BRANDENBURG TELEPHONE COMPANY v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. - Articles

All Content

BRANDENBURG TELEPHONE COMPANY v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jan 10, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Edward T. Depp, DINSMORE & SHOHL, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Philip D. Williamson, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Edward T. Depp, John E. Selent, R. Brooks Herrick, Anne Stewart Myers, DINSMORE & SHOHL, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Philip D. Williamson, Annie M. McClellan, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, Philip R. Schenkenberg, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellee.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; STRANCH and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville

SUTTON, Chief Judge. After more than a decade of regulatory and judicial proceedings, Sprint Communications concedes that it failed to pay Brandenburg Telephone Company in full for connecting local telephone calls and now owes $2.2 million plus compound interest. This appeal concerns one residual question: the interest rate on the award. Sprint says that Brandenburg’s filed utility tariff sets the interest rate at 8%, and that Sprint is on the hook for $4.3 million in interest. Brandenburg replies that the tariff imposes a rate of 10.66%, bringing Sprint’s bill to $7.1 million in interest. The district court ruled for Sprint. We affirm.

Attachments: