MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Credit Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Credit Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Micronet, Inc. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (indctapp, 2007-05-10) · Strongest negative: Keith MAYDAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BONDED CREDIT COMPANY INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee (ca9, 1996-10-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Keith MAYDAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BONDED CREDIT COMPANY INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
9th Cir. · 1996 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.1993) (refusing to follow Ivy on the grounds that federal common law exists only in narrow areas and does not apply to disputes over telephone bills), vacated on other grounds, 508 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 (1993), prior opinion restated, 2 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 978 , 114 S.Ct. 472 , 126 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993).
discussed Cited "but see" Roberts Distributor, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp.
S.D. Ind. · 1996 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of America, Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.) (Federal Communications Act), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 508 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 (1993), prior opinion reinstated, 2 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 472 , 126 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993).
examined Cited "but see" MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc. (6×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
3rd Cir. · 1995 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1993), vacated, U.S. , 113 S.Ct. 2925 (1993), prior opinion reinstated, 2 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 114 S.Ct. 472 (1993).
examined Cited "but see" MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Teleconcepts, Incorporated, Defendant/third-Party v. Bell of Pennsylvania, Third-Party Teleconcepts, Incorporated (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
3rd Cir. · 1995 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.1993), vacated, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 (1993), prior opinion reinstated, 2 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 472 , 126 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993). 22 In Richman Bros.
discussed Cited "but see" MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. David Graham, Individually and D/B/A Graham Construction Company
6th Cir. · 1993 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.) (concluding that suit to collect unpaid charges did not present federal question), cert. granted and judgment vacated to consider mootness, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Micronet, Inc. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
Ind. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
In MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of America Inc., 980 F.2d 1021, 1022 (5th Cir.1993), reh'g denied, vacated on other grounds, 508 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 (1993), the court addressed whether the district court's dismissal of the case should be reversed based on Ivy and held: The Second Circuit in Ivy held that "questions concerning the duties, charges, and liabilities” of carriers are to be governed solely by federal law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert S. Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co.
5th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Am., endorsing a “cautious approach with respect to. the recognition of federal common law.” 980 F.2d 1021, 1022-23 (5th Cir.) (criticizing and declining to follow Ivy Broadcasting Co. v. American Tel. & Tel., 391 F.2d 486 (2d Cir.1968)), cert. granted and judgment vacated, 508 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 , orig. opinion reinstated on remand, 2 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 978 , 114 S.Ct. 472 , 126 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1339, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2016 Central Office Telephone, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
9th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
MCI v. Credit Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021, 1022-23 (5th Cir.), vacated, 508 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 , reinstated, 2 F.3d 103 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 978 , 114 S.Ct. 472 , 126 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993), holds only that a carrier's suit to collect unpaid tariffed charges does not "arise under" federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Central Office Telephone, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
9th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
MCI v. Credit Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021, 1022-23 (5th Cir.), vacated, 508 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 , reinstated, 2 F.3d 103 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 978 , 114 S.Ct. 472 , 126 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993), holds only that a carrier’s suit to collect unpaid tariffed charges does not “arise under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Logan Group, Inc.
N.D. Tex. · 1994 · confidence medium
It also concedes that under the ruling in MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of America, Inc., 980 F.2d 1021, 1022-23 (5th Cir.), cert. granted and judgment vacated by — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 on remand, 2 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.) (opinion reinstated), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 472 , 126 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993), the Court does not have federal jurisdiction over its claims or those of the other parties to this action on the ground that MCI’s services were provided to defendants in accordance with the terms of MCI’s Tariff No., 1, filed with the Federal Comm…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert S. FRANK v. BEAR STEARNS & CO (2×) also: Cited "see"
unknown court · confidence medium
Corp. v. Credit Builders of Am., endorsing a "cautious approach with respect to the recognition of federal common law." 980 F.2d 1021, 1022-23 (5th Cir.) (criticizing and declining to follow Ivy Broadcasting Co. v. American Tel. & Tel., 391 F.2d 486 (2d Cir.1968)), cert. granted and judgment vacated, 508 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 , orig. opinion reinstated on remand, 2 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.), substantive law.
cited Cited "see" Mellman v. Sprint Communications Co.
N.D. Fla. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.), vacated, 508 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 , prior opinion reinstated, 2 F.3d 103 (5th.
discussed Cited "see" American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee v. The City of New York and the New York City Corrections Department, Defendants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs- Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. New York Telephone Company, Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant
2d Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.), vacated, 508 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 , prior opinion reinstated, 2 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 978 , 114 S.Ct. 472 , 126 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993).
discussed Cited "see" American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of New York
2d Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.), vacated, 508 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 , prior opinion reinstated, 2 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 472 , 126 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993).
discussed Cited "see" MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. United Showcase, Inc. (2×)
N.D. Tex. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See 980 F.2d at 1022 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." DeCastro v. AWACS, Inc.
D.N.J. · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of America, Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.) (“We are not persuaded by the reasoning in Ivy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Esquivel v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 1996 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of America, 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.), vacated on other grounds and remanded, 508 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 2925 , 124 L.Ed.2d 676 , reinstated, 2 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 472 , 126 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993) with MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. United Showcase, Inc., 847 F.Supp. 510 (N.D.Tex.1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CREDIT BUILDERS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee
92-1489.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 9, 1993.
980 F.2d 1021
John C. Meinrath, Senior Atty., Off. of Gen. Counsel, Richardson, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant., Bryan Scott Stone, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Jolly, Duhé, Barksdale.
Cited by 26 opinions  |  Published
DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:

