Telnet Inc. v. MCI WorldCom

Related Cases

MCI Telecommunications Corporation, a Delaware Corporation MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc.,plaintiffs-Appellants v. U.S. West Communications, a Colorado Corporation the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission(wutc) Anne Levinson, Chair Richard Hemstad William P. Gillis, in Their Official Capacities as Commissioners of Wutc, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, a Delaware Corporation MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc. v. U.S. West Communications, a Colorado Corporationdefendant-Appellant, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Wutc) Anne Levinson, Chairrichard Hemstad William P. Gillis, in Their Official Capacities as Commissioners of Wutc,defendants-Appellees. MCI Telecommunications Corporation, a Delaware Corporation MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc.,plaintiffs-Appellees v. U.S. West Communications, a Colorado Corporation Anne Levinson, Chair Richard Hemstad Willliam P. Gillis, in Their Official Capacities as Commissioners of Wutc, Opinion and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission(wutc)
At & T Communications of California Inc., a California Corporation, and MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Llc, a Delaware Corporation v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, a California Corporation Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Loretta M. Lynch Henry M. Duque Richard A. Bilas Carl W. Wood Geoffrey F. Brown, in Their Official Capacities as Commissioners of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Not as Individuals, at & T Communications of California Inc., a California Corporation, and MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Llc, a Delaware Corporation v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, a California Corporation Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Loretta M. Lynch Henry M. Duque Richard A. Bilas Carl W. Wood Geoffrey F. Brown, in Their Official Capacities as Commissioners of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Not as Individuals, at & T Communications of California Inc., a California Corporation MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Llc, a Delaware Corporation v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, a California Corporation, Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Loretta M. Lynch Henry M. Duque Richard A. Bilas Carl W. Wood Geoffrey F. Brown, in Their Official Capacities as Commissioners of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Not as Individuals
Lci International Telecommunications Corp. v. MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc.
Utley v. MCI, Inc.
William J. Brown, Iii, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, and on Behalf of the General Public v. MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 12, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 01-21084 TELNET INCORPORATED; PRESCOTT LEGAL SERVICES INCORPORATED; FOREST AMERICA GROUP, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus MCI WORLDCOM, doing business as LDDS Worldcom, formerly known as LDDS Communications, Inc.; WORLDCOM Management Company Incorporated; WORLDCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. H-98-CV-2020) _______________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. The district court’s order denying class certification is affirmed for the following reasons: 1. Rule 23(b)(1) is not a problem for individual suits, for those individuals would not have their interests substantially impaired and there would be no risk of incompatible standards of conduct imposed on MCI WorldCom. Rather, each claimant might prevail only by proving that its individual situation and circumstances entitled it to a better negotiated charge pursuant to the 1991 Interexchange Order of the FCC. 2. No injunction could be ordered under Rule 23(b)(2). Tariffs have been forbidden since 2003. No one rate could be justified to all customers. 3. Again, the necessity of establishing a legal rate and loss to each claimant justifies the rejection of a class treatment as the superior adjudication required by Rule 23(b)(3). At best, no one could claim a rate under the filed tariff without proving that all individual facts and circumstances entitled that one to equal treatment. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. AFFIRMED. 2