3:09-cv-00440
W.D. Ky.Jul 11, 2012Background
- This Western District of Kentucky case involves Dana Bowers and Sunrise Children’s Services, Inc. suing Windstream Kentucky East and West for allegedly charging a Kentucky Gross Receipts Surcharge (GRS) without proper federal tariff authorization.
- plaintiffs seek final class certification under Rule 23(b)(3); Windstream moves to oppose or narrow the class and to reconsider prior rulings.
- The case centers on intrastate and interstate telecommunications rates, with the Kentucky PSC regulating intrastate tariffs and the FCC regulating interstate tariffs.
- Windstream began adding the GRS in 2007 to recover the 1.3% gross revenue tax (GRT) and also imposes a Subscriber Line Charge (SLC) to fund interstate access, which is federally tariffed.
- The court previously held the GRS must be contained in federal tariffs for charges tied to federally tariffed services like the SLC, applying 47 U.S.C. § 203(c) and the Filed Rate Doctrine, though later narrowing its scope.
- The court now addresses whether the SLC is a federally tariffed interstate service, whether deregulation narrows the doctrine, and whether the proposed class satisfies Rule 23.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GRS on the SLC must be federally tariffed | Bowers/Sunrise contend SLC is federally tariffed, so GRS must be tariffed too. | Windstream argues SLC is not a tariffed interstate service; GRS on SLC should not require federal tariffing. | SLC is a federally-tariffed interstate service; GRS on SLC requires federal tariffing. |
| Whether the Filed Rate Doctrine is broadly inapplicable due to deregulation | Deregulation undermines broad application of the Filed Rate Doctrine to all interstate charges. | Deregulation does not warrant a broad exemption; each service must be analyzed independently. | Deregulation does not broadly exempt SLC; analysis limited to the challenged claims, pending further facts. |
| Whether the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a) adequately | Class includes hundreds of thousands of intrastate customers and some wholesale interstate customers with common issues. | Wholesale and retail claims may involve different facts and defenses; commonality and adequacy are at issue. | The Proposed Class satisfies typicality, commonality, and adequacy, though with careful consideration of differences between subgroups. |
| Whether the Proposed Class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) predominance | Common questions surrounding GRS, SLC, and tariffing dominate the case and justify class treatment. | Differences between retail and wholesale customers may impede a uniform class-wide resolution. | Predominance is satisfied; the class is certified, with potential future refinements to address subgroup issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Ass’n of Regulatory Util. Comm’rs v. FCC, 737 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (interstate vs. intrastate service separation and federal regulation implications)
- Smith v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co., 282 U.S. 133 (1930) (local vs. federal cost allocation and jurisdictional considerations)
- Irwin Wallace v. AT&T Commc’ns of the S. States, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd. 1618 (1991) (FCC held certain taxes pass-through charges tied to interstate services must be tariffed)
- Pfeil v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 284 F. App’x 640 (11th Cir. 2008) (deregulatory context and application to Filed Rate Doctrine in appellate setting)
- Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007) (typicality and adequacy framework for Rule 23)
- Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998) (commonality and class action prerequisites guidance)
- In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) (class certification and adequacy considerations)
- Turnage v. Norfolk S. Corp., 307 F. App’x 918 (6th Cir. 2009) (numerosity under Rule 23(a)(1) considerations)
- Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2000) (counsel qualifications and class representation suitability)
- In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 3:08-MD-1953 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (noting district-level analysis; cited for Rule 23 standards)
