United States Ninth Circuit

In a dispute between two telecommunications carriers over failed efforts to negotiate an interconnection agreement, judgment of the district court in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's good faith claim was properly dismissed because it did not exhaust its administrative remedies under this circuit's prudential exhaustion requirement; and 2) the interim arrangement and symmetrical pricing requirements described in 47 C.F.R. section 51.715 and 20.11(e) apply only when the competing carrier does not have an existing interconnection arrangement with the incumbent local exchange carrier that provides for the transport and termination of telecommunications traffic, and here, because plaintiff had such an agreement with defendant at all relevant times, defendant had no obligation to provide plaintiff an interim arrangement with symmetrical rates.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/04/2012
• Published 09/04/2012

Judges

• Fisher

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel