Broadvox-CLEC, LLC v. AT&T Corp., 8:13-cv-01130

Broadvox provided Broadvox-to-AT&T switched access services and seeks payments under the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 201; AT&T disputes the amounts due and its billing accuracy.
AT&T asserted counterclaims for Communications Act violations, fraud, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and a declaratory judgment on Broadvox’s status
Broadvox moved to dismiss, arguing AT&T failed to plead damages and that misrepresentation claims lacked plausibility or reliance
The court denied dismissal on some Communications Act and declaratory judgment counts, but dismissed the fraud count without prejudice for lack of reliance; primary jurisdiction questions remained
The court stayed summary judgment proceedings on the primary jurisdiction issue and set briefing deadlines for referral to the FCC
The case settled into a procedural posture pending FCC guidance on regulatory questions surrounding access services and tariffs of Broadvox and AT&T

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AT&T pleaded damages for its counterclaims	AT&T alleged potential overpayments and payments for improperly billed amounts	Broadvox contends AT&T failed to plead damages for all counterclaims	Damages pled; some counts survive each with potential overpayments acknowledged
Whether AT&T adequately pleaded fraudulent misrepresentation	AT&T alleged Broadvox knew law contradicted its status and relied on bills	ARgued reliance is lacking because AT&T disputed payments and paid estimates	Count III dismissed for lack of reliance and insufficient pleading; can replead later
Whether AT&T adequately pleaded negligent misrepresentation	AT&T alleged Broadvox owed a duty and made false statements	No duty in a purely contractual, sophisticated-party relationship; no justifiable reliance shown	Count III dismissed with prejudice as to negligent misrepresentation
Whether the primary jurisdiction doctrine applies to referral to the FCC	Regulated services issues should be resolved by the FCC; referral appropriate	Court can resolve threshold issues; referral may be needed for technical questions	Summary judgment briefing stayed pending FCC referral analysis; primary jurisdiction briefing scheduled

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility standard; no bare recitals)
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (facial plausibility required; facts must support claim)
Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257 (Md. 2007) (negligent misrepresentation elements; reliance required)
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Int’l Telecomm. Satellite Org., 991 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1993) (duty in contract-based context; circuit reasoning on misrepresentations)
Piney Run Preservation Ass’n v. Cnty. Comm’rs of Carroll Cnty., 268 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 2001) (primary jurisdiction factors; balancing efficiency and expertise)
Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1993) (primary jurisdiction framework guidance)
Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Winchester Homes, Inc., 15 F.3d 371 (4th Cir. 1994) (declaratory relief context; avoid accrual of damages)