Global Tel-Link's Negative Comments Sank Prison Phone Deal, Says Smart Communications
Allegations that “productive” negotiations between Smart Communications and York County, Pennsylvania, “fizzled out” after derogatory comments from rival Global Tel-Link “are more than sufficient to satisfy the fifth element of the tort,” said plaintiff/appellant Smart in a Wednesday reply brief…
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.
(docket 22-3287) in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Smart is appealing the Nov. 1 decision of the U.S. District Court for Middle Pennsylvania in Harrisburg to dismiss Smart’s antitrust lawsuit against Global Tel-Link for failure to state a claim. In her Nov. 1 memorandum, Judge Jennifer Wilson compared Smart’s cross-referencing of counts in the unfair competition claim to a “potentially endless loop of circular logic" reminiscent of actor Wallace Shawn’s monologue “analyzing how to determine the poisoned goblet” in the film A Princess Bride. In its reply brief, Smart said whether its unfair competition claim was “duplicative” of its tortious interference claim “is of no moment.” A party is allowed “to assert multiple claims based on the same facts -- indeed, it must do so to avoid res judicata.” Smart alleged Global Tel-Link defamed it by telling York County officials if the prison replaced its phone equipment with Smarts’, it would exercise its right to seize Smarts’ equipment based on a judgment it had against a company from which Smart acquired licensing rights. The plaintiff also said Global Tel-Link told county officials Smart was infringing its patents and Global would sue Smart and obtain an injunction to prohibit it from providing services that were part of its proposal. “Both are actionable statements,” Smart said. The 3rd Circuit should reverse the district court’s dismissal of counts I (violation of the Sherman Act), II (tortious interference) and III (unfair competition) of the complaint and remand for further proceedings, Smart said.