Comtronics, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Telephone Company

(1936). In of a waiver until more information 80 L.Ed. 567 had 182, 56 S.Ct. rule submitted. this, been feel constrained we light of the ownership control of and PRTC’s Affirmed. in this case involved telephone regulation pursu- FCC exempt from are Clause. Commerce the

ant to argues that the FCC also

PRTC failing in con discretion

abused legislature’s the directive weight to

trolling monopolistic control exercise state that the COMTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, equip PBX and other supply of over the is believe that FCC We do not ment. PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPA- sub the Commonwealth’s ignore free al., Defendants, Appellees. etNY expansion and rapid interests in stantial telephone of an intrastate improvement No. 75-1321. network, portrayed in this case of Appeals, Court United States in languished a state serious having Circuit. First during years pri underdevelopment Rather, ownership.. the FCC must de vate 31, 1977. March monopoly PTRC in this whether a termine Rehearing on Denial of Amended As development of intra enhance case will May Clarification telephone service. and interstate state finding must be balanced Against tele countervailing interest of

asserted “reasonably to use subscribers

phone privately ways which are

telephone^] in being publicly without detrimen

beneficial 11 Carterfone, supra, 13 F.C.C.2d tal.” this record do not believe

424. On refusing to strike the erred in

the FCC The favor of PRTC. Commission in

balance additional economic data from

requested impact to the of interconnec

PRTC relative telephone on service in Puerto policies did not abuse think that FCC

Rico. We the final denial postponing in

its discretion challenges ruling in sympathetic unique position the FCC’s also We are 11. PRTC to the grounds policy of that the FCC’s utility on seeking this case fostering PRTC as a state-owned to im- contrary competition regula- is seriously telephone prove a deficient service as tory Act and of the Communications scheme step improvement the overall one toward support a refusal find that cannot therefore economy. expect We Rico’s Puerto are reasonable within actions PRTC’s weight give substantial to these will FCC inter- 201(a). dif- meaning We view the matter of § ests future determination of reasona- ferently. the FCC’s The achieved end policies. PRTC’s interconnection bleness of policy choice of consumer is the maximization simply case that decide in this We FCC quality quantity intercon- correctly that it did not have concluded suffi- require equipment. necting It would the con- strike the balance in favor cient data to economic as- of some fundamental tradiction waiver, expect that the will and we FCC now sumptions end to conclude us renewed, explicit request entertain a the means increased be achieved cannot for a waiver. policy competition. ra- FCC’s therefore However, competition tionally based. only involved in this case. factor 1977), in which we sustained declaratory order of the Federal Commu- (FCC)

nications Commission holding that the Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC) bound a tariff permitting the subscriber-owned and telephone supplied equipment. The tariff F.C.C. question, provides in No. per- in part: tinent 2.6.1 General Provision. Customer- “§ provided equipment terminal may be the facilities by used with furnished Telephone Company, for long distance message service, telecommunications in 2.6.2 specified through 2.6.6 following.” 2.6.2 Sections 2.6.6 describe the equipment which types may be connected by subscribers and enumerate restrictions designed prevent harm to telephone com- pany equipment. Tariff No. 263 clearly authorizes interconnection the equipment by appellant Comtronics, Inc., supplied viz. exchange (PBX) facilities, branch private equipment switchboard such as that by used large hotels and offices.

Appellee privately PRTC was owned in at the early 1974 time of its concurrence in later, No. 263. pur- Tariff Several months legislation by legisla- suant enacted Rico, ture of Puerto purchased PRTC was by the Commonwealth and thereafter publicly was run as a owned utility.1 In mid-1974, according to allega- Comtronics’ R., Juan, Irizarry, A. P. Sigfredo San PRTC, tions, amending perti- without appellant. plaintiff, tariff, policy refusing nent announced a equipment to interconnect its with custom- Pico, Juan, R., whom, P. with Alberto San er-owned such as that supplied Brown, Cordova, Juan, & P. Newsom San Appellant Comtronics. sued for dam- brief, defendants, R., appellees. was on ages injunctive and for declaratory and re- COFFIN, Judge, McENTEE Before Chief lief, alleging violations PRTC of the CAMPBELL, Judges. Circuit Act of Communications U.S.C. seq. et and of rights Comtronics’ McENTEE, Judge. Circuit equal process protection due under the arises from the same events as amendment. case fourteenth The district court This jurisdiction.2 lack of FCC, Puerto Rico dismissed Telephone Co. v. 553 F.2d pleadings might district court filed 2. The order of In the the district court be more FCC, maintained that its PRTC properly and before a dismissal for termed failure to state in Tariff No. 263 did not survive concurrence upon granted. relief a claim which company to the Commonwealth. the sale of Learner, 12(b)(6). See Carr v. Fed.R.Civ.P. finding accept disagreed and we The FCC 1976). (1st FCC, respect. Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. See 553 F.2d 694 at n. 3 (D.P.R.1975). We deferred rul- F.Supp. quirement adhere to per- its tariff appeal from that order ing on Comtronics’ mitting interconnection of PBX equipment. might consider this that we case con- so F.Supp. See 409 at 817. The court also with our review of the FCC’s junction reasoned that no federal common law reme- holding bound to Tariff No. 263. PRTC dy implied should be because the interest asserted Comtronics was protected Act

I. The Communications Claim. by the Communications Act: carrier such as AT&T A common “The Act does impose any duty on provides interstate service plaintiff. only It is provisions to all intended to establish the upon conditions Act. Communications Act’s which communications services of an in- application non-subsidiary “connecting” to a terstate will lawfully nature provided PRTC, carrier, is “engaged such as in regulates thus only and the bilateral rela- foreign or solely communication interstate tionship between the carrier and its sub- through physical connection with the facili scriber.” Id. carrier” ties another is limited. Under We agree with district court 152(b), “nothing in § 47 U.S.C. [the Act] Act cannot explicitly be read as to apply be construed or to shall creating damages remedy against a con jurisdiction Commission necting carrier such as PRTC. Section [connecting] . any . carrier 152(b) subjects alone; PRTC to 201-05 §§ except sections 201-205 damages liability by created 206 and § apply”. . . . shall Sections 201 damages remedy by authorized 207 alia, through provide, 205 inter that tariffs 209, therefore, and apply do not to PRTC. reasonable,” “just 201(b), and and that § be Ward v. Telephone But see Northern Ohio publish and adhere to 816, Co., (6th Cir.), 300 F.2d 820 cert. de they concurred, tariffs in which have 820, nied, 37, 371 U.S. 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d 61 203(a) (b). 203(e) & Section establishes § (1962). duties, for violations of these and 205 pow- vests FCC with enforcement judicially We also conclude that no provides penalties and for er violations of damages remedy created is available to orders. FCC compensate the harm 201 Sections 205 make no men- by alleged PRTC’s caused violation of the However, damages remedy. tion 206 However, Communications Act. we reach provides “any common carrier” violat- this result reasons which differ from ing the Act shall be liable in to the expressed by those the district court. We injured thereby. Furthermore, person disagree implicit district court’s person injured 207 enables a by such a that Comtronics is conclusion not within the bring carrier to common an action for dam- 203(b)’s protected requirement class ages in the Finally, district court. 208- that a carrier adhere to its tariffs until provide procedure whereby 09 the FCC adopted conformity amendments are payment damages by an of- procedural requirements with the fending common carrier. Undoubtedly, Act.3 the dominant purpose present case, liberalized

In the interconnection policy the district court em explicitly noted that Act does not tariff allegedly create bodied which PRTC for damages a cause of action caused was to abrogated benefit consumers of tele alleged 203(b)’s See, PRTC’s violation of phone re- services. g., e. Puerto Rico Tele- principles 2087, quoting 3. Under the enunciated the Su- Rigsby, Texas R. & P. Co. v. 241 Ash, 66, preme v. 422 33, 39, 482, Court Cort U.S. 95 (1916) 36 S.Ct. 60 L.Ed. 874 2080, (1975), implied S.Ct. an deleted). Accord, (emphasis Piper v. Chris- plaintiff is not available to a who Indus., Inc.,-U.S.-,-, Craft 97 S.Ct. especial “one of the class for whose benefit the 926, (1977). 124 51 L.Ed.2d 78, statute was enacted”. Id. 95 S.Ct. at

