Robert J. Debry and Associates V. Qwest Dex, Inc and Dex Media West, L.L.C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 2005 Robert J. Debry and Associates v. Qwest Dex, Inc and Dex Media West, L.L.C. : Brief of Appellant Utah Court of Appeals Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Joseph J. Joyce; James D. Franckowiak; Strong and Hanni; Bobbee J. Musgrave; Paul J. Lopach; Musgrave and Thesis, LLP; Attorneys for Appellees. Lynn P. Heward; Robert J. DeBry and Associates; Attorneys for Appellant. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellant, Debry v. Qwest Dex, Inc, No. 20050299 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2005). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2/5712 This Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN 1HE UTAH SUPREME COURT ROBERT J. DEBRY AND ASSOCIATES, P.C, a Utah corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, vs. QWEST DEX, INC., a Colorado Case No. 20050299 corporation, and DEX MEDIA WEST, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability corporation, Defendants and Appellees. BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT CERTIFICATION OF QUESTION OF STATE LAW BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT Joseph J. Joyce & James D. Franckowiak Lynn P. Heward #1479 STRONG & HANNI ROBERT J. DeBRY & ASSOCIATES 3 Triad Center, Suite 500 4252 South 700 East Salt Lake City, UT 84180 Salt Lake City, UT 84107 Bobbee J. Musgrave & Paul J. Lopach, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellant MUSGRAVE & THEIS, LLP 350 17th Street, Suite 4450 Denver, CO 80202 Attorneys for Defendants and Appellees FILED UTAH APPELLATE COURTS SEP 29 2005 IN THE UTAH SUPREME COURT ROBERT J. DEBRY AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., a Utah corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, vs. QWEST DEX, INC., a Colorado Case No. 20050299 corporation, and DEX MEDIA WEST, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability corporation, Defendants and Appellees. BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT CERTIFICATION OF QUESTION OF STATE LAW BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT Joseph J. Joyce & James D. Franckowiak Lynn P. Heward #1479 STRONG & HANNI ROBERT J. DeBRY & ASSOCIATES 3 Triad Center, Suite 500 4252 South 700 East Salt Lake City, UT 84180 Salt Lake City, UT 84107 Bobbee J. Musgrave & Paul J. Lopach, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellant MUSGRAVE & THEIS, LLP 350 17th Street, Suite 4450 Denver, CO 80202 Attorneys for Defendants and Appellees LIST OF PARTIES The above caption of this case contains the names of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is sought to be reviewed. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES v JURISDICTION 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW AND EVIDENCE OF PRESERVATION 2 DETERMINATIVE LAW STATUTES, ETC., TO BE INTERPRETED 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 5 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 14 ARGUMENT 15 FACTUAL ANALYSIS 16 A. Numerical Prefixes 16 B. Market Expansion Line 22 C. Statistical Results 24 D. Statutory Claims 25 LEGAL ANALYSIS - POINT I IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT ANYONE WAS ACTUALLY MISLED 25 LEGAL ANALYSIS - POINT II THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAS CONCLUDED THAT SUCH ADVERTISEMENT CAN BE MISLEADING 28 LEGAL ANALYSIS - POINT III DEX IS NOT PROTECTED BY A FILED TARIFF 30 CONCLUSION 32 MAILING CERTIFICATE 33 iii ADDENDUM 34 Document Record No. Utah Truth in Advertising Act (Not Applicable) Order Certifying State Law Question (Not Applicable) Amended Complaint 26 Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 134 Exhibits A. Ogden Local Calling Region B. Siegfried & Jensen advertisement iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES American Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc., 524 U.S. 214, 118 S. Ct. 1956,141 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1998) 30 Brockey v. Moore, 131 Cal. Rptr. 746 (Cal. App. 2003) 26 Carter v. Gugliuzzi, 168 Vt. 48, 716 A.2 17 (1998) 26 City ofTahlequah v. Lake Region Electric, Co-op., Inc., 47 P.3d 467 (Okla. 2002) 2 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Florida Evergreen Foliage, 744 A.2d 457 (Del. 1999) 2, 5 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc., 702 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. 2005) .... 2 Hallv. