CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-1009.United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
March 13, 2001.
ORDER AND REASONS
Fallon, J.
Before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. (“MCI”) contracted with defendants Axiom Rehabilitation Services of Alabama and Shari Goodman (“Axiom”) in October, 1998 to provide telecommunication services. MCI contends that Axiom breached the contract by failing to pay for its services and seeks recovery of $26,980.79 under Section 203 of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. In addition to its breach of contract claim, MCI asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against Axiom. Axiom responds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims raised by MCI because they are not properly raised under Section 203 of the Federal Communications Act. Accordingly, Axiom moves to dismiss MCI’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
The standard of review for motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is the same as the standard for review dismissals for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Benton v. United States, 960 F.2d 19, 21 (5th Cir. 1992). The moving party bears the burden of showing that “plaintiff can prove no set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint which would entitle it to relief.” Baton Rouge Bldg. Constr. Trades Council AFL-CIO v. Jacobs Constructors, Inc., 804 F.2d 879, 881
(5th Cir. 1986). The reviewing court “must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”American Waste Pollution Control Co. v. Browning Ferris Inc., 949 F.2d 1384, 1386 (5th Cir. 1991). Conclusory allegations or legal conclusions however will not suffice to defeat a motion to dismiss. See Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993). A court’s ultimate conclusion that a case should be dismissed may rest “on any one of three separate bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.” Barrera-Montenegro v. US., 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff raises its claim for unpaid telecommunications services in this federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction, and section 203 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Defendants dispute the existence of federal question jurisdiction and argue that this Court has no independent jurisdiction to entertain suits for unpaid telecommunications services.[1]
In MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Credit Builders of America, Inc., the Fifth Circuit addressed the question of whether federal district courts have independent federal question jurisdiction over matters arising out of the Communications Act of 1934. 980 F.2d 1021, 1023 (5th Cir. 1993), vacated on other grounds, 508 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1993), opinion reinstated, 2 F.3d 103
(5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 978 (1993). The Court considered nearly identical facts to the present case in which MCI sought to recover amounts due from its telecommunications client under the terms set forth in a tariff filed with the Federal Communications Commission. See id. at 1021-1022. The Court held that “actions for breach of contract and recovery in quantum meruit have their source in state law, and are consequently not entitled to federal question jurisdiction.” While plaintiff argues that American Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Florida-Texas Freight, Inc., 357 F. Supp. 977 (S.D. Fla. 1973), supports a finding of federal question jurisdiction, this Court is bound by the Fifth Circuit’s most recent and direct statement on the issue of federal question jurisdiction and the Federal Communications Act. See MCI Telecomm. Corp., 980 F.2d at 1023. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED, and plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.