705 10; FCC, private at n. Hush-a- to create a supra action, cause of v.Co. phone States, U.S.App. 99 although explicit purpose v. an Corp. deny United such Phone ” 266, (1956); Carter 190, controlling. cause of would be Cort D.C. 420, 424, reconsideration Ash, 66, 82, fone, F.C.C.2d 422 U.S. v. (1968). (1975). denied, 14 F.C.C.2d L.Ed.2d 26 Turning to the stat and cheaper to obtain rights us legislative history, ute before and its consumers’ explicit purpose efficient such “an perceive deny more act suppliers, unless vindicated cannot cause of action”. [a] tariff, on the undertake in reliance provides: Section Cf. Bar equipment.4 such providing cost of do, common carrier shall or “In case Jackson, 346 U.S. v. rows done, any act, to be mat- permit cause or Bros. FCC Sanders L.Ed. ter, thing chapter prohibited in this or or Station, 309 U.S. Radio unlawful . . declared such Indeed, suppli L.Ed. 869 carrier shall be liable per- to the common tariff which a the assurance need for er’s injured persons thereby for the son demonstrably more immediate provides amount sustained . ..” full than a consumer’s. weight greater turn, 153(h), in defines “common Section of interests between a identity Given “any person engaged as a com- carrier” supplier’s consumer and the supplier hire, in foreign interstate or carrier guarantees, we mon on tariff reliance greater . by wire or radio within the class of communication is that think reference is made to common 203(b). where except protected beneficiaries intended chapter”. subject to this not carriers judicially cre that no conclusion Our remedy is available is im ated terms, therefore, By its literal 206 legis as a clear perceive we by what pelled pre-eminent reaches PRTC well as such remedy. such a preclude to intent lative carriers as AT&T and ITT. How common dissenting brother that with our agree We above, ever, 152(b) provides as noted that harm flow that economic is unfortunate it chapter “nothing in this shall be construed violation of the PRTC’s asserted ing from any . apply to to [non- agree We also go unremedied. should Act subsidiary] engaged carrier in interstate or of the scheme Com the enforcement solely through foreign phys- communication vis a vis carri Act munications connection with facilities of another ical seriously flawed the ab be might ers except . . . sections 201- carrier Piper v. damages remedy. Cf. a of sence title shall . apply this 205 of Industries, Inc.,-U.S.-, Chris-Craft Thus, “connecting” carrier ..” (1977); 124 J. 51 L.Ed.2d -, explicitly PRTC is removed from such as Borak, 377 U.S. v.Co. I. Case against of which the class carriers (1964). 1555, 12L.Ed.2d 423 necessary created. The liability implica- is expand the remedial to for us not it is that chose to shield “con- tion by Congress unless ex established scheme damages liability. carriers from necting” with the evi “consistent would pansion language of the of the reading This statute Railroad intent”. National legislative dent think, is, legislative borne out Rail v. National Ass’n of Corp. Passenger history of the Communications Act of 1934. 453, 458, 94 Passengers, road reported by (1974). originally As Senate situa “[I]n Committee, the law Communications it clear that federal Commerce which tions specific exemption persons provided of certain Act a class granted “connecting” any carriers from of the Act’s necessary show an inten- to it is rights, Carterfone, action, g.,E. agency 13 F.C.C.2d reconsidera- it is notewor- of context In the 4. denied, rights policy of Hush-a- under the tion F.C.C.2d thy consumers’ (1957), Corp., on remand 22 F.C.C. have been enforced Phone liberalized brought by suppliers. U.S.App.D.C. from 99 actions primarily Rather, For example, Representative words of the Rayburn, provisions. chairman, “we have tried Chairman House Commerce Commit- committee protect tee, to explained the bill ... throughout penalties creation of civil Cong.Rec. companies.” 78 independent for violations 202: Dill). Neverthe- (remarks of Senator 202(c) is penal provision “Section Senate, objection, adopted less, without to apply those small independent will exemption a total providing amendment an made companies sections 201- connecting carriers: inclusive, but exempted from the oth- of the act Nothing act shall be construed “(b) 152(b)].” in this er provisions [§ juris- Cong.Rec. or to the commission apply charges, classifica- diction likely We provi- think “other or tions, regulations or practices, Rayburn to which Chairman sions” con- with intrastate communication connection 202(c) are the damages provisions trasted § carrier, any carrier service 206-09, and that his remarks bemay foreign in interstate or commu- engaged congressional taken reflect intent that solely through connec- physical nication 202(c) and the civil other the facilities of another carrier penalty provisions and FCC indirectly controlling or directly or 201-05 were be the exclusive method carrier, or by such under direct controlled enforcing the Act with respect con- carri- control with such other or indirect necting carriers. at 8846. er.” Id. reading of the Our statute as precluding Thus, Senate, bill passed as the damages remedy is also consistent with contemplated “connecting” legislative purpose in excluding con- wholly free of the Act’s restraints. would necting carriers from most of the Act’s provisions. primary purpose Committee, the House Senate- In 1934 Communications Act was to subject exemption was modified: passed burgeoning power of such near-monopo- “The amendment retains [House] lies as AT&T to more effective reg- federal it except that makes such carri- provision Cong.Rec. 78 (remarks ulation. See 10315 205, pro- to sections 201 and subject ers Rayburn). Representative contrast, of In regulation of viding charges purpose of Senate’s total exclusion H.R.Rep. discrimination.” prohibiting “connecting” of to exempt was 1850, Cong., (1934). 73d 2d at 2 No. Sess. tiny, mostly rural companies Accord, (remarks Cong.Rec. 78 10313 of regulation. from federal Cong.Rec. 78 8846 Rayburn). With the ex- Representative (remarks of Clark). Senator The House amended, thus the bill enact- emption subjecting amendment such companies to 152(b). 48 1064. See 47 U.S.C. ed. Stat. likely represented 201-05 a compromise §§ legislative review of the From this histo- between a desire to free such small busi- Congress, it is clear to us ry, working regulation nesses federal practical and a backdrop against proposed total a realization minimum of con- federal carriers, exemption “connecting” chose necessary to regulate trol was that portion go subject company further than a companies’ local of the business which was such as PRTC to 201-05. We must §§ interstate. Since in 1934 per- the legislative assume that draftsmen were “connecting” weak, ceived carriers as rural 206 nearby conscious and that exchanges, likely it seems that Congress they provided that “ap- when it shall not was reluctant companies such 152(b), they meant ply,” § liability. Congress might have liability apply. shall not instead penalties concluded civil portions legislative Other materials 201-05 provided would be sufficient perception to us that our a compliance indicate con- In to insure with federal law. deny intent to gressional damages remedy the four decades since Communications against passed, carriers is not erroneous. “connecting” Act was carriers have

