Acs of Fairbanks, Inc. Acsof Alaska, Inc. Acsof the Northland, Inc. v. Gci Commc'n Corp., D/B/A Gen. Commc'n, Inc., & Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska, Acsof Fairbanks, Inc. Acsof Alaska, Inc. Acsof the Northland, Inc. v. Gci Commc'n Corp., D/B/A Gen. Commc'n, Inc. Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska G. Nanette Thompson, Bernie Smith Patricia M. Demarco James S. Strandberg Will Abbott, 321 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Acs of Fairbanks, Inc. Acsof Alaska, Inc. Acsof the Northland, Inc. v. Gci Commc'n Corp., D/B/A Gen. Commc'n, Inc., & Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska, Acsof Fairbanks, Inc. Acsof Alaska, Inc. Acsof the Northland, Inc. v. Gci Commc'n Corp., D/B/A Gen. Commc'n, Inc. Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska G. Nanette Thompson, Bernie Smith Patricia M. Demarco James S. Strandberg Will Abbott, 321 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Young v. Hawaii (hid, 2008-03-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Hawaii
D. Haw. · 2008 · confidence medium
Comm’n of Md., et al., 535 U.S. 635, 645 , 122 S.Ct. 1753 , 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002); ACS of Fairbanks, Inc. v. GCI Communication Corp., 321 F.3d 1215, 1216-17 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited "see" Williams 124345 v. Ryan
D. Ariz. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See ACS of Fairbanks, Inc. v. GCI Commc’n Corp., 321 F.3d 1215 , 1217 (9th 3 Cir. 2003) (although the Eleventh Amendment bars a damages action against a State in 4 federal court, it does not bar claims for injunctive relief against individuals in their official 5 capacity).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wilbur v. Locke
9th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
"Since the Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 . . . (1908), courts have recognized an exception to the Eleventh Amendment bar for suits for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against state officers, sued in their official capacities, to enjoin an alleged ongoing violation of federal law." Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Hardin, 223 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.2000); see also Los Angeles County Bar Ass'n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697 , 704 (9th Cir.1992) ("[T]he Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions seeking only prospective declarato…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wilbur v. Locket
9th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 128 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 ... (1908), courts have recognized an exception to the Eleventh Amendment bar for suits for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against state officers, sued in their official capacities, to enjoin an alleged ongoing violation of federal law.” Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Hardin, 223 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.2000); see also Los Angeles County Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 704 (9th Cir.1992) (“[T]he Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions seeking only prospective de…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also ACS of Fairbanks v. GCI Communication Corp., 321 F.3d 1215 , 2003 WL 1062026 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Pacific Bell, a California Corporation, and United States of America, Intervenor v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Richard A. Bilas, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California in Their Official Capacity Henry M. Duque Joel Z. Hyatt Josiah Neeper Carl W. Wood, Commissioners of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California in Their Official Capacities, Verizon California, Inc., and United States of America Rcn Telecommunications Services of California, Inc., Intervenors v. California Telecommunications Coalition, and at & T Communications of California Inc. Icg Telecom Group McImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. Mfs Intelenet of California, Inc. Pac-West Telecom, Inc. Teleport Communications Group Inc. Winstar Telecommunication, Inc. California Public Utilities Commission Richard A. Bilas, President of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Joel Z. Hyatt Carl W. Wood, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission Henry M. Duque, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission Josiah L. Neeper, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Bell, a California Corporation, Worldcom, Inc., Intervenor-Appellee, and United States of America Rcn Telecommunications Services of California, Inc. At & T Communications of California Inc. Icg Telecom Group McImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. Mfs Intelenet of California, Inc. Pac-West Telecom, Inc. Teleport Communications Group Inc. At & T Communications of California Inc. Winstar Wireless Incorporated, Intervenors v. California Public Utilities Commission Richard A. Bilas, President of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Joel Z. Hyatt Carl W. Wood, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission Henry M. Duque, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission Josiah L. Neeper, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also ACS of Fairbanks v. GCI Communication Corp., 321 F.3d 1215 , 2003 WL 1062026 (9th Cir.2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Acs of Fairbanks, Inc. Acsof Alaska, Inc. Acsof the Northland, Inc.
v.
Gci Communication Corp., D/B/A General Communication, Inc., and Regulatory Commission of Alaska, Acsof Fairbanks, Inc. Acsof Alaska, Inc. Acsof the Northland, Inc. v. Gci Communication Corp., D/B/A General Communication, Inc. Regulatory Commission of Alaska G. Nanette Thompson, Bernie Smith Patricia M. Demarco James S. Strandberg Will Abbott
01-35344.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 12, 2003.
321 F.3d 1215
Published

321 F.3d 1215

ACS OF FAIRBANKS, INC.; ACSOF Alaska, Inc.; ACSOF The Northland, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
GCI COMMUNICATION CORP., d/b/a General Communication, Inc., Defendant, and
Regulatory Commission of Alaska, Defendant-Appellant.
ACSOF Fairbanks, Inc.; ACSOF Alaska, Inc.; ACSOF The Northland, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GCI Communication Corp., d/b/a General Communication, Inc.; Regulatory Commission of Alaska; G. Nanette Thompson, Bernie Smith; Patricia M. Demarco; James S. Strandberg; Will Abbott, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-35344.

No. 01-35475.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 30, 2002.

Filed March 12, 2003.

Steven D. DeVries, Anchorage, AK, for defendant-appellant Regulatory Commission of Alaska.

Martin M. Weinstein and Mark R. Moderow, Anchorage, AK, for defendant GCI Communication Corp. d/b/a General Communication, Inc.

Kevin D. Callahan and Michael A. Grisham, Patton Boggs LLP, Anchorage, AK, for the plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska; H. Russel Holland, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-00288-A-HRH.

Before: B. FLETCHER, McKEOWN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

[*~1215]1

Plaintiffs-Appellees ACS of Fairbanks, Inc., ACS of Alaska, Inc., and ACS of Northland, Inc., collectively referred to as "ACS," seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of interconnection contracts arbitrated and approved by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska ("RCA") at the request of GCI Communication Corporation d/b/a/ General Communication, Inc., d/b/a GCI ("GCI") under the Tele-communications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 251 et seq.

2

At oral argument, counsel for RCA offered to allow the individual commissioners to be reinstated as parties to this action in substitution for RCA. Counsel acknowledged that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), permits suit against the commissioners in their official capacities. We hold that the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to entertain such a suit against the commissioners. See Verizon Md., Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Md., et al., 535 U.S. 635, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 1758, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002).

3

We do not need to decide the Eleventh Amendment immunity issue as against RCA "because ... even absent waiver, [ACS] may proceed against the individual commissioners in their official capacities, pursuant to the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908)." Verizon, 122 S.Ct. at 1760. The Supreme Court has stated that in determining whether "the doctrine of Ex Parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective." Verizon, 535 U.S. 635, 122 S.Ct. 1753 at 1760, 152 L.Ed.2d 871(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, as in Verizon, ACS seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, and the relief requested is permissible under Ex parte Young. ACS "seeks a declaration of the past, as well as the future, ineffectiveness of the Commission's action ... Insofar as the exposure of the State is concerned, the prayer for declaratory relief adds nothing to the prayer for injunction." Id. (emphasis in original).

4

The parties have not shown good cause as to why the commissioners should not be substituted for the RCA. The district court's order dismissing RCA's motion is vacated and this case is remanded. The district court is directed to reinstate the individual commissioners as parties and proceed to a determination of the merits.

[*~1216]5

VACATED AND REMANDED.