6th Circuit Kicks Busy-Signal Lawsuit to State Court
An Ohio state court will hear a lawsuit against Verizon Wireless, Dobson Cellular and other carriers, after the 6th U.S. Appeals Court, Cincinnati, rejected a federal court’s assertion of jurisdiction. The case -- which involves whether wireless carriers should be allowed to charge for calls that end in a busy signal -- has been in limbo for years. Four plaintiffs filed cases nearly 6 years ago.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
“These lawsuits stem from one of the typical methods that the cellphone companies use to get more money from their customers,” Dennis Murray, an attorney for the cellphone subscribers who brought the case, told us. “Why not charge for unanswered, busy calls? It wouldn’t normally be within the logical thinking of any human being that we charge for telephone calls that weren’t completed. That’s just what the cellphone companies do…. You would think the should be pretty easily highlighted and remedied… There ought not be a federal case about this issue… The 6th Circuit just simply said let’s let this little claim go to trial in state court.”
A wireless carrier source said the issue has stirred suits for years, back to long distance cases in the early 1990s. Carriers generally prefer to have the cases heard in federal court, the source said. “You get a better shake in federal court, but it depends on the state and the judge,” the source said: “It usually boils down to what sort of notice customers received -- what’s disclosed in the service agreement.”
“The gist of plaintiffs’ claims is that the providers falsely represented to them that they would not charge for unanswered phone calls or those that generated a busy signal,” the 6th Circuit said. “Alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment and deceptive sales practices, plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement and ‘[s]uch other and further relief as may be appropriate.'”
The 6th Circuit didn’t delve into the case’s merits. The court said the main issue before it was whether to remove the case to a U.S. Dist. Court in Ohio. The wireless companies hadn’t satisfied a requirement that the “amount in controversy” be greater than $75,000 for the case to be heard in federal court, he said.