Hamilton County Emergency Communications District v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117864
| E.D. Tenn. | 2012Background
- Tennessee created a unified 911 emergency system funded by 911 charges through the Emergency Communications District (ECD) Law (Tenn. Code Ann. 7-86-101 et seq.).
- ECDs sue BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Tennessee for under-billing, under-collecting, and under-remitting 911 charges.
- Hamilton County ECD filed the lead case; numerous other ECDs joined; the cases were consolidated for resolution of the motion to dismiss.
- The district charged 911 fees and remittance via service suppliers; tariffs and ECD charges interact, with disputes over line counts and exemptions.
- December 2010 reports allegedly understated lines billed to the ECD while tariffs billed for more lines; plaintiff claims under-reporting concealed true obligations.
- Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss; Counts II and VII dismissed; other counts survive; no summary judgment for plaintiff on Count VIII.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private right of action against service suppliers under ECD Law | ECD Law intended to allow actions against service suppliers | No private right of action against service suppliers | Count II dismissed for lack of private right against service suppliers |
| Tennessee False Claims Act plausibility | Defendant submitted false reports to understate lines and obfuscate payments | Discrepancies are apples-to-oranges; insufficient facts | Count I survives; pleadings plausibly show knowing underreporting |
| Breach of fiduciary duty viability | Existence of confidential relationship; agency-like duties | No per se fiduciary relationship; only arm's-length terms at issue | Count III survives; confidential relationship plausible at pleadings stage |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation viability | Defendant misrepresented material facts in reports | Allegations insufficient or speculative | Count IV survives; misrepresentation plausibly alleged and justifiable reliance shown |
| Fraudulent concealment viability | Duty to disclose known facts under fiduciary/constructive theory | No duty to disclose under statute; no fiduciary relationship | Count V survives; duty to disclose found plausible if fiduciary/confidential relationship exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must contain plausible facts, not mere conclusory statements)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires plausibility, not mere possibility)
- King v. Danek, 37 S.W.3d 429 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) (negligence per se requires a specific standard of care; administrative duties alone are not a standard of care)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1937) (scope of declaratory/unputative genuine controversy; general standard for declaratory relief)
- Brown v. Tenn. Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn.2010) (private right of action considerations and statutory interpretation in Tenn.)
- T-Mobile S., LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 85 So.3d 963 (Ala.2011) (fiduciary/agency-like duties under state emergency-telecommunications statutes)