The U.S. District Court for Northern California delayed a case management conference in T-Mobile’s challenge to the California Public Utilities Commission’s USF contribution order until June 29 at 9:30 a.m. PST, said a text entry in case 3:23-cv-00483. The virtual conference was scheduled for Thursday. The carrier and agency disagree whether the case should continue while the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers the district court denying preliminary injunction of the CPUC order to shift to a connections-based surcharge (see 2305040077).

T-Mobile and the California Public Utilities Commission disagreed whether the U.S. District Court of Northern California should go ahead with a review of the CPUC’s USF contribution overhaul (case 3:23-cv-00483). T-Mobile wants the district court to pause the case until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolves the carrier’s appeal of the district court denying preliminary injunction (case 23-15490), said a joint case management statement filed Thursday. If the court wants, T-Mobile is prepared to file a motion seeking to hold the case in abeyance, it said. The CPUC wants to proceed on the merits now, said the filing: The agency doesn't think the 9th Circuit review will provide much guidance for the district court's merits review. The agency plans to seek dismissal and suggests the district court set a deadline for such a motion at a May 11 case management conference, it said. T-Mobile and subsidiaries Monday filed their opening brief in the 9th Circuit case (see 2305020038).

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set July 11 oral argument in League of California Cities v. FCC (case 20-71765). The hearing starts at 9 a.m. PDT. The cities are challenging the FCC’s 2020 wireless infrastructure declaratory ruling (see 2304070055).

T-Mobile’s MetroPCS admitted “it failed to disclose documents” sought by the California Public Utilities Commission in discovery, the CPUC told the U.S. District Court of Northern California. The admission came in the carrier’s opposition to a motion to strike MetroPCS evidence, the CPUC wrote Tuesday in reply (case 3:17-cv-05959-JD). “Because MetroPCS failed to comply with its discovery obligations, its newly-filed evidence should be stricken.” MetroPCS referred to the CPUC strike motion last week as “gamesmanship” in the dispute over USF surcharges (see 2304190059).

The 9th U.S. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied the emergency motion from T-Mobile and its subsidiaries for a stay or injunction pending appeal of the California Public Utilities Commission order requiring a $1.11 monthly flat USF fee per line (see 2304180006), said Judges Richard Paez and Paul Watford's order Wednesday (docket 23-15490). “The briefing schedule established previously remains in effect,” said the order. The opening brief for T-Mobile's 9th Circuit appeal of the district court’s May 31 injunction denial is due May 1, with the CPUC’s answer due May 30. The 9th Circuit previously denied T-Mobile's request for an immediate administrative while the emergency motion for a stay or injunction was being decided.

T-Mobile’s MetroPCS pressed a district court to grant summary judgment in its favor, while rejecting a cross-motion by the California Public Utilities Commission, in a dispute about USF surcharges. MetroPCS claims the CPUC unlawfully treated two-thirds of MetroPCS revenue as intrastate by imposing USF surcharges on prepaid wireless (see 2304100043 and 2303220063). “The undisputed evidence shows that MetroPCS’s methodologies for allocating revenue between the voice, text, and data components of its prepaid wireless plans were consistent with [generally accepted accounting principles] GAAP’s neutral and objective guidance for revenue allocation and with economic principles followed by the FCC,” the carrier said in a reply brief Tuesday at the U.S. District Court of Northern California (case 3:17-cv-05959-JD). “These methodologies accordingly were reasonable as a matter of law.” The CPUC’s resolutions “impermissibly imposed surcharges on MetroPCS’s broadband and other nonsurchargeable revenue -- whether viewed by comparing MetroPCS’s revenue allocations on a plan-by-plan basis with the CPUC’s intrastate factors, or on a total revenue basis -- and violated the FCC’s competitive neutrality requirement.” In a separate filing Tuesday, MetroPCS opposed a CPUC motion to strike MetroPCS evidence. “This is pure gamesmanship,” said the T-Mobile subsidiary. “The CPUC invokes no rule permitting the striking of MetroPCS’s timely filed fact and expert witness declarations, and it does not object to their admissibility.” It said the CPUC request “is as legally unsound as it is unfair.”

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals won't pause California's shift to connections-based state USF contribution while considering T-Mobile's motion for stay. The court denied the carrier's request for immediate administrative stay (see [Ref:2304100006). The California Public Utilities Commission should reply to the carrier's other request to stay the CPUC order while the case is pending by April 14 and T-Mobile may reply April 17 in case 23-15490, the 9th Circuit said.

Plaintiff Sage Telecom voluntarily dismissed its phone solicitation claims against debt collector Halsted Financial Service, said its notice Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00463) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. The dismissal came about a week after Sage filed a first amended complaint with screen shots of complaints from individuals reporting they were harassed by Halstead representatives over bills and services they didn't have and debt they didn’t owe (see 2303310005). Sage alleged Halsted violated the Texas Business & Commercial Code for making continuous and repetitive telephone solicitations to Sage’s Lifeline customers without obtaining a registration certificate from the secretary of state's office. Sage’s dismissal against Halsted came days after a judge in a separate but similar case granted debt collector Mercantile Adjustment Bureau’s motion to dismiss Sage Telecom’s phone solicitation complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted (see 2304050006).

A federal judge again refused to pause California’s move to a connections-based contribution method for state USF. T-Mobile and subsidiaries pressed the U.S. District Court of Northern California Friday to apply a stay while they appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the district court’s previous denial of preliminary injunction (see 2304070043). Ruling Sunday, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied T-Mobile a stay of the California Public Utilities Commission rule. Beeler also denied T-Mobile’s alternative request for an administrative stay until the 9th Circuit decides the stay issue. “The court denies the motion for the reasons it denied a preliminary injunction,” the judge wrote in case 3:23-cv-00483. The CPUC’s rule is different but not inconsistent with FCC rules, she said. “The plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions going to the merits, and the balance of equities and the public interest in any event did not tip in their favor.” T-Mobile, late Monday, filed an emergency motion for stay or injunction pending appeal at the 9th Circuit. Since the CPUC order took effect April 1, appellants “are already suffering ongoing, irreparable harms” and request an immediate administrative stay while the court decides Monday’s motion, upon which it wants a ruling by May 1, the carrier said. Without relief, appellants will suffer “financial losses … of nearly $11 million per month, loss of business and customer goodwill, and reputational harm.”

California’s shift to a connections-based USF contribution shouldn’t stop the U.S. District Court of Northern California from applying a stay while T-Mobile appeals to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, T-Mobile and subsidiaries said Friday (docket 3:23-cv-00483).The commission's state USF order took effect April 1. Courts can grant stays of preliminary injunction denials "even where the court continues to believe its prior ruling rejecting the movant’s arguments was correct,” T-Mobile said. Thursday, the CPUC opposed the carrier’s motion to stay the court’s March 31 order denying preliminary injunction (see 2304060048). The CPUC "ignores crucial issues of law and fact and concocts speculative and implausible theories of harm for the first time in this case,” T-Mobile wrote Friday. "At a minimum, an administrative stay is warranted to afford the Ninth Circuit sufficient time to consider a stay motion before additional, ongoing, and irreparable harms are inflicted upon Plaintiffs.” The CPUC claims reverting to a revenue-based method will cost the agency time and resources, but it fails to estimate how much, the carrier added.