Puerto Rico Telephone Co., Inc. v. Sprintcom, Inc.
662 F.3d 74
1st Cir.2011Background
- PRTC and Sprint negotiated a interconnection agreement in 2000, approved by the Board, with extensions through 2007.
- ISP Remand Order (2001) created an interim intercarrier regime for ISP-bound traffic, with rate caps and a mirroring rule, not automatically altering existing contracts.
- PRTC later offered ISP Remand Order rate caps to Centennial (July 2002); Sprint learned of this in August 2005 during negotiations with Sprint.
- Sprint contends the ISP Remand Order triggered the Agreement’s change-of-law provision as of July 2002; Board agreed; district court granted summary judgment accordingly.
- The case also includes Sprint’s claim that PRTC overcharged for transit traffic December 2002–July 2005; Board dismissed based on a waiver clause; district court affirmed; on appeal, the court affirms waiver-based dismissal.
- The First Circuit reverses the Board on the ISP Remand Order trigger issue, remanding for further proceedings, and affirms the waiver-based dismissal of transit-billing claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ISP Remand Order triggered the change-of-law provision | PRTC: ISP Remand Order altered the Agreement via change-of-law. | Sprint/Board: ISP Remand Order triggered Exception Two. | Did not trigger; regime applied only to negotiated revisions, not pre-existing contracts. |
| Whether the change-of-law effect is retroactive under the Agreement | PRTC argues no retroactive effect absent consent to revise. | Sprint/Board argue retroactivity under Exception Two. | No retroactive application; change-of-law only upon mutually revised agreement. |
| Whether the Board correctly interpreted the Waiver Provision for transit traffic | Sprint contends waiver does not bar transit-traffic overbilling claims due to information gaps. | Board/PRTC: waiver applies to any billed charges not timely objected to within 30 days. | Waiver provision controls; transit-traffic overbilling claims barred. |
| Whether Sprint’s dolo/ bad-faith arguments survive waiver | Sprint asserts PRTC acted in bad faith causing damages, potentially dolo. | Waiver precludes the argument; no developed appellate argument on dolo. | Dolo argument waived; waiver controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 F.3d 635 (2002) (embedded federal-question jurisdiction from state agency orders under 1331)
- Verizon Md. I, 535 F.3d 635 (2002) (jurisdictional framework for claims challenging state agency orders under 1996 Act)
- Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New Eng., Inc. (GNAPs VI), 603 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2010) (forum for intercarrier-compensation and GNAPs lineage)
- Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New Eng., Inc. (GNAPs V), 505 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2007) (reciprocal compensation framework and regulatory balance)
- Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New Eng., Inc. (GNAPs IV), 489 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007) (intercarrier compensation framework and state-federal interaction)
- Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New Eng., Inc. (GNAPs III), 444 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2006) (interconnection and ISP-bound traffic issues in 1996 Act context)
- Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New Eng., Inc. (GNAPs II), 427 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2005) (regulatory framework for interconnection and compensation)
- WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 288 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (DC Circuit remand and authority to FCC re ISP-bound traffic)
- In re Core Commc'ns, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (mandamus related to FCC authority on ISP-bound intercarrier rules)