Firstcom, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff, v. Qwest Corporation, a Colorado corporation, Defendant., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11658

Summary

Plaintiff alleged that defendant repeatedly refused to offer voicemail service, offered more advantageous terms to other competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), and concealed its agreements with other CLECs. Plaintiff had dissolved and lacked capacity to sue but argued that its former shareholders had sued on its behalf as provided under Minn. Stat. § 302A.783. Section 302A.783 did not preclude former shareholders from asserting a claim in the corporation's name that arose after dissolution. The court accepted the truth of plaintiff's averment that the former shareholders did not learn of defendant's alleged fraud and unlawful conduct until months after official dissolution. Under 47 U.S.C.S. § 252(i), a local exchange carrier like defendant had to make services available to any requesting telecommunications carriers upon the same terms and conditions as provided in its agreement. The fact that plaintiff could not match competitors' volume purchase commitments did not defeat ...