MCI Telecommunications Corporation (“MCI”) appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of MCI’s suit to collect unpaid charges for telecommunications services provided to Credit Builders of America, Inc. (“Credit Builders”). The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We find no error and affirm.

Background

From December 1990 through September 1991, MCI provided telecommunications services to Credit Builders in both Texas and Missouri. All services were provided in accordance with the terms of MCI’s F.C.C. Tariff No. 1 (the “Tariff”), filed with the Federal Communications Commission. After allegedly not receiving any payment for services rendered, MCI terminated all[*1022] telecommunication services to Credit Builders. In October 1991,. MCI brought this action to recover $38,897.00 for amounts due from Credit Builders under the terms and conditions set forth in the Tariff, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. MCI moved for summary judgment and the district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Discussion

MCI contends that the United States District Courts have independent federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 [1] and jurisdiction over matters arising out of the Communications Act under 28 U.S.C. § 1337. [2] MCI argues that the district court's dismissal of this case should be reversed based on Ivy Broadcasting Co. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 391 F.2d 486 (2d Cir.1968).

In general, to determine whether a cause of action “arises under” federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has stated that a case arises under federal law if “it really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect of such a law, upon the determination of which the result depends.” Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 114, 57 S.Ct. 96, 98, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936). And it has been held that “federal common law,” when it exists, is among the “laws of the United States” referred to in the jurisdictional statute, thus conferring federal question jurisdiction. Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 92 S.Ct. 1385, 31 L.Ed.2d 712 (1972).

The Second Circuit in Ivy held that “questions concerning the duties, charges, and liabilities” of carriers are to be governed solely by federal law. Ivy, 391 F.2d at 491. The court in Ivy concluded the federal interest in telephone companies is so strong and the legislation regulating such companies is so comprehensive that federal common law gives a remedy for tort or breach of contract even though the statutes provide no such remedy, either expressly or impliedly. Id. at 491. We are not persuaded by the reasoning in Ivy. In fact, the decision in Ivy has received much criticism. The decision has been referred to as “extreme” and “questionable.” [3]

MCI cites to our decision in Pennzoil Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Com., 645 F.2d 360, 385 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1142, 102 S.Ct. 1000, 71 L.Ed.2d 293 (1982), as following the Ivy case. Pennzoil, however,- cites to Ivy for the proposition that in order for all aspects of a contract subject to federal regulation to be governed by federal rather than state law, an independent indication of congressional policy indicating that the contract be ruled by federal common law must be present. Pennzoil, 645 F.2d at 385. The Court then goes on to distinguish the case at bar from the Ivy case. MCI’s reliance on Pennzoil is misplaced. While we agree with the general proposition stated in Ivy, we believe that the Ivy court has gone too far in making “further inroads ... upon the clear provisions of the Rules of Decision Act on the vague grounds of federal interest.” [4] We prefer instead to take a more cautious approach with respect to the recognition of federal common law. [5] As the Supreme Court has emphasized, the federal common law is appropriate in only a “few and restricted” circumstances. Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304, 313, 101 S.Ct. 1784, 1790, 68 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981). In Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 641, 101 S.Ct. 2061, 2067, 68 L.Ed.2d 500 (1981), the Supreme Court went on to state that “absent some congressional authorization to formulate sub[*1023] stantive rules of decision, federal common law exists only in such narrow areas as those concerned with the rights and obligations of the United States, interstate and international disputes implicating the conflicting rights of States or our relations with foreign nations, and admiralty cases.” We do not believe that this case to collect a delinquent telephone bill falls within these limited instances. [6]

This case involves MCI’s ability to recover on a contract or its ability to recover in quantum meruit. It does not involve the validity, construction, or effect of the Communications Act or any other federal statute. Actions for breach of contract and recovery in quantum meruit have their source in state law, and are consequently not entitled to federal jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

1

. Section 1331 states: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

2

. Section 1337 states: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress-”

3

. Charles A. Wright, Law of Federal Courts § 60 (4th Ed. 1983).

4

. Currie, Federal Jurisdiction in a Nutshell 244 (2d ed. 1981).

5

. Wright, supra note 3.

6

. For the same reasons, we do not believe that Section 1337 confers federal question jurisdiction.