Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs brought an enforcement suit against defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, concluding that defendants' practice of offering discounted telephone services to employees and retirees ("Concession") was not a pension plan in whole or in part. The court affirmed summary judgment and held that the district court did not err in holding that Concession was one plan, at least as it regarded to all retirees; in refusing to examine the out-of-region retiree Concession in isolation; in concluding that although Concession did provide income to some retirees, such income was incidental to the benefit, and was not designed for the purpose of paying retirement income; and in holding that Concession did not result in a deferral of income. View "Boos, et al. v. AT&T, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a putative class of retail cable and satellite television subscribers, brought suit against television programmers and distributors alleging that programmers' practice of selling multi-channel cable packages violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. At issue was whether the district court properly granted programmers' and distributors' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint with prejudice because plaintiffs failed to allege any cognizable injury to competition. The court held that the complaint's allegations of reduced choice increased prices addressed only the element of antitrust injury, but not whether plaintiffs have satisfied the pleading standard for an actual violation. Therefore, absent any allegations of an injury to competition, the court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. View "Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

The national organization, chartered by Congress (36 U.S.C. 80302), decided to reduce the number of local councils, which are, essentially, franchises. The plan called for dissolution of the plaintiff council and dividing its territory among other councils. The district court ruled in favor of the national organization, reasoning that to apply the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law to the national organization would violate the organizationâs freedom of expression, guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part. The fact that a law of general application might indirectly and unintentionally impede the organization's efforts to communicate its message is not enough to render the law inapplicable. The law, which forbids a franchisor to terminate or substantially change the competitive circumstances of a dealership agreement without good cause, applies to the nonprofit organization; the national organization "all but abandoned" its argument that it had good cause.

Each summer, plaintiff leads a group of Christians at the Arab International Festival with a goal of converting Muslims to Christianity. In 2009, Dearborn police instituted a restriction that prohibited leafleting from sidewalks directly adjacent to Festival attractions and on sidewalks and roads that surround the Festivalâs core by one to five blocks; it allowed leafleting at the Festival only from a stationary booth and not while walking. The district court denied a temporary restraining order before the 2009 Festival and granted summary judgment to the defendants in 2010. The Sixth Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal for the 2010 Festival, permitting leafleting from outer sidewalks and roads, but not on sidewalks directly adjacent to attractions, then reversed with respect to the "free speech" claim. The restriction on sidewalks adjacent to attractions does not serve a substantial government interest. The city keeps those sidewalks open for public traffic and permits sidewalk vendors, whose activity is more obstructive than leafleting; the prohibition is not narrowly tailored to the goal of isolating inner areas from vehicular traffic. The city can be held liable because the Chief of Police, who instituted the leafleting restriction, created official municipal policy.

Defendants faxed unsolicited advertisements to plaintiff and others, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227. One of the recipients filed a proposed class action in Wisconsin, but dismissed its complaint after the four-year limitations period had run, but before the class was certified. Plaintiff's motion to intervene was denied. The district court denied a motion to dismiss plaintiff's subsequent complaint, reasoning that the limitations period was tolled by the state court filing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on interlocutory appeal.

The hospital opposed a proposed medical office building by lobbying public officials, conducting a public relations campaign, offering incentives to discourage prospective tenants, and making negative statements about the developer. Prospective tenants withdrew from conditional agreements and approvals were denied. The developer sued, alleging antitrust violations under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, citing the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, under which efforts to petition government are shielded from liability, and rejecting a claim of "sham." Even if the hospital made material misrepresentations during and relating to village board proceedings, which were legislative in nature, those misrepresentations are legally irrelevant because those meetings were inherently political in nature. The public relations campaign was inextricably intertwined with efforts before the board. The hospitalâs contacts with other healthcare providers constituted mere speech that is not actionable under the Sherman Act. No reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the record that the successful effort to convince physicians not to relocate their practices constituted predatory conduct forbidden by the antitrust laws.

Three providers of wireless service filed suit under the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 332(c), after the town denied one provider a variance for a telecommunications tower. The suit is still pending, but the town entered into a consent decree to allow the proposed 100-foot tower without further hearings. Over objections by neighboring owners, the district court approved the agreement. The First Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the neighbors cannot prevent the town from abandoning its defense and settling, but did have standing to oppose the entry of the consent order, based on their interest in enforcement of zoning laws.

A California local exchange carrier ("LEC") filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") alleging a violation of 47 C.F.R. 20.11(b) when the LEC unilaterally set a rate and began billing petitioner, a provider of commercial mobile radio services ("CMRS") in California, for the cost of terminating its traffic. At issue was whether the FCC erred in allowing a state agency to determine the rate for traffic that was wholly intrastate pursuant to section 20.11(b). The court held that the FCC's policy of allowing state agencies to set such rates was consistent with the dual regulatory scheme assumed in the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, which granted the FCC authority over interstate communications but reserved wholly intrastate matters for the states.

Plaintiffs, and its wholly owned subsidiary, proposed to split off as a new publicly traded company ("SplitCo") the businesses, assets, and liabilities attributed to plaintiffs' Capital Group and Starz Group (the "Capital Splitoff"). At issue was whether plaintiffs pursued a "disaggregation strategy" designed to remove assets from the corporate structure against which the bondholders had claims and shifted the assets into the hands of plaintiffs' stockholders. The court held that plaintiffs were entitled to judgment declaring that the Capital Splitoff, as currently structured, complied with the Successor Obligor Provision in an indenture dated July 7, 1999 and therefore, plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that the Capital Splitoff did not violate the Successor Obligor Provision.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, Wayne Hagan and James Joubert, alleging that Joubert was negligently excavating on a backhoe and severed plaintiff's underground fiber-optic cable in violation of the Louisiana Damage Prevention Act, LA. REV. STAT. ANN 40:1749,11 et seq., and that Hagan was vicariously liable because Joubert was acting as his agent at the time. At issue was whether the district court erred when it refused to give the jury plaintiff's proposed instruction on trespass. Also at issue was whether the district court erred when it excluded statements made by Hagan's attorney to plaintiff's employee under Federal Rule of Evidence 408; when it refused to certify plaintiff's witness as an expert; and when it held that defendants were entitled to attorneys' fees and costs. The court certified the first issue where the Louisiana Supreme Court had not previously determined what standard of intent was used for trespass to underground utility cables and the issue was determinative of whether plaintiff was entitled to a new trial on its trespass claim. The court held that the statements made by Hagan's attorney to plaintiff's employer could have been excluded on other grounds given that it was inadmissible hearsay against Joubert and therefore, the court declined to remand for a new trial on this ground. The court also held that the district court did not commit a reversible error where plaintiff did not proffer the substance of plaintiff's witness' excluded testimony. Finally, the court deferred addressing the attorneys' fees issue pending the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision on the first issue.