Lansdowne on the Potomac Homeowners Ass'n v. OpenBand at Lansdowne, LLC
713 F.3d 187
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- LHOA sues OpenBand entities (OBL, OBM, OBS, OBV, and parent M.C. Dean) for exclusivity provisions in Lansdowne contracts violating FCC Exclusivity Order, 2007.
- OBL holds exclusive easements and CC&Rs restricting access for other providers; TSA incorporates CC&Rs to bar alternate providers.
- OBL purchases from OBM/OBV and resells to Lansdowne residents; no other wire-based provider can access Lansdowne infrastructure.
- LHOA alleges detriments in service quality and price due to lack of competition; Verizon/Comcast considered but deterred by exclusivity.
- FCC Exclusivity Order prohibits exclusive contracts for video services in MDUs; OpenBand’s structure is challenged as circumvention.
- District court granted summary judgment for LHOA; OpenBand appeals arguing standing, ripeness, and scope of §401(b) enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Article III | LHOA injury-in-fact from exclusive easement and CC&Rs | No direct injury; exclusivity undeployed; mere existence insufficient | LHOA has standing (injury, causation, redressability) |
| Ripeness of the dispute | Exclusivity harms are immediate and ongoing | Future changes could end exclusivity; not ripe | Case ripe; immediate hardship and legally settled issue under order |
| Enforcement under §401(b) of FCC orders | Exclusivity Order enforceable as an FCC order | §401(b) only for adjudicatory orders; rulemaking not enforceable | §401(b) encompasses rulemaking orders that impose concrete obligations; order enforceable |
| OVS operator status and scope of the Exclusivity Order | OBL/Group provide cable; within Open Video System operator scope | Separation of entities to evade order; not bound | OBL is an OVS operator bound by the Exclusivity Order; the contract provisions violate the order |
| Contract interpretation of TSA, CC&Rs, and easement | Together they form a single intertwined contract | Documents should be analyzed separately | Together they form one contract; all exclusivity provisions violate the order |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability elements)
- CGM, LLC v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc., 664 F.3d 46 (4th Cir. 2011) (rulemaking orders enforceable only if they impose concrete obligations)
- CBS, Inc. v. United States, 316 U.S. 407 (1942) (interpretation of 'any order of the Commission' includes rulemaking orders)
- CGM, LLC v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc., 664 F.3d 46 (4th Cir. 2011) (reiterates enforceability test for §401(b))
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 333 (2006) (standing requires injury that is concrete and actual or imminent)
- Yesler Terrace Cmty. Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (9th Cir. 1994) (illustrates differences between adjudication and rulemaking)
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (statutory interpretation of identical terms within statute)
- Hawaiian Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 827 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir. 1987) (interpretation of FCC order scope and applicability)
- Alltel Tennessee, Inc. v. Tennessee Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 913 F.2d 305 (6th Cir. 1990) (standing/appropriateness of regulatory actions)
- New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Public Utils. Comm’n, 742 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1984) (application of regulatory orders to private contracts)