This case involves a dispute between Northern Valley, a competitive local exchange carrier, and Qwest, an interexchange carrier, over whether Northern Valley can bill Qwest for terminating switched access services for calls to conference calling numbers provided to Global Conference under Northern Valley's tariff, with Qwest alleging a traffic pumping scheme involving profit-sharing. Qwest filed counterclaims against Northern Valley and Global Conference, and Global Conference filed a counterclaim against Qwest for refusing to pay the charges. The court denied Northern Valley's motion to dismiss three of Qwest's counterclaims, finding that Qwest had standing to assert injury from the alleged scheme and that the claims were adequately pled given the disputed facts. The court also denied Qwest's motion to dismiss Global Conference's counterclaim, determining that the facts regarding tariff obligations were contested and the claim could not be dismissed at this stage.
The case involved the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate tribe challenging the U.S. Department of State's issuance of a presidential permit for the Keystone pipeline, which crosses the U.S.-Canada border, on grounds that the agency failed to adequately consult with the tribe regarding cultural and historic resources under the National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction because the permit issuance stems from the President's inherent constitutional authority over foreign affairs and international relations rather than statutory authority alone, making the action non-justiciable. Core reasoning emphasized that such presidential power is plenary and exclusive, requiring deference that precludes judicial review of the consultation process or permit decision in this context.
Northern Valley Communications, a competitive local exchange carrier, sued Qwest Communications, an interexchange carrier, to recover amounts allegedly owed for originating and terminating telephone access services under federal and state tariffs, asserting claims including breach of contract, violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and unjust enrichment. Qwest moved to dismiss only the unjust enrichment claim. The court denied the motion, ruling that the complaint alleged enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly standard, even if actual proof of the facts might appear improbable.
This case involves a dispute between Northern Valley, a competitive local exchange carrier, and AT&T, a long-distance carrier, over whether Northern Valley is entitled to payment under its federal and state tariffs for providing switched access services to terminate long-distance calls to conference calling numbers. Northern Valley sued for breach of contract, violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and related claims seeking over $6 million, while AT&T counterclaimed alleging improper billing for services not covered by the tariffs, unjust enrichment, and other violations tied to alleged traffic pumping arrangements. The court considered Northern Valley's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to its claims and AT&T's counterclaims. The court denied the motion, finding that material factual disputes exist regarding whether the calls terminated to end users as required by the tariffs and whether the services qualified for compensation under the filed rates and the Act.
The case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a minor and was sentenced to 87 months in prison; he later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a notice of appeal. The court decided to deny the motion as untimely and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The core reasoning was that the motion was filed more than one year after the conviction became final, exceeding the statute of limitations, and the defendant failed to show due diligence in discovering the alleged failure to appeal or extraordinary circumstances beyond his control that prevented timely filing; he had also been advised at sentencing that he could request the clerk of courts to file an appeal on his behalf.
The case involves a defendant convicted of abusive sexual contact, sexual abuse of a minor, and incest who was sentenced to 295 months in prison after an initial remand for resentencing; he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel plus newly discovered evidence that one victim had recanted her testimony. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and denied the motion in full, finding no ineffective assistance and determining that the alleged recantation—based solely on unsworn hearsay statements from the defendant's family members—was not credible and would not likely lead to an acquittal if presented at a retrial. The court also corrected a plain error in the sentence on one count (reducing it from 36 to 24 months) but noted that the change had no effect on the total term of imprisonment, and it denied a certificate of appealability.