707 enterprise large deprived such a that PRTC had it include of its proper come provided PRTC, against which ty process in violation of due and equal It is ineffective. might prove 201-05 Appellant’s protection. under the however, and not for Congress, fourteenth amendment raises a number of to reflect the statute Court, to rewrite troubling claim, issues. To resolve Her Martinez See changed circumstances. decide, necessary would be for example, 279, (1st France, 284 545 F.2d Air v. nandez PRTC’s tariff filed whether with the FCC “property” constituted of Comtronics with meaning of the fourteenth amend of Con interpretation Finally, our ment, see, g., Regents e. Board of Roth, v. princi is aided in 1934 intent gress’ 564, 569, 577, 2701, 408 U.S. 92 S.Ct. uni- expressio statutory construction ple (1972); e., Rudman, Medina v. alterius, legisla “when L.Ed.2d i. us est exclusio remedy 1976), particular and whether a provides expressly remedies, expand utility not such courts should as PRTC is a “per state-owned to subsume other the statute whom a coverage against claim son” be stated Passenger Railroad See, National remedies.” under 42 U.S.C. e. g., City Supreme Court Although Corp., supra. Bruno, 507, 511-13, v. U.S. Kenosha princi to this differing weight assigned has 2222, (1973). And, 37 L.Ed.2d 109 Ct. if S. v. compare id. with Cort years, in recent ple to conclude that we were Comtronics could 2090, 14, n. n. Ash, at 82 S.Ct. supra bring against an action PRTC under least, that, the maxim of at the think 1983, might be necessary to decide pri “a vitality has where unius expressio judicially created whether favor of provided in of action vate cause [is] fourteenth amendment was available. concerning particular plaintiffs certain Healthy Board of Mt. Education v. Cf. damages reme while no at issue” provision 274, 277-279, Doyle, 429 U.S. plaintiffs another class of is afforded dy 50 L.Ed.2d Bivens v. Six Un As a corol same harm. Id. suffering the Agents Named known the Federal Bu pro have some unius should lary, expressio Narcotics, reau of congressional value bative damages remedy provided intent where However, we need not reach these of defendants but one class against questions. Congress subjected difficult violating class the same another against as a actions carrier to the PRTC’s detailed T.I.M.E., Inc. statutory prohibition. See scheme of the regulatory Communications 464, 470-71, 79 States, 359 U.S. United circumstances, In such the “precisely Act. (Harlan, J.). In (1959) 3 L.Ed.2d drawn, pre-empts detailed statute more omissions,” id. at “significant light of the GSA, remedies.” Brown v. general a damages liability, of or 471, 79 S.Ct. case, 1961, 1968-69, therefor, present U.S. of action cause (1976). Pre-emption particu that Con in our belief L.Ed.2d reinforced we are “connecting” think, where, carriers’ here, that we larly apparent, intended gress dam 203(b) give rise to adopted in the more' detailed Congress § violations liability.5 scheme a ages regulatory policy exempting actions from liab the defendant’s Claim. Amendment The Fourteenth II. Rodriguez, Cf. Preiser v. ility.6 489-90, L.Ed.2d a cause of action pleaded also amendment, claim- on the fourteenth based published equivalent to its tariff claim to is the of such not decide Comtronics’ 5. We need injunctive declaratory Our affirm- relief. relief. FCC, supra, v. Rico Tel. Co. ance in Puerto finding pro- was upholding that PRTC the FCC’s 414 of the Communications Act 6. Section by that it adhere and its order the tariff vides: bound safely that assume reasons conclude no that the FCC For these would have this request is available to Comtronics. denied sometime the before Companies effective date. like Comtronics Affirmed. have been spared would then the substan- incurred, they allegedly tial financial losses COFFIN, Judge, dissenting. Chief and the consumers of PRTC’s services judicial the first effort Were ours to in- have temporarily would not been the denied statutes, the opinion these court’s terpret of the benefits policy. It is day But, might carry well the for me. on a easy key to see that 203 is a feature of § interpretation, issue of I admit to be- close scheme; regulatory the enables the FCC ing influenced the fact that the only compliance continuous carrier to secure authority point, on Ward v. Northern Ohio policies. with FCC critical Co., (6th 300 F.2d 816 Telephone 1962), holding in- today The court’s creates an While contrary. I would not follow Ward centive carriers to disregard effectively the extent of implying right procedures specified amending their 201-205, action for all violations of By ignoring unilaterally 203 and § tariffs. to me that when we add its solitary seems amending monopo- its itself a tariff authority long-standing essen- ly, bestowed an immense financial private damages tiality of a action for the enormous, per- on itself benefit and caused policies carrying out embodied in irreparable, damage to its haps competitors. consistency such an action § difficulty assuming net I have scheme, statutory opaque- and the advantage flowing financial to PRTC from legislative history, the balance ness greatly was violation in excess of the of the action. tips favor penalty civil maximum im- could be consequences holding of the court’s The 203(b). I posed, see have no § reason to illustrated the facts of this case. are doubt that other tariff violations will often Here, required it permit PRTC’s tariff similarly profitable. Since the court privately interconnection of owned tele- imply damages remedy, compa- refuses in accordance with a phonic nies like PRTC will hereafter have a posi- long-standing policy. FCC If PRTC had tive to violate incentive certain provisions disposed comply when it of their tariffs. I cannot been believe that Con- provision too gress burden- could have contemplated decided some, change ability proposed compli- it would have in FCC’s to secure continuous thirty days at least depend its tariff FCC ance with tariffs was to how on may the effective date thereof. We lucrative violations thereof be.1 before were to “existing” same Act. “Nothing in this Act contained shall in remedies scarcely way abridge mind had in would the remedies now exist- or alter closely dependent upon statute, so remedies itself; rather, Act but at common law preserving we read 414 as provisions caus are in this Act addition such distinguisha for breaches duties es of action remedies.” Act, those created under the ble from as in the While we concede 414 would not Ivy Broadcasting claim. Cf. case of contract deprive anyone independent of an action under Co., Tel. v. American Tel & 391 F.2d 486 Co. 1983, any viable § 1983 here would be (2d 1968); Kaufman Western Union Tel. property rights alleged based on to have been Co., (5th 1955), denied, cert. created under the Communications Act. As L.Ed. such, a 1983 action would be no more than an § Co., Western O’Brien v. Union Tel. remedy duty a additional for violation a F.2d 539 created the Communications Act. Because Congress damages a we hold withheld that sought have The fact that Comtronics could against remedy connecting under the Act carri- and desist from the cease FCC under (and our analysis. ers brother Coffin’s dissent indi- 205 does not alter Because the § concededly open myriad question regu- is cates the and limited resources and FCC has shut), latory responsibilities, likely make we think would little sense to it is not that Com- remedy damages against exists hold that a could secured instant tronics have relief. More very quite possible significantly, 1983 for violations of the § them under it is that there will that recognize legislative to “evident court seems intent”. Because this view, private damages remedy my remedy, necessary protect to creation problem, legislative enforcement primary objectives eliminate and would since Congress precluded that are not it believes there other considerations counsel- but actions. Unlike the ing against of such creation creation of such a remedial Ash, explicit right, supra see no evidence of “an see Cort v. majority, I deny appropriate to such cause of this is an purpose case for the [legislative] 66, 82, Ash, exercise of the very respectable judicial 422 U.S. action.” Cort (1975), I practice by literally and scores of —evidenced remedy implying private would be consistent right such a cases —of of action believe which statutory scheme. under a statute does with the not expressly for one. I would provide reverse the judg- I willing am present purposes, For the district court. ment of Congress intended assume connecting apply should not 206-07 §§ it does not follow carriers. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND specifically intended that connect- Congress CLARIFICATION be immune from dam- carriers should petition In its for rehearing and liability every under each and statuto- ages clarification, argues for first reasonably All that can ry provision. assumption that our that PRTC is a “con Congress’ exempt decision to inferred from necting premature carrier” is inasmuch as is that connecting carriers from 206-07 §§ discovery is necessary to determine whether subject connect- did not want exempted from all but 201-05 §§ automatic, across-the- to the ing carriers as a liability of common carriers. damages board engaged “carrier in interstate right private there is to be a Whether solely communication through physical any specific provisions under connection with the facilities of another judicial has been left to determi- seemingly directly carrier not or indirectly control- nothing legisla- I see Since nation. ling by, or controlled or under direct or contrary2 which is to the history tive common control indirect with such carri- regulatory objective sub- perceive can 152(b)(2). er”. 47 U.S.C. § which will be interfered with value stantial damages actions were allowed not think private

