CoreTel Virginia, LLC v. Verizon Virginia, LLC
752 F.3d 364
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- CoreTel Virginia, LLC and Verizon Virginia, LLC dispute interconnection billing under their ICA, focusing on entrance facilities and related rates.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Verizon on liability across four categories, including facilities charges and reciprocal compensation.
- The 2004 Adoption Agreement amended the preexisting ICA by eliminating Verizon’s unbundling obligation, affecting TELRIC pricing for entrance facilities.
- ICA provisions at issue include §4.3 (Interconnection), §11 (Unbundled Access), §5.7 (Reciprocal Compensation), and Exhibit A (rates).
- The majority holds CoreTel may order entrance facilities for interconnection at TELRIC rates; the district court’s Verizon-favoring rulings are reversed in part and remanded for damages/injunction considerations.
- CoreTel’s challenge to its own facilities charges (trunk ports/multiplexers) is rejected as those facilities are not entrance facilities under §4.3.5.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are entrance facilities for interconnection priced at TELRIC under §4.3 | CoreTel contends TELRIC applies for interconnection facilities | Verizon contends TELRIC does not govern these interconnection facilities after §1.B adoption | Yes; TELRIC pricing applies for interconnection entrance facilities |
| Are CoreTel’s trunk ports/multiplexers entrance facilities under §4.3.5 | CoreTel claims these facilities are entrance facilities | Verizon argues they lie inside CoreTel’s central office and are not between the carriers’ premises | No; not entrance facilities; §4.3.5 not applicable |
| Whether EMI data or other data is required to impose reciprocal compensation for certain traffic | CoreTel argues EMI data was needed to categorize calls for reciprocal compensation | No EMI-data requirement exists in the ICA or governing orders for these calls | No EMI data requirement; district court affirmed |
| Whether CoreTel may recover under filed-rate doctrine for end-office switched access | CoreTel asserts tariff language supports ramping charges under switched-access | Verizon argues tariffs must be honored as written; preclusion by YMax interpretation remains | Verizon prevailed on switched-access theory; tariff interpretation upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Talk Am., Inc. v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co., 131 S. Ct. 2254 (2011) (interconnection and unbundling interpretations under 251)
- GTE South, Inc. v. Morrison, 199 F.3d 733 (4th Cir. 1999) (TELRIC pricing and unbundling framework)
- CoreCommc’ns, Inc. v. Verizon Md. LLC, 744 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2014) (private contract interpretation with federal regulatory context)
- Moran v. Prather, 90 U.S. 492 (1874) (contract interpretation principles; admissibility of intent evidence)
- Talk Am., Inc. v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co. (Talk America brief amicus), 131 S. Ct. 2254 (2011) (agency interpretation of interconnection duties)
- SBC Communications Inc. v. FCC, 138 F.3d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (interpretation of interconnection and unbundling obligations)