Contract analysis
Clause-by-clause risk read on any document of the firm. Pick a contract, or open any document from a matter.
Contract analysis / fcc-answer-and-affirmative-defenses.docx
fcc-answer-and-affirmative-defenses.docx
High · 1
Medium · 2
Standard · 1
I. INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION Respondent Northgate Networks America Inc. ("NNA" or "Respondent"), by and through its undersigned counsel, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, respectfully submits this Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to the Complaint filed by Ridgepoint Communications Inc. ("Ridgepoint" or "Complainant") on February 7, 2023, in the above-captioned proceeding. Ridgepoint alleges that NNA violated its interconnecti
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This proceeding is one of two pending actions arising from the same underlying facts and conduct. A summary of the procedural history is necessary to provide the Commission with full context regarding the posture of the parallel federal court litigation and its relationship to this administrative proceeding. A. Federal Court Litigation On September 19, 2022, Ridgepoint filed a complaint in t
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTIES
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTIES A. Respondent — Northgate Networks America Inc. Northgate Networks America Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with Employer Identification Number 54-3298176, and its principal offices located at 8200 Dulles Corner Boulevard, Suite 1100, Tysons Corner, Virginia 22182. NNA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northgate Telecommunications PLC,
IV. ANSWER TO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Standard
⚑ Commercial term
IV. ANSWER TO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT NNA responds to each paragraph of the Complaint as set forth below. To the extent any allegation is not specifically addressed, NNA denies such allegation. NNA's failure to address any particular allegation shall not be deemed an admission. NNA reserves all objections to the form, relevance, and materiality of the allegations in the Complaint. A. Responses to Jurisd
V. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
V. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Without assuming the burden of proof on any issue for which the burden properly rests with Complainant, and without waiving any defense or objection, NNA asserts the following affirmative defenses: First Affirmative Defense: Facilities Not Subject to Unbundling Requirements The fourteen (14) facilities identified in the Complaint are not subject to the unbundling requirements of Section 251(c)
Section 252(a) of the Communications Act provides that interconnection agreements "shall b
Medium
⚑ Liability cap to check against exposure
Section 252(a) of the Communications Act provides that interconnection agreements "shall be arrived at through negotiation" between the parties. Section 252(b) provides that either party may petition a state commission to mediate or arbitrate any open issues if the parties are unable to reach agreement through voluntary negotiation within a prescribed period. Ridgepoint did not request negotiation of a new interconne
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Respondent Northgate Networks America Inc. respectfully requests that the Commission:
1. Deny the Complaint filed by Ridgepoint Communications Inc. in its entirety;
1. Deny the Complaint filed by Ridgepoint Communications Inc. in its entirety;
2. Find that NNA has not violated Sections 251 or 252 of the Communications Act of 1934,
2. Find that NNA has not violated Sections 251 or 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 251, 252, or any Commission rule or order;
3. Dismiss Ridgepoint's claims with prejudice;
3. Dismiss Ridgepoint's claims with prejudice;
4. Deny Ridgepoint's request for any damages, reparations, injunctive relief, or any othe
4. Deny Ridgepoint's request for any damages, reparations, injunctive relief, or any other remedy;
5. Award NNA its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this pr
Medium
⚑ Forum / governing law
5. Award NNA its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this proceeding, to the extent permitted by applicable law and Commission rules; and
6. Grant such other and further relief as the Commission deems just and proper.
6. Grant such other and further relief as the Commission deems just and proper.
VII. VERIFICATION
High
⚑ Penalty / liquidated damages
VII. VERIFICATION I, Patrick Salazar, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I am the Chief Regulatory Officer of Northgate Telecommunications PLC, the parent company of Northgate Networks America Inc., the Respondent in the above-captioned proceeding. I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of Northgate Networks America Inc. I have reviewed the foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and the fac
VIII. SIGNATURE BLOCK AND COUNSEL INFORMATION
VIII. SIGNATURE BLOCK AND COUNSEL INFORMATION Respectfully submitted, NORTHGATE NETWORKS AMERICA INC. By its attorneys: CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP By: ________ Elaine Forsythe Responsible Partner Howard Bellamy Partner Aaron Liu Lead Associate Monica Reyes Associate Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1200 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 555-4100 Facsimile: (202) 555-4101 Email: eforsythe@calderwo
IX. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
IX. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Aaron Liu, hereby certify that on this date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Northgate Networks America Inc. was served upon the following persons by electronic filing via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System ("ECFS") and by electronic mail: Victoria Hargrove, Lead Partner Hargrove, Winslow & Burke LLP 900 17th Street NW, Suite 600 Washin