Spectrum-Yuma Impasse Sparks Judge to Set May 8 Jury Trial to Resolve It
There appear to be “genuine disputes of material fact” between Charter’s Spectrum Pacific West and the city of Yuma, Arizona, “that would preclude granting summary judgment to either party,” said an order signed Thursday (docket 2:20-cv-01204) by Senior U.S. District…
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.
Judge Roslyn Silver for Arizona in Phoenix. The impasse prompted Silver to schedule a jury trial in the dispute for May 8, said the order. She didn’t preclude Spectrum or Yuma from filing a motion for summary judgment. But if a motion is filed and it’s found to lack a “good faith basis,” she’ll consider “imposing sanctions” on the offending parties. The parties are to confer in good faith and file a status report by March 23, “identifying whether either side will seek summary judgment,” said her order. Spectrum sued Yuma in June 2020 over the city's alleged refusal to comply with Arizona's universal video franchising law (see 2303090024). Yuma’s counterclaims assert Spectrum’s lawsuit breached the indefeasible right of use agreement that Time Warner Cable, Spectrum’s predecessor company, signed with the city over use of Spectrum’s fiber capacity. Spectrum’s argument that Yuma’s counterclaim for breach of contract is moot “appears unfounded in law and fact,” said the judge. Spectrum argues that when it voluntarily dismissed its claims against the city, that resolved the dispute presented in Yuma’s counterclaim because that counterclaim is effectively for “anticipatory” breach of contract, she said. “Spectrum appears to believe it never breached the contracts and, therefore, the counterclaim fails,” said her order. “But Spectrum’s understanding of the counterclaim is incorrect,” it said. Yuma’s counterclaim “is based on allegations that a breach of contract already occurred,” it said. The breach of contract counterclaim could only be moot if Spectrum had paid all the damages and provided all other relief the city seeks because of the alleged breach of contract, it said.