T-Mobile Seeks Stay Pending Appeal in Calif. USF Case
While T-Mobile appeals to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Court for Northern California should stay enforcement of the California Public Utilities Commission’s order to shift to a connections-based USF contribution method, T-Mobile and subsidiaries said…
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.
Monday. T-Mobile gave notice of its appeal earlier that day (see 2304030056). The 9th Circuit assigned the appeal Tuesday to docket 23-15490. The district court should either stay enforcement of the CPUC rule pending appeal or issue an administrative stay pending a 9th Circuit decision on a forthcoming motion for stay pending appeal, T-Mobile said in case 3:23-cv-00483-LB. Since the USF order took effect Saturday, plaintiffs want a ruling by April 7, it said. "The balance of the equities supports grant of a stay. Plaintiffs made a strong, unrebutted showing of irreparable harm, and the CPUC made no contrary showing.” A stay won’t harm the CPUC, T-Mobile added. The carrier also filed a motion to shorten the briefing schedule for responding to its stay request. Defendants don’t object to a proposed schedule where the agency would respond by Thursday and T-Mobile could respond to the commission Friday, the carrier said. "Shortening Defendants’ time to respond to the motion will not impose any prejudice on the CPUC, which has been on notice of Plaintiffs’ intent to stay enforcement of the Connections-Based Rule since before the filing of Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on February 1, 2023.” The court grants the motion to shorten time as proposed, it said in a text entry Tuesday. NARUC would likely file an amicus brief at the 9th Circuit supporting the CPUC, the state regulator association’s General Counsel Brad Ramsay told us. “It is patently obvious [that] a $1.11 fee doesn’t burden the federal fund nor is it inconsistent with the federal program,” he emailed. “Charging all competitors the same flat fee is the definition of ‘competitively neutral.’”