Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. San Juan Cable Co.
196 F. Supp. 3d 207
D.P.R.2016Background
- PRTC sued OneLink alleging a multi-year course of “sham” litigation and petitions (TRB filings, state and federal suits) that delayed PRTC’s entry into Puerto Rico’s pay-TV market and caused over $3.2 million in costs.
- PRTC filed franchise applications in Feb 2008 (denied Oct 2008) and Dec 2008 (subject to hearings and long judicial stays through Oct 2010).
- OneLink filed multiple administrative motions and two federal suits and sought stays; Puerto Rico appellate courts and the Supreme Court issued stays on TRB proceedings (Mar 3–31, 2009; May 20, 2009–Oct 26, 2010).
- OneLink obtained a favorable TRO ruling on a Cable Act filing in Feb 2009 (later moot) and later sued after TRB approved PRTC’s franchise in Nov 2011, leading to the TRB’s temporary agreement to delay signing the franchise until Jan 31, 2012.
- After discovery, OneLink moved for summary judgment arguing Noerr-Pennington and Parker (state-action) immunity or lack of causation; PRTC urged denial, arguing pattern sham petitioning and material factual disputes.
- The court granted summary judgment to OneLink for damages tied to periods where judicial or agency action (successful petitioning/stays) produced the delays, and denied summary judgment for other periods where material factual disputes about sham, motive, and causation remain for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OneLink's petitioning/litigation is immune under Noerr-Pennington or Parker | PRTC: Noerr applies but sham exception preserves liability for process-based delays; Parker doesn't shield sham petitioning or delays caused by procedural rulings | OneLink: Noerr and Parker bar liability for harms that flow from government action (judicial/agency stays and approvals); causation broken by state action | Court: Noerr bars claims tied to periods when OneLink obtained judicial/agency action (specified stays and successful TRO-related period); Parker not shown and cannot be invoked by OneLink here |
| Whether repetitive filings constitute "sham" petitioning (pattern) | PRTC: Repetitive, meritless filings and repeated motions were intended to delay and impose costs; pattern sham doctrine applies | OneLink: Filings were not objectively baseless or they produced governmental action that immunizes defendant | Court: Genuine disputes exist for several time periods (collectively considering filings) — jury must decide pattern/motive for those intervals; some periods survive summary judgment |
| Causation: whether OneLink's conduct was a material cause of PRTC's injury | PRTC: OneLink’s petitions foreseeably produced stays/delays and imposed substantial defense costs; that is a material cause | OneLink: Delays resulted from governmental acts, PRTC’s own deficient application, or TRB scheduling, breaking causal chain | Held: Causation barred for damages tied directly to judicial stays/successful litigation periods (these are immune); causation remains disputed for other periods where filings could have caused delay/costs |
| Waiver / law-of-the-case: whether OneLink may raise Parker/state-action now | PRTC: Parker was not pleaded; defense waived; and earlier denial of dismissal forecloses the argument | OneLink: Parker/Noerr argued at summary judgment based on developed record; not waived | Held: Court refused to deem defense waived (no prejudice) and rejected law-of-the-case bar; will consider Parker but found OneLink did not meet Midcal test for Parker immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (sham-petitioning doctrine; petitioning ordinarily immune)
- Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (state-action immunity under Sherman Act)
- United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (extension of Noerr principles)
- California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (Noerr applies to judicial and administrative petitioning; pattern sham doctrine)
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (two-part test for single-suit sham: objective baselessness then subjective intent)
- Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492 (distinguishing harms from valid governmental action; Noerr-related discussion)
- Midcal Aluminum, Inc. v. Sec. of State of California, 445 U.S. 97 (two-prong test for Parker immunity: clear articulation and active supervision)
- Knology, Inc. v. Insight Communications Co., 393 F.3d 656 (stays triggered by petitioning treated as protected petitioning activity)