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) 5 Miller v. United States, 2004 UT 96,104 P.3d 1202 2 Prows v. State, 822 P.2d 764 (Utah 1991) 2, 5 Showpiece Homes Corp. v. Assurance Company of America, 38 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2002) 30,31 State v. Preferred Florist Network, Inc., 791 A.2d 8 (Del. Ch. 2001) 26-28 v STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1332 6 28 U.S.C. § 1441 6 28 U.S.C. § 1446 6 6Del. C. § 2532(a) 27 Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) 30, 31 Utah Code Ann. Section 13-1 la-1, etseq 1-4,13, 15, 16,25, 26, 30-32, 34 Utah Code Ann. Subsection 78-2-2(1) 1 RULES American Bar Association Model Rule 7.2 28, 29 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4, 5,13 Rule 41 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure 1 vi JURISDICTION Under Subsection 78-2-2(1) of the Utah Code Ann., the Utah Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to answer questions of state law certified by a court of the United States. On March 21,2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an Order Certifying State Law Question, certifying the question to this Court which is quoted below under Statement of the Issues. In compliance with Rule 41 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, this certification Order was directed to the Utah Supreme Court, set forth the question to be answered, and stated that this question is a controlling issue of law in the proceeding pending before that court and that there appears to be no controlling Utah law. In response, the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Acceptance on May 19, 2005, also in compliance with Rule 41 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the certified question of law. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The following question certified by the Tenth Circuit Court to the Utah Supreme Court is the issue presented for review: Whether Defendants violated Utah Code Ann. § 13-1 la-3(l)(b), (d), or (t) when they published in their 2003-2004 Ogden-area telephone directory a table of numerical prefixes associated with "a local calling are" and advertisements by third parties that include a market 1 expansion line telephone number without any physical business address; and if so, whether Defendants are exempt from liability under Utah Code Ann. § 13-lla-5(l). STANDARD OF REVIEW AND EVIDENCE OF PRESERVATION This issue should be reviewed as a question of law, giving no deference to the trial court's decision, for two reasons. First, the trial court ruled on this issue as a matter of law, dismissing the case on the pleadings. Thus the pleadings set forth the applicable facts. Prows v. State, 822 P.2d 764, 766 (Utah 1991); E.L DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Florida Evergreen Foliage, 744 A.2d 457,460 (Del. 1999).1 Second, this issue has been certified by the federal appellate court to answer a question of state law. Miller v. United States, 2004 UT 96, \2, 104 P.3d 1202; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc., 702 N.W.2d 237, 240 (Minn. 2005). Accordingly, no deference should be given to the federal trial court. This issue was preserved in federal court because it was addressed in the Amended Complaint and in the Memorandum in Opposition filed by plaintiff Robert J. DeBry and Associates, P.C. (hereafter DeBry) and it was ruled on by the District Court in the Order. Appellant Appendix (hereafter Record or R.) at 66-68,136, 138-139. Although this Court presumes the allegations of the Amended Complaint to be true, the issue of whether the Federal District Court followed the applicable federal rule is not for this Court to decide. City ofTahlequah v. Lake Region Electric, Co-op., Inc., 47 P.3d 467,470 (Okla. 2002). 2 DETERMINATIVE LAW STATUTES. ETC. TO BE INTERPRETED The statute which includes the provisions cited in the certified question, which is determinative, and which is to be interpreted in this matter, is Chapter 11a of Title 13, found in the Appendix hereto. Of particular importance are the following portions of that statute: 13-11-3. Deceptive trade practices enumerated - Records to be kept - Defenses. (1) Deceptive trade practices occur when, in the course of his business, vocation, or occupation: (b) A person causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services. (d) A person uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services. (t) A person engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. 13-11-5* Exemptions. This chapter does not apply to: (1) conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of, or a statute administered by, a federal, state, or local governmental agency; 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE DeBry established law offices in the metropolitan areas of Ogden and Provo, Utah.