Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Autotel v. Qwest

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 23, 2009No. 07-17112Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partReinhardt, J.

I concur with the majority in every respect except one.

The magistrate judge rejected Autotel’s argument that it should be given access to Qwest’s network, which spans two Local Access Transport Areas (“LATAs”), via a single point of interconnection. She reasoned that there was no authority that would require Qwest to reconfigure its network so as to allow transport of local traffic between the two LATAs. There was on the other hand no authority that required the judge to rule in Qwest’s favor, where such an interconnection was technically feasible.

I read US West Communications, Inc. v.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mci Telecommunication Corporation v. Bell Atlantic-PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
  2. US West Communications, Inc. v. JenningsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API