Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

ACS of Fairbanks, Inc. v. GCI Communication Corp.

321 F.3d 1215

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 2003-03-12
Topic: bankruptcy

ORDER Plaintiffs-Appellees ACS of Fairbanks, Inc., ACS of Alaska, Inc., and ACS of Northland, Inc., collectively referred to as “ACS,” seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of interconnection contracts arbitrated and approved by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (“RCA”) at the request of GCI Communication Corporation d/b/a/ General Communication, Inc., d/b/a GCI (“GCI”) under the Tele-communications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 251 et seq. At oral argument, counsel for RCA offered to allow the individual commissioners to be reinstated as parties to this action in substitution for RCA. Counsel acknowledged that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), permits suit against the commissioners in their official capacities. We hold that the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to entertain such a suit against the commissioners. See Verizon Md., Inc. v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed ACS of Fairbanks, Inc. v. GCI Communication Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 6 opinions

ACS OF FAIRBANKS, INC. v. GCI COMM. CORP.,321 F.3d 1215(9th Cir. 2003)

ACS OF FAIRBANKS, INC.; ACSOF Alaska, Inc.; ACSOF The Northland, Inc.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GCI COMMUNICATION CORP., d/b/a General

Communication, Inc., Defendant, and Regulatory Commission of Alaska,

Defendant-Appellant. ACSOF Fairbanks, Inc.; ACSOF Alaska, Inc.; ACSOF The

Northland, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GCI Communication Corp., d/b/a

General Communication, Inc.; Regulatory Commission of Alaska; G. Nanette

Thompson, Bernie Smith; Patricia M. Demarco; James S. Strandberg; Will

Abbott, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 01-35344, 01-35475.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 30, 2002.

Filed March 12, 2003.

Page 1216

Steven D. DeVries, Anchorage, AK, for defendant-appellant Regulatory Commission of Alaska.

Martin M. Weinstein and Mark R. Moderow, Anchorage, AK, for defendant GCI Communication Corp. d/b/a General Communication, Inc.

Kevin D. Callahan and Michael A. Grisham, Patton Boggs LLP, Anchorage, AK, for the plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska; H. Russel Holland, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-00288-A-HRH.

Before: B. FLETCHER, McKEOWN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Plaintiffs-Appellees ACS of Fairbanks, Inc., ACS of Alaska, Inc., and ACS of Northland, Inc., collectively referred to as "ACS," seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of interconnection contracts arbitrated and approved by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska ("RCA") at the request of GCI Communication Corporation d/b/a/ General Communication, Inc., d/b/a GCI ("GCI") under the Tele-communications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C. § 251et seq.

At oral argument, counsel for RCA offered to allow the individual commissioners to be reinstated as parties to this action in substitution for RCA. Counsel acknowledged that the doctrine ofEx parte Young,209 U.S. 123,28 S.Ct. 441,52 L.Ed. 714(1908), permits suit against the commissioners in their official capacities. We hold that the federal courts have jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 1331to entertain such a suit against the commissioners.See Verizon Md., Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'nof Md., et al.,535 U.S. 635,122 S.Ct. 1753,1758,152 L.Ed.2d 871(2002).

We do not need to decide the Eleventh Amendment immunity issue as against RCA "because . . . even absent waiver, [ACS] may proceed against the individual commissioners in their official capacities, pursuant to the doctrine ofEx parte Young,209 U.S. 123,28 S.Ct. 441,52 L.Ed. 714(1908)."Verizon,122 S.Ct. at 1760. The Supreme Court has stated that in determining whether "the doctrine ofEx Parte Youngavoids an EleventhPage 1217Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective."Verizon,535 U.S. 635,122 S.Ct. 1753at 1760, 152 L.Ed.2d 871(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, as inVerizon,ACS seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, and the relief requested is permissible underEx parte Young.ACS "seeks a declaration of thepast,as well as thefuture,ineffectiveness of the Commission's action . . . Insofar as the exposure of the State is concerned, the prayer for declaratory relief adds nothing to the prayer for injunction."Id.(emphasis in original).

The parties have not shown good cause as to why the commissioners should not be substituted for the RCA. The district court's order dismissing RCA's motion is vacated and this case is remanded. The district court is directed to reinstate the individual commissioners as parties and proceed to a determination of the merits.VACATED AND REMANDED.