Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. At&t, Michael Gilmartin and Richard Stotts

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim did not “arise under” federal law for the purposes of removal but that it was barred by the filed-rate doctrine
• holding that the plaintiff's breach of contract claim did not \arise under\ federal law for the purposes of removal but that it was barred by the filed-rate doctrine
• holding that, under Mackay, defects in removal jurisdiction were waivable, and therefore declining to remand even though the only basis for removal—the existence of federal counterclaims—was improper
• holding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim did not \arise under\ federal law for the pur- poses of removal but that it was barred by the filed-rate doctrine
• holding that “[cjarriers are prohibited from providing communications services except pursuant to a filed tariff, and may not charge, demand, collect or receive a rate other than the rate listed in the applicable tariff’
• holding that claim alleging breach of contract in which carrier agreed to charge plaintiff different rate than that set forth in tariff did not raise substantial federal question, but contract could not be enforced due to filed-rate doctrine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).