORATED, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01006
Southern District of Iowa
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. CENTRAL SCOTT
TELEPHONE COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-00101

- A2 MDL No. 2587 Schedule A (Continued)

District of Kansas
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP v. UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY
OF KANSAS, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-02213
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. BLUE VALLEY
TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-02448
Western District of Louisiana
CENTURYTEL OF CHATHAM LLC, ET AL. v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS
CO. L P, C.A. No. 3:09-01951
Western District of Michigan
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. ACE TELEPHONE
COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00937
District of Minnesota
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. v. QWEST CORPORATION,
ET AL., C.A. No. 0:14-01387
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. QWEST CORPORATION,
ET AL., C.A. No. 0:14-03385
Western District of Missouri
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. CENTURYTEL OF
MISSOURI, LLC (BELLE-HERMAN), ET AL., C.A. No. 5:14-06099
District of New Jersey
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. v. UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY
OF NEW JERSEY, C.A. No. 1:14-03147
Eastern District of North Carolina
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. v. CAROLINA TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:14-00317

- A3 MDL No. 2587 Schedule A (Continued)

Eastern District of North Carolina (Cont.)
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. ATLANTIC TELEPHONE
MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 7:14-00188
Northern District of Ohio
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. v. UNITED TELEPHONE
COMPANY OF OHIO, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01380
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. CENTURYTEL OF
OHIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01977
Middle District of Pennsylvania
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. FIBERNET
TELECOMMUNICATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:14-01735
Northern District of Texas
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP v. CENTRAL TELEPHONE
COMPANY OF TEXAS, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-01724
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. CAMERON TELEPHONE
COMPANY LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-03210
Western District of Virginia
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. BUGGS ISLAND TELEPHONE
CO-OPERATIVE, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:14-00047
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L. P. v. CENTRAL TELEPHONE
COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, ET AL., C.A. No. 7:14-00298
Eastern District of Washington
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. CENTURYTEL OF
COWICHE INC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-03131

- A4 MDL No. 2587 Schedule A (Continued)

Western District of Washington
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. CENTURYTEL OF
INTER-ISLAND, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01378
Western District of Wisconsin
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. AMELIA TELEPHONE
CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-00605