Telecommunications
Contact: Kathleen LaValle
The strength of the firm's Telecommunications Litigation practice lies in its ability to combine exceptional trial and appellate capabilities with technical expertise and an understanding of the industry. Several of the firm's litigation partners have represented telecommunications companies since before the breakup of the AT&T Bell System. The unique perspective these attorneys contribute to the firm's telecommunications practice benefits our clients who know that they are hiring not just skilled litigators, but skilled litigators with knowledge of the industry, its history, and its players.
The variety of state and federal court litigation that the firm has handled is a function of the many industry sectors and capacities in which our telecommunications clients operate. Much of the litigation we handle focuses, for example, on our clients' roles as innovators, researchers and developers. Other cases arise from our clients' roles as service providers and equipment manufacturers, and as advertisers, wholesalers and retailers.
The firm also represents telecommunications companies as employers. Attorneys in the firm's labor and litigation groups handle EEOC claim investigations and collective bargaining agreement arbitrations, as well as state and federal lawsuits alleging discrimination, retaliation, and ERISA violations. Our attorneys have handled sales force commission disputes ranging from single plaintiff state court claims to federal court class actions arising from major organizational shifts.
Given the mobility of the high-tech work force, the firm also has handled numerous disputes involving industry leaders over the ability to protect intellectual property and to enforce nondisclosure agreements, covenants not to compete, and similar restrictive covenants, for example, in stock option agreements. Frequently, such controversies over departing employees erupt quickly and lead to fast-paced suits for injunctive relief ranging from restrictions in work scope to limitations on recruitment. The firm's ability to gain speed and advantage in these lawsuits again is a function of trial capability combined with experience learning and communicating highly technical subjects.
>> Read more about Jackson Walker's Telecommunications practice
Areas of Practice
- Antitrust
- Appellate
- Arbitration
- Aviation
- Business Litigation
- Class Action
- Construction
- Corporate and Securities Litigation
- Eminent Domain
- Energy Litigation
- Environmental and Toxic Tort
- ERISA and Tax
- Financial Institution
- Health Care
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Labor & Employment
- Land Use
- Media
- Securities Arbitration
- Telecommunications
- Trusts & Estates
- Litigation Services and Support
REPRESENTATIVE CASES:
• Harton v. Canyon Oaks Unit Four Homeowners' Assoc., AT&T Mobility Texas, LLC, and Concan Water Supply, Uvalde County, TX (pending). Representing AT&T Mobility, Jackson Walker successfully opposed plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction to block the operation of a recently constructed cell tower.
• Texas Cable & Telecommunications Assoc. v. Rick Perry, PUC Commissioners, TCCFUI, GTE Southwest, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Grande Communications Networks, W.D. TX (pending). Jackson Walker represents Grande Communications in this federal court challenge to the constitutionality of the Texas Cable Act. The 2005 legislation introduced the ability to obtain statewide franchise authority for cable and video.
• Accutel et al. v. AT&T Corporation, 5th Cir. (2008). Representing AT&T, Jackson Walker obtained summary judgment in the Western District of Texas on all state and federal counts relating to Accutel's interstate and intrastate switched access service charge claims. While Accutel's appeal to the Fifth Circuit was pending, the parties settled the dispute.
• Consolidated Communications v. PUC of Texas, Sprint Communications Company L.P.'s, W.D. TX (2007). The federal court affirmed a final order of the Texas PUC granting Sprint's petition for a waiver of Consolidated's rural exemption, which Consolidated claimed limited its obligation to interconnect with Sprint. In the administrative appeal from the PUC's Final Order, the federal court rejected Consolidated's argument that Sprint was not a "telecommunications carrier" entitled to interconnection because of its wholesale service business model.
• Harton v. Canyon Oaks Unit Four Homeowners' Assoc., AT&T Mobility Texas, LLC, and Concan Water Supply, Uvalde County, TX (pending). Representing AT&T Mobility, Jackson Walker successfully opposed plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction to block the operation of a recently constructed cell tower.
• Texas Cable & Telecommunications Assoc. v. Rick Perry, PUC Commissioners, TCCFUI, GTE Southwest, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Grande Communications Networks, W.D. TX (pending). Jackson Walker represents Grande Communications in this federal court challenge to the constitutionality of the Texas Cable Act. The 2005 legislation introduced the ability to obtain statewide franchise authority for cable and video.
• Accutel et al. v. AT&T Corporation, 5th Cir. (2008). Representing AT&T, Jackson Walker obtained summary judgment in the Western District of Texas on all state and federal counts relating to Accutel's interstate and intrastate switched access service charge claims. While Accutel's appeal to the Fifth Circuit was pending, the parties settled the dispute.
• Consolidated Communications v. PUC of Texas, Sprint Communications Company L.P.'s, W.D. TX (2007). The federal court affirmed a final order of the Texas PUC granting Sprint's petition for a waiver of Consolidated's rural exemption, which Consolidated claimed limited its obligation to interconnect with Sprint. In the administrative appeal from the PUC's Final Order, the federal court rejected Consolidated's argument that Sprint was not a "telecommunications carrier" entitled to interconnection because of its wholesale service business model.
© 1999 - 2013Jackson Walker L.L.P. · All Rights Reserved · Unless otherwise noted, attorneys not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.