Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The homeowners association sued OpenBand, a group of interlocking entities that provided cable services to Lansdowne real estate development. The homeowners alleged that OpenBand entered into a series of contracts that conferred upon Open Band the exclusive right to provide video services to the the development, in violation of an order of the FCC prohibiting such exclusivity arrangements. Because the contract prohibited competing cable providers from accessing the Lansdowne development in patent violation of the FCC's Order, the court affirmed the district court's judgment declaring the challenged provisions null and void and permanently enjoining their enforcement. View "Lansdowne on the Potomac Homeowners Assoc. v. Openband at Lansdowne, LLC" on Justia Law

Mid-Atlantic Sports Network appealed an order of the FCC. Based on a review of its Media Bureau decision and the record, the FCC found that Time Warner provided legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for declining to carry Mid-Atlantic Sports Network programming on an analog tier in its North Carolina cable system. On appeal, Mid-Atlantic Sports Network argued that the FCC's Order should be vacated and remanded because Time Warner engaged in unlawful discrimination. Because the FCC acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously in rendering its order, the court concluded that the FCC acted within its discretion, and the court denied the petition for review and affirmed the FCC's Order. View "TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding v. FCC" on Justia Law

Following the denial of its application for a conditional use permit to construct a wireless communication tower at an elementary school, T-Mobile filed suit in federal court, alleging that the denial violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) and (iv). The district court agreed and issued an injunction directing that T-Mobile's application be granted. Because the court also concluded that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence as required by the Act, the court affirmed the judgment. View "T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. City Council of Newport News" on Justia Law

The Board rejected the application of AT&T to build an 88-foot telecommunications tower in a residential neighborhood, a decision which AT&T later challenged in the District Court. The district court determined that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision and that the Board's ruling did not effectively prohibit wireless services under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 322(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and (B)(iii). The court found that the Board's denial of AT&T's application had substantial support in the record as a whole and complied with the substantial evidence requirement of subsection (B)(iii). Based on the failure of proof by AT&T, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the Board on AT&T's claim that the Board's denial of its application violated subsection (B)(i)(II) of the Act. View "New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. The Fairfax Cty. Bd. of Supervisors" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute between incumbent local exchange carriers that provide service in rural areas of North Carolina (RLECs) and commercial mobile radio service providers (CMRS Providers) in North Carolina. The CMRS Providers filed a complaint in the district court against the RLECs and the Commissioners of the NCUC in their official capacities, seeking review of several determinations made by the NCUC and, ultimately, the approval of portions of the interconnection agreements (ICA). The district court subsequently denied the CMRS Providers' motion for summary judgment and granted the RLECs' and the NCUC's motions for summary judgment. The district court also affirmed the NCUC's Filing of Composite Agreements (FAO) and approval order. Because the court ultimately agreed with the arguments advanced by the RLECs and the NCUC, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, et al. v. Finley, Jr., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this action alleging trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 114(1); federal unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); unfair competition and deceptive trade practices under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), N.C.Gen. Stat. 75-1.1, thereby challenging the use of its federally-registered AGRI-NET trademark by defendants. Plaintiff appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants on its affirmative defense of laches. The court concluded that the district court erred in determining that defendants established its defense as a matter of law, and, separately, in failing to consider whether laches barred plaintiff's claim for prospective injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ray Communications, Inc. v. Clear Channel Comm., Inc., et al." on Justia Law

T-Mobile filed a complaint in the district court against the Board, asserting that the Board's denials of T-Mobile's applications to construct a wireless service facility on an existing transmission pole violated certain provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B), which placed limitations on a local governing body's decisional authority regarding the placement and modification of personal wireless service facilities. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board and T-Mobile appealed. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that T-Mobile failed to establish that the Board effectively prohibited personal wireless services, as proscribed by subsection (B)(i)(II), or unreasonably discriminated against T-Mobile, as proscribed by subsection (B)(i)(I). Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Board. View "T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax County Board" on Justia Law

CGM, a billing agent for competitive local exchange carriers (competitive LECs), brought a declaratory judgment action against BellSouth, an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC). CGM claimed that BellSouth offered long-term promotional discounts to its own customers but failed, in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(2), 251(c)(4), and rules implementing it, to pass the full value of those discounts on to CGM's client competitive LECs, none of which was a party to the suit. Because CGM had no statutory standing under either the 1996 Act or a seemingly broadly worded but nonetheless inapplicable statute from the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 401(b), the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of CGM's complaint. View "CGM, LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunication, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of five electronic communications offenses when she began an anonymous electronic campaign of harassment against a former romantic partner. Defendant challenged her convictions and sentence on numerous grounds. The court held that the felony convictions of Count 2 and Count 4 must be vacated and reduced to misdemeanors where both Counts created a merger problem which implicated double jeopardy principles and where the indictment failed to establish any crime in Count 4. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant on Count 1 and Count 6 where the record showed that she conspired unlawfully to access computers and electronic storage facilities containing unopened e-mails for the purpose of accessing other computers and harassing, annoying, and harming the victim and his family and where the illegal access to voicemail facilitated the harassing telephone calls by supplying the ammunition that made the calls harassing and threatening. The court rejected defendant's claim that her Sixth Amendment rights were violated where the district court granted her request to represent herself. The court further rejected defendant's remaining sentencing arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. Finally, in light of Count 2 and Count 4, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing.