NEWPORT COMMONS, L.P. v. BLUE RIDGE CABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
5:11-cv-07029
E.D. Pa.Sep 28, 2012Background
- Newport Commons, L.P. and Newport Commons II, L.P. own an apartment complex in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; Blue Ridge provides cable, internet, and phone service to the tenants.
- Blue Ridge installed cable infrastructure at Newport; in July 2011 Newport informed Blue Ridge of an alternate provider, Windstream, and that Blue Ridge would cease services beginning September 6, 2011.
- Negotiations over continued Blue Ridge service failed; Blue Ridge filed a Pennsylvania state court complaint on August 10, 2011 seeking injunctions and access under the Pennsylvania Tenant’s Rights to Cable Television Act.
- Newport filed Preliminary Objections and the Lancaster County case was stayed pending negotiation/arbitration under the Act; Blue Ridge demanded arbitration on October 24, 2011.
- Newport then filed a federal declaratory judgment action on November 10, 2011 seeking a declaration that the trenches were not dedicated for compatible uses and that Blue Ridge had no right to access, and Blue Ridge moved to dismiss on January 1, 2012.
- The court concluded Newport lacks federal subject-matter jurisdiction, abstains under Brillhart, and dismisses the federal action without prejudice to pursuing state-court/arbitration remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists | Newport asserts federal question jurisdiction under the Cable Act. | Blue Ridge contends there is no federal jurisdiction. | No federal subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether the Cable Act provides a private right of action for landowners | Newport argues the Cable Act creates a private federal remedy for landowners. | Blue Ridge argues the Act does not authorize private landowners to sue for access/ownership issues. | Act does not provide private landowner private right of action. |
| Whether Brillhart abstention is warranted given parallel state proceedings | Newport asserts abstention is inappropriate because federal action addresses federal questions not fully resolved by state arbitration. | Blue Ridge urges abstention to avoid duplicative litigation and that state proceedings will resolve related issues. | Abstention warranted; dismiss without prejudice to state court/arbitration proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heydon v. MediaOne of Southeast Michigan, Inc., 327 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2003) (Cable Act does not provide private right of action to landowners; federal jurisdiction not established by anticipated defenses)
- Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America, 316 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court 1942) (abstention principle for declaratory judgments in parallel state proceedings)
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (Supreme Court 1995) (discretion to exercise jurisdiction over declaratory judgments when parallel state proceedings exist)
- Clark v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 570 F.2d 1138 (3d Cir. 1978) (lack of federal question where anticipated defense does not create essential federal element)
- Heydon v. MediaOne of Southeast Michigan, Inc., 327 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2003) (cited again for private right of action analysis under Cable Act)
- Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. BP Products of North America, Inc., 163 Fed.Appx. 146 (3d Cir. 2006) (addresses private rights under federal statutes; non-precedential acceptance in Appendix)