Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 14-CV-3151
T2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WINDSTREAM COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, McLEOD USA
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES,
LLC, d/b/a PAETEC BUSINESS SERVICES,
LLC, an Iowa limited liability company, and
PLATTE RIVER NETWORKS, INC., a
Colorado corporation,
Defendants.
____________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
____________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff T2 Technologies, Inc. (T2 or Plaintiff) for its Complaint against Windstream
Communications, Inc., (Windstream), McLeod USA Telecommunication Services, LLC,
(McLeod), d/b/a PAETEC Business Services, LLC (PAETEC) and Platte River Networks,
Inc. (Platte River) (collectively, Defendants), alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
Plaintiff T2 Technologies, Inc. brings this action for damages pursuant to Section 207 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, 47 U.S.C. 207 (Communications Act or
Act) as a result of Windstream, McLeod, PAETEC and Platte Rivers violations of Section
201(b) by engaging in an unjust and unreasonable practice, and Section 222(b) of the Act, 47
U.S.C. 201(b) and 47 U.S.C. 222(b) as more fully set forth below. T2 also brings a claim

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 15

against Defendants for intentional interference with T2s existing contracts over which this Court
has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
PARTIES
T2 is Colorado Corporation doing business in the State of Colorado with its principal
place of business located at 4610 S. Ulster, # 150, Denver, Colorado 80239.
Defendant Windstream is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters office located at
4001 Rodney Parham, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72212. Windstream is authorized to conduct
business in Colorado as a telecommunications provider. McLeod USA Telecommunications
Services, LLC-PAETEC (McLeod-PAETEC) is an Iowa limited liability company that also is
authorized to conduct business in Colorado as a telecommunications provider. McLeodPAETEC has offices co-located with Windstreams office, but also maintains an office at 1
Marthas Way, Hiawatha, Iowa, 52233.
Platte River is a Colorado corporation which provides managed interstate
telecommunications services, among other services, and also acts as an agent for a variety of
telecommunications providers, including Windstream and McLeod-PAETEC. Platte Rivers
address is 2955 Inca Street, Suite 2K, Denver, Colorado, 80202.
JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 in that the T2s claims are
brought pursuant to Section 207 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 207, and seeks damages under Section
206 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 206, for violations of Section 201(b) and 222(b) of the Act. Thus,
T2s complaint presents a federal question. T2 also brings a claim for intentional interference

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 15

with existing contracts over which this Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1367.
ALLEGATIONS THAT SUPPORT T2S CLAIMS
A.

THE BUSINESS OF T2 AND DEFENDANTS

1.

T2 is a telecommunications provider (i.e., a communications common carrier as

defined in Section 153(