if But we do that the determinative alone,3 I question think the inferral of is whether under the facilities § damages remedy is consistent with the which interstate commerce is conducted are likely any in which the financial also be instances 3. Lest there be doubt I would take advantage from the continuation the viola- Congressional seriously the solicitude for the the maximum also exceed tion will financially carriers, connecting weaker I would violating cease and desist order. strongly imply disinclined to ac- Act, proscribes tion under 201 of the which majority history upon relies is less 2. The practices”. “unjust and unreasonable Because Although Congress compelling. demon- than practice characterized, can be so carrier financially weaker strated solicitude permitting against connecting such actions car- carriers, subject connecting it made them subject riers could them to numerous lawsuits 201-05, is no indication that Con- and there would arise from the carriers’ inten- connecting gress should be felt tional, conduct. The unlawful defense of these procedures given to violate the a carte blanche place an lawsuits would enormous strain on Representa- having their tariffs amended. connecting carriers even in instances during Rayburn’s floor debate statement tive blameless, which the carriers’ conduct was applicability obviously recognizes my feeling reason for this tentative is that a connecting 202(c) It also notes carriers. 201 would be incon- 201-05, but carriers are that such statutory contrast, sistent with the scheme. In provisions. But it is not addressed not to other easily subjecting carrier can avoid happens problem of what when such a to the simply by following key provision, to suit under itself like carrier violates a subject. prescribed procedure. carrier is which the Brief of under common control. Com- See 40; Rehearing Petition

tronics at Eduardo al., ZAVALA SANTIAGO et reading at 3. correct for Clarification Plaintiffs, Appellants, 152(b)(2) seems to be that the “not of § “carrier”, language directly” modifies i.e. a al., Alfredo GONZALEZ et RIVERA fully carrier is one which has a Defendants, Appellees. identity. language If the mod- independent No. 76-1034. “facilities”, then “facilities” would ified incomprehen- another carrier —an “control” Appeals, United States Court of The focus section sible construction. First Circuit. joint facilities but is not on the control of Dec. 1976. Submitted joint reading of carriers. Such a on control April Decided legislative history with the is consistent exempting which indicates concern for

small, companies independent As

from most of Act’s strictures. Com- complaint

tronics stated that PRTC subsidiary of the wholly

“is a owned Tele- Authority of Rico .

phone Puerto corporate public

which in is a instru- turn

mentality of of Puerto Commonwealth

Rico”, think it reasonable assume carrier” “connecting

that PRTC is 152(b)(2). understanding

This reinforced opinion district

fact court’s

expressly assumption on the based carrier”, “connecting is a Com- argument appeal accepted

tronics’ on

premise exception passing of two page beginning

sentences at 40 of its raised

brief. The issue was never and ad- frontally appeal. on also

dressed See Puer- FCC, 553 F.2d Telephone Co. v.

to Rico Cir.,

Case Details

Case Name: Comtronics, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Telephone Company

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: May 18, 1977

Citation: 553 F.2d 701

Docket Number: 75-1321

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.