Cases

RYMER, Circuit Judge: These appeals arise out of a dispute between local exchange carriers over the identification of internet-bound traffic, and compensation for delivery of telephone calls to internet service providers and for calls that appear to the customer to be made within a local area code but in fact are not. One of the carriers, Verizon California, Inc., had an exclu

413 F.3d 1069 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Michael R. PEEVEY; Loretta M. Lynch; Carl W. Wood; Geoffrey F. Brown; Susan P. Kennedy, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, and not as individuals, Defendants-Appellees,AT & T Communications of California Inc.; MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc.; MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, LLC, Defendants-I

BEA, Circuit Judge, concurring: Although I join in the majority’s holding and its conclusion that Verizon’s claims are ripe for judicial review, I do not find its distinction of US West Communications v. MFS Intelenet, 193 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir.1999), to be compelling. I nevertheless find US West to be distinguishable on a different basis, and take this opportunity to articulate that basis

462 F.3d 1142 VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Michael R. PEEVEY; Loretta M. Lynch; Carl W. Wood; Geoffrey F. Brown; Susan P. Kennedy, in their official capacities as Commissionersof the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, and not as individuals; Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., Counter-claimant-Appellant,v.Verizon California, Inc., Counter-defendant-Ap

505 F.3d 43 (2007) GLOBAL NAPS, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. VERIZON NEW ENGLAND, INC., d/b/a Verizon Massachusetts; Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy; Paul B. Vasington, in his capacity as Commissioner; James Connelly, in his capacity as Commissioner; W. Robert Keating, in his capacity as Commissioner; Deirdre K. Manning, in her capacity as Commissioner; Eugene J. Sullivan, Jr., in his capacity as Commissioner, Defendan

624 F.3d 1225 (2010) GLOBAL NAPS CALIFORNIA, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee. No. 09-55600. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 3, 2010. Filed October 28, 2010. *1227 Joel Davidow, Kile Goekijan Reed and

651 F.3d 980 (2011) AT & T COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; Teleport Communications Group of San Francisco; Teleport Communications Group of Los Angeles; Teleport Communications Group of San Diego, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PAC-WEST TELECOMM, INC.; Michael R. Peevey; Geoffrey E. Brown; Dian M. Grueneich; John Bohn; Rachelle Chong, Commissioners of the California Public Utility Commission in their official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

621 F.3d 836 (2010) PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, dba AT & T California, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; Michael R. Peevey; Dian M. Grueneich; John Bohn; Rachelle Chong; Timothy Alan Simon, Defendants-Appellees. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, dba AT & T California, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. California Public Utilities Commission; Michael R. Peevey; Dian M. Grueneich; John Bohn; Rachelle Chong; T

597 F.3d 958 (2010) PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, dba AT & T California, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; Michael R. Peevey; Dian M. Grueneich; John Bohn; Rachelle Chong; Timothy Alan Simon, Defendants-Appellees. *959 Pacific Bell Telephone Company, dba AT & T California, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. California Public Utilities Commission; Michael R. Peevey; Dian

Filed 7/6/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION 5 BULLSEYE TELECOM, INC., Petitioner, A160729 v. (Cal. PUC Decision Nos. 19-05- CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES 023 & 20-07-035) COMMISSION, Respondent, QWEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,

662 F.3d 74 (2011) PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. SPRINTCOM, INC., Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico; Sandra E. Torres-López, in her official capacity as President of the Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico; Gloria Escudero-Morales, in her official capacity as Associate Member of the Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Ri

PRYOR, Circuit Judge: The key issue in this appeal is whether the Florida Public Service Commission complied with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and corresponding federal regulations when it approved substantial parts of the pricing plan for the lease of telecommunications equipment urged by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. BellSouth and the Florida Commission appeal a d

ORDER BROWN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#47) on October 27, 2011, in which he recommends this Court deny Plaintiff Level 3 Communications’ Motion (# 26) for Summary Judgment, grant Defendant Public Utility Commission of Oregon’s Cross-Motion *1181(# 29) for Summary Judgment, grant Defenda

655 F.Supp.2d 1003 (2009) McLEODUSA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION; et al., Defendants. No. 2:07-cv-2145-HRH. United States District Court, D. Arizona. July 15, 2009. *1004 John Matthew Derstine, Timothy James Sabo, Michael W. Patten, Roshka Dewulf & Patten, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, W

SNAUFFER, J. *1002In this original proceeding, three rural telephone companies, The Ponderosa Telephone Co., Sierra Telephone Company, Inc., and Volcano Telephone Company (together petitioners), challenge the decision of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) establishing petitioners' "cost of capital," which is a financial yardsti

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMMANUEL MANNY RESELAP, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court Case No.: CRA20-004 Superior Court Case No.: CF0322-19 OPINION

Filed 6/18/19; pub. order 6/28/19 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PONDEROSA TELEPHONE CO., et al., F076845 Petitioners, (CPUC Decision Nos. 16-12-035 & v. 17-12-

OPINION O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: This dispute under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 pits one telephone company against another with two state regulatory Commissions caught in the middle. We must determine whether the matter is subject to binding arbitration, and, if so, what rules apply. I These appeals

OPINION FISHER, Circuit Judge: This case arises out of a dispute between two telecommunications carriers. Plaintiff-Appellant Autotel is a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) provider wishing to provide wireless service in and around Pahrump, Nevada. It seeks digital interconnection with the facilities and equipment of Defendant-Appellee Nevada Bell T

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON RANDY C. HUFFMAN, in his official capacity as Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, and acting on behalf of the, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 2:10-01189 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and LISA P. JACKSON, in her official capacity as