943 F. Supp. 2d 320
N.D.N.Y.2013Background
- GlobalRock sues Verizon (MCI) for breach of contract, fraud, and gross negligence related to telecommunication services under TSA/DSA.
- Attachments governed origination and termination services, including inbound toll-free and outbound termination; least-cost routing used for call delivery.
- In 2008, the parties settled NY tax charges; GlobalRock released claims and Verizon credited funds; dispute reemerged over tax allocations.
- From 2009–2010 Verizon issued multiple invoices; GlobalRock did not pay disputed or undisputed balances and service was terminated in November 2009.
- GlobalRock asserted damages for misclassification of interstate vs intrastate rates, incomplete calls, and Information Digits issues; plaintiff sought declaratory relief to void the settlement.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Verizon’s summary-judgment motion, dismissed tax-related and fraud claims, and limited expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tax settlement enforceability and fraud claims | GlobalRock alleges fraudulent inducement and unconscionability to void the tax settlement. | Settlement was voluntary, negotiated at arm's length, with counsel; no fiduciary duty or coercion. | Settlement and tax claims related to NY taxes dismissed; no fiduciary or duress basis found. |
| Breach of contract and gross negligence surviving summary judgment | Verizon breached contract and committed gross negligence in signaling and billing. | No evidence of breach of contract or federal violations; damages limited by contract terms. | Counts for breach of contract and gross negligence denied at summary judgment; issues remain for trial. |
| Fraud claims | Defendant engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations and concealment regarding taxes and Information Digits. | Plaintiff fails to show knowledge of falsity and concrete details of misrepresentations; insufficient facts. | Fraud claims granted to summary judgment and dismissed (plaintiff failed to prove elements). |
| Admissibility of expert testimony (Danilov and Malfara) | Danilov and Malfara offer necessary calculations and rebuttal evidence; untimely disclosures should be allowed via opposing-party contentions. | Danilov undisclosed; Danilov’s affidavit excluded; Malfara’s legal conclusions should be limited or excluded. | Danilov's affidavit disregarded; Sleppin excluded on tax issues; Malfara allowed with removal of improper legal conclusions; overall admissibility restricted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29 (2d Cir.1994) (summary judgment standard; no fact-trializing of issues)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden on nonmovant; summary judgment movant must show absence of triable issues)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment review; the record must show genuine disputes of material fact)
- Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir.2002) (Daubert gatekeeping; reliability and relevance of expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (testimony must be reliable and fit the facts; interpretive scope of expert testimony)