MOJICA v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Case No. 5:14-CV-5258.

SUSAN MOJICA and THOMAS MOJICA, Plaintiffs, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 47 U.S.C. § 251
Cause: 47 U.S.C. § 251 Telecommunications Act of 1996
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Susan Mojica, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Trask , Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP.

Susan Mojica, Plaintiff, represented by Amy C. Martin , Attorney at Law, Barbara A. Podell , Berger Montague P.C., Benjamin D. Brown , Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC, Donna Siegel Moffa , Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP, Edward W. Ciolko , Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP, James Maro , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Monique Myatt Galloway , Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP, Peter R. Kahana , Berger Montague P.C., Peter A. Muhic , Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP, Robert A. Braun , Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC, Yechiel Michael Twersky , BERGER MONTAGUE P.C., Patrick Howard , Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett Bendesky P.C. & Samantha Holbrook , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

Securus Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by James M. Graves , Bassett Law Firm LLP, Robert L. Jones, III , Conner & Winters, Woody Bassett , Bassett Law Firm, Craig A. Stanfield , Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, Elizabeth Brooke Herrington , Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, Eren Jon Alexander Gryskiewicz , Arent Fox LLP, Joshua Fowkes , Arent Fox LLP, Kerri E. Kobbeman , Conner & Winters, LLP, Megan R. Braden , Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP & Stephanie Joyce , Arent Fox LLP.

Thomas Mojica, Intervenor, represented by Amy C. Martin , Attorney at Law, Peter A. Muhic , Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP, pro hac vice & Samantha Holbrook , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.


OPINION AND ORDER

TIMOTHY L. BROOKS, District Judge.

Currently before the Court are Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc.'s ("Securus") Emergency Motion to Continue All Dates in the Final Case Management Order Pending a Status Conference to Address Briefing Regarding Recent Decision Vacating the FCC's ICS Order (Doc. 249), and Plaintiffs Susan Mojica's and Thomas Mojica's Response in Opposition (Doc. 250). For the reasons given below, Securus's Motion is DENIED.

On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit entered an opinion and order ("the D.C. Circuit decision") vacating certain provisions of a 2015 Federal Communications Commission order ("the 2015 FCC order") that had set permanent rate caps and ancillary fee caps for inmate calling services. The next day, Securus filed the instant Motion, arguing that all deadlines and settings in this case should be continued pending supplemental briefing on the D.C. Circuit decision, because "[t]hese holdings by the D.C. Circuit dramatically affect Plaintiffs' claims before this Court, including impacting pending and potentially dispositive motions" for summary judgment, for primary jurisdiction referral, to exclude experts, and to decertify the class. See Doc. 249, pp. 4-6. The Mojicas oppose this Motion, but "do not object to the Court granting the parties leave to file reply briefs not to exceed ten (10) pages in length in support of" the other currently pending motions. See Doc. 250, p. 2.

The Court has been closely following this D.C. Circuit case and related litigation throughout its pendency, and is sure the parties have been as well. Having reviewed the D.C. Circuit decision, the oral argument in that case, and much of the briefing in it as well, the Court is quite confident that there are no issues or arguments implicated by the D.C. Circuit decision with which this Court and the parties in this case were not already very familiar. Of course, the rulings therein are important, as is the reasoning on which the D.C. Circuit based them. This Court is sure the parties will have much to say about it, and the Court will give the D.C. Circuit decision all due weight and consideration. But the Court does not believe any continuances for supplemental briefing are warranted, given everyone's preexisting and extensive familiarity with the matters discussed in the D.C. Circuit decision.

Responses to the pending Motions for Class Decertification (Doc. 224), Summary Judgment (Docs. 232, 237) and to Exclude (Docs. 235, 240, 242) are all currently due by June 30, 2017. See Doc. 189, p. 3, § 5. The parties are welcome and encouraged to discuss the D.C. Circuit decision in those responses. The Court will also give the parties advance leave to file replies in support of these Motions, no longer than ten (10) pages each, by no later than July 5, 2017. This should afford the parties sufficient opportunity to brief the Court on the D.C. Circuit decision's ramifications for the instant case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc.'s Emergency Motion to Continue All Dates in the Final Case Management Order Pending a Status Conference to Address Briefing Regarding Recent Decision Vacating the FCC's ICS Order (Doc. 249) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases