Prison Phone Justice

Honorable Beth M. Andrus
Noted for Consideration: April 1,2013
Without Oral Argument

1
2
3

4
5

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY

6

7
8
9

SANDY JUDD, TARA HERIVEL, and
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES, for
themselves, and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons,

10
11

12
13

Plaintiffs,
v,

AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH COMPANY, and T-NETIX,
INC.,
Defendants.

14

Case No. 00-2-17565-5 SEA
AT&T'S RESPONSE TO THE
INTERLATA AND INTRALATA
CLASSES' REVISED
MOTION FOR: (1) PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH AT&T;
(2) PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
PLAN OF ALLOCATION;
(3) DIRECTIVE TO SEND NOTICE;
AND (4) SCHEDULING OF FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

15
Of counsel:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Charles H.R. Peters
David C. Scott
Brian L. J osias
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
233 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 6600
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 258-5500
(312) 258-5600 (fax)

Kelly Twiss Noonan (WSBA #19096)
Bradford J. Axel (WSBA #29269)
STOKES AND LAWRENCE, P.S.
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 626-6000
(206) 464-1496 (fax)

Charles W. Douglas
David W. Carpenter
David F. Graham
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 853-7000
(312) 853-7036 (fax)

25
Dated: March 29,2013
26
AT&T'S RESPONSE TO THE INTERLATA AND INTRALATA CLASSES' REVISED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH AT&T, ETC.

STOKES LAWRENCE, P.S.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 3000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2393
(206) 626-6000

1

AT &T respectfully files this response to Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of

2

the final settlement agreement between the InterLATA and IntraLATA Call Recipients Classes

3

and AT&T. AT&T does not oppose this motion.

4

AT&T submits this response for the sole purpose of ensuring that the Court is aware of

5

the order that was entered by Commissioner Schmidt of the Court of Appeals Division II on

6

March 21, 2013. The Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A

7

proceeding in which Division II is reviewing the WUTC's determination that AT&T was the

8

OSP on the interLATA and intraLATA calls at issue - which affects AT&T's indemnification

9

claim against T-Netix and which is therefore very much a live controversy that is expressly not

10

The Order was entered in the

resolved by the settlement between Plaintiffs and AT&T.

11

The Order concludes that the Court's February 24,2012 Order that withdrew the primary

12

jurisdiction referral on the other issue that it had originally referred to the WUTC - whether the

13

rate disclosure regulations had been violated - was improper because AT&T did not obtain

14

permission from Division II under RAP 7.2(e) before it moved for withdrawal of the referral of

15

this issue. The Order states that "under RAP 7.2(a), once the notice of appeal as to the WUTC

16

Final Order was filed with [Division II], the trial courts, both in Thurston County and in King

17

County, lost authority to act while this appeal [of the WUTC Order] was pending." On this

18

basis, Commissioner Schmidt stayed this Court's February 24,2012 Order. (See Exhibit A)

19

AT&T believes that the foregoing Order of Division II would only affect the litigation in

20

this Court on the question of whether the rate disclosure regulations were violated - which is an

21

issue that is mooted by the settlements. Accordingly, the Order should not prevent the Court

22

from proceeding to approve the settlements. However, out of an abundance of caution, AT&T

23

will shortly file a motion with Division II for clarification of the Order or, in the alternative,

24

modification of the Order to allow the Court to proceed with approval of the settlement.

25
26
AT&T'S RESPONSE TO THE INTERLATA AND INTRALATA CLASSES' REVISED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH AT&T, ETC. -l
STOKES LAWRENCE, P.S.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 3000
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101-2393
(206) 626-6000

1

DATED this March 29,2013.
STOKES LAWRENCE, P.S.

2
3
4

Kelly Twiss Noonan (WSBA #19096)
Bradford J. Axel (WSBA #29269)

5
Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Corp.
6

Of counsel:

7

8
9
10

Charles H.R. Peters
David C. Scott
Brian L. J osias
Schiff Hardin LLP
233 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 6600
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 258-5500
(312) 258-5600 (fax)

11

12
13
14
15
16

Charles W. Douglas
David W. Carpenter
David F. Graham
Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 853-7000
(312) 853-7036 (fax)

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
AT&T'S RESPONSE TO THE INTERLATA AND INTRALATA CLASSES' REVISED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH AT&T, ETC. - 2
STOKES LAWRENCE, P.S.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 3000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 981 01-2393
(206) 626-6000

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

1

2
I do hereby certify that on this 29th day of March, 2013, I caused to be served a true and

3
correct copy of the foregoing document by the method indicated below and addressed to the
4
following:

5
6
7

8
9
10

Via Email
Chris Youtz
Richard E. Spoonemore
Sirianni Youtz Meier & Spoonemore
999 Third A venue, Suite 3650
Seattle, Washington 98104
chris@sylaw.com
rspoonemore@sylaw.com

Via Email
Arthur A. Butler
Ater Wynne LLP
601 Union Street, Suite 1501
Seattle, Washington 98101-2341
aab@aterwynne.com

Via Email and Us. Mail
Stephanie A. Joyce
Arent Fox LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
joyce.stephanie@arentfox.com

Via Email
Donald H. Mullins
Duncan Turner
Badgley-Mullins Law Group PLLC
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4750
Seattle, Washington 98104
donmullins@badgleymullins.com
duncanturner@badgleymullins.com

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.

18
EXECUTED at Seattle, King County, Washington, this 29th day of March, 2013.
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
AT&T'S RESPONSE TO THE INTERLATA AND INTRA LATA CLASSES' REVISED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH AT&T, ETC. - 3
STOKES LAWRENCE, P .s.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 3000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2393
(206) 626-6000

. EXHIBIT A

Washington State Court of Appeals
Division Two
950 Broadway, Suite 300, Tacoma, Washington 98402-4454
David Ponzoha. Clerk/Administrator (253) 593-2970 (253) 593-2806 (Fax)
General Orders. Calendar Dates. and General Information at http://www.courts.wa.gov/courts OFFICE HOURS: 9-12. 1-4.

March 2 t, 2013
Judith S. Roth
Attorney at Law
666 5th Ave
New York, NY, 10103
jroth@schiffhardin.com

Bradford J Axel
Stokes Lawrence PS
1420 5th Ave Ste 3000
Seattle, WA, 98101-2393
bja@stokeslaw.com

Charles H.R. Peters
233 S. Wacker Drive, #6600
Chicago, (L, 60606
cpeters@schifthardin.com

Leah Ward Sears
Attorney at Law
1201 West Peachtree St. NW., #2300
Atlanta, GA, 30309
lsears@schiffhardin.com

Chris Robert Youtz
Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger
999 3rd Ave Ste 3650
Seattle, WA, 98104-4038
chris@sylaw.com
Gregory J. Trautman
Attorney at Law
1400 S Evergreen Pk Dr SW
PO Box 40128
Olympia, WA, 98504-0128
gtrautma@wutc.wa.gov

David C. Scott
233 S. Wacker Drive, #6600
Chicago, IL~ 60606
dscott@schifthardin.com
Richard E. Spoonemore
Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger
999 3rd Ave Ste 3650
Seattle, WA, 98 t 04-4038
rspoonemore@sylaw.com

David W. Carpenter
Sidley Austin' LLP
One South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL, 60603
dcarpenter@sidley .com

Kelly Twiss Noonan
Attorney at Law
1420 5th Ave Ste 3000
Seattle, WA, 98101-2393
kelly .noonan@stokeslaw.com

Arthur Allan Butler
Ater Wynne LLP
601 Union St Ste 1501
Seattle, WA, 98101-3981
aab@aterwynne.com

Joseph R. Guerra
Sidley Austin LLP
1501 K. ST. NW
Washington D.C., DC, 20005
jguerra@sidley.com

Stephanie A. Joyce
Arent Fox, LLP
1717 K. St., NW
Washington, DC, 20036-5342
loyce.Stephanie@arentfox.com

Duncan Calvert Turner
Badgley Mullins Law Group PLLC
701 5th Ave Ste 4750
Seattle, WA, 98104-7035
duncantumer@badgleymullins.com

CASE #: 42966-7-11
AT&T Communications, Inc., Appellant v. WA. Utilities & Transport Commission et aI,
Respondents
.

Counsel:
On the above date, this court entered the following notation ruling:
A RULING BY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT:
It has come to this court's attention that, subsequent to the January 2012 appeal from the
Thurston County Superior Court's order on APA review of the WUTC Final Order, AT&T
obtained an order in King County Superior Court that withdrew its grant of primary
.
jurisdiction to the WUTC. But under RAp 7.2(a), once the notice of appeal as to the WUTC
Final Order was filed with this court, the trial courts, both in Thurston County and in King
County, lost authority to act while this appeal was pending. There is no evidence that
AT&T obtained pennission by motion to this court under RAP 7.2(e) for the King County
Superior Court to enter its order withdrawing its grant of primary jurisdiction to the WUTC.
Accordingly, that order is stayed pending future order of this court and the parties should be
prepared to address that order, and the status of the King County Superior Court
proceedings, at oral argument in the appeal from the Thurston County Superior Court's
decision.

Very truly yours,

David C. Ponzoha
Court Clerk