You may forward this e-mail in its entirety.
Table of Contents
- Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc.
- Katel LLC v. AT&T Corp.
- CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Bus. Media, Inc.
FindLaw's case summaries are copyrighted material and are not intended for republication without prior approval. You may, however, freely redistribute this e-mail in its entirety. To view the full-text of cases you must sign in
U.S. 9th Circuit, May 26, 2010
Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., No. 08-55028
In an action claiming that Cingular Wireless, after its merger with AT&T, disregarded its obligations under plaintiff's phone service contract with AT&T by failing to provide adequate service coverage and requiring plaintiff to sign a different contract with defendant if he desired to get the service that AT&T had contracted to provide under the first agreement, and that Cingular misrepresented and omitted key facts about the consequence of the merger to the FCC, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where: 1) "all the advantages that only the nation's largest wireless company can provide" was a vague statement and provided nothing concrete upon which plaintiff could reasonably rely; 2) plaintiff failed to allege that he actually read or heard the alleged misrepresentations; and 3) violations of the common law of unfair competition and breach of contract did not alone violate California's Unfair Competition Law. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where plai!
ntiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim that Cingular breached its contract with him.
U.S. 2nd Circuit, May 27, 2010
Katel LLC v. AT&T Corp., No. 09-1575
In an action against AT&T alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and an entitlement to fees pursuant to the International Telecommunications Regulations Act, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) nothing in the parties' agreement required the parties to do business with one another at all -- it was not a requirements contract, and it imposed no minimum volume; 2) AT&T's payment obligation was to a third-party carrier, and that third-party carrier was in turn responsible for paying plaintiff -- AT&T was not responsible for paying plaintiff directly; and 3) the International Telecommunications Regulations did not create a private right of action.
U.S. 7th Circuit, May 27, 2010
CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Bus. Media, Inc., No. 09-3172
In plaintiff's suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), against the defendant for sending a fax advertising a trade show to the plaintiff, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the validity of the "established business relationship" (EBR) defense; and 2) district court correctly determined that the EBR exemption applies in this case as the parties' publisher-subscriber relationships falls within the scope of business relationships the FCC intended the EBR defense to cover.
FindLaw includes summaries of all Supreme and Appellate Court slip opinions posted on the official Illinois Courts site. FindLaw summaries include opinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawal. Check the Illinois Courts site to determine if a specific opinion has been released before relying on that case as precedent.
We value your comments! Please take a moment to tell us what you think by sending us an e-mail.
Click here to subscribe to a FindLaw Newsletter. To unsubscribe, click here.
For more information about advertising in FindLaw Newsletters, click here.