IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK--------------------------------------------------------------- x:CLUB TEXTING, INC. d/b/a :EZ TEXTING, INC., ::Plaintiff, :: Case No. 10-CIV-7205 (PKC)-- against -- ::T-MOBILE USA, INC., ::Defendant. ::--------------------------------------------------------------- x
DEFENDANT T-MOBILE USA, INC.’SMEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TOPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Alan M. UngerJohn J. LavelleCorban S. RhodesSIDLEY AUSTIN
LLP
787 Seventh AvenueNew York, New York 10019(212) 839-5300
Counsel for Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSPreliminary Statement
...................................................................................................................1
Background
....................................................................................................................................4
Short Codes and the MMA Best Practices
......................................................................4
T-Mobile’s Short Code Provisioning Program and Guidelines
.....................................7
T-Mobile’s Relationship with EZ Texting and the Termination of Plaintiff’sUnauthorized Short Code Program
.....................................................................8
Argument
......................................................................................................................................11
A.
Plaintiff Can Establish No Threat Of Imminent Irreparable Harm
..........................11
B.
Plaintiff Can Demonstrate No Substantial Likelihood Of Success On The Merits Of Its Claims
..........................................................................................................................14
1.
Plaintiff Has No Likelihood of Success on the Merits of its FederalCommunications Act Claims Because Information Services Such AsShort Code Provisioning Are Not Subject To Title II of the Act
.........14
2.
Plaintiff has No Likelihood of Prevailing on its Antitrust Claim UnderSection 1 of the Sherman Act
..................................................................19
3.
Plaintiff Has No Likelihood of Success on its Claim for TortiousInterference with Contractual Relations
...............................................21
C.
The Balance of the Harms Weighs Decidedly in T-Mobile’s Favor
............................22
Conclusion
....................................................................................................................................23
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)C
ASES
Arbitron Co. v. Phoenix Broad. Corp.
,1997 WL 452020 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 1997) .............................................................................12
AT&T Corp. v. F.C.C.
,317 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................18
Auto Sunroof, Inc. v. Am. Sunroof Corp.
,639 F. Supp. 1492 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)...................................................................................22, 23
Beal v. Stern
,184 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 1999).....................................................................................................11
Capital Imaging Assocs., P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Med. Assocs.
,996 F.2d 537 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied
, 510 U.S. 947 (1993) ......................................................20
Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability
,13 F.C.C.R. 24011 ...................................................................................................................16
Detariffing of Billing and Collection Services
,102 F.C.C.2d 1150 .............................................................................................................15, 18
Doninger v. Niehoff
,527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008).................................................................................................11, 15
Donohue v. Patterson
,2010 WL 2134140 (N.D.N.Y. May 12, 2010) .........................................................................13
Fox Ins. Co. v. Envision Pharma. Holdings, Inc.
,2009 WL 790312 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2009) ...........................................................................13
Goldberg v. Cablevision Sys. Corp.
,193 F. Supp. 2d 588 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) .....................................................................................14
Grand River Enter. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor
,481 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2007).......................................................................................................12
Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of theCommunications Act of 1934
,11 F.C.C.R. 21905 (1996) ........................................................................................................16
Integrated Sys. & Power, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.
,No. 09 CV 5874 (RPP), 2010 WL 1948333 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2010) ..................................21
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
