By: Derek Hawkins//October 24, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Cbeyond Communications, LLC v. Brien J. Sheahan, et al
Case No.: 16-1237
Officials: POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Interconnection Agreement – Illinois Commerce Commission
Appellant files complaint against respondent for allegedly overcharging customers, to no avail.
“So we can’t find a violation of federal law by the Illinois Commerce Commission or AT&T Illinois. All we discern is a dispute over a price term in a contract, and the resolution of such a dispute, as of Cbeyond’s other state‐law claims, is a matter for state rather than federal law. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Inc. v. Global NAPS Illinois, Inc., 551 F.3d 587, 591 (7th Cir. 2008); Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc., 179 F.3d 566, 572, 574 (7th Cir. 1999). Although a federal district court can resolve state‐law disputes under its supplemental jurisdiction if (as in this case) it has original juris‐ diction (in this case because of Cbeyond’s claims), see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state‐law claims in this case would require us first to decide that the state (Illinois) cannot invoke its sovereign immunity—a doubtful proposition in light of MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 168 F.3d 315, 320 (7th Cir. 1999), where we said that it was “clear that … federal courts may review a state commission’s actions with respect to an agreement only for compliance with the requirements of § 251 and § 252 of the Telecommunications Act, and not for compliance with state law” (emphasis added). And state sovereign immunity to one side, Cbeyond has imposed an excessive and unnecessary burden on the district court by bringing this sloppy lawsuit, and should not be permitted to impose further on the district court or our court.”
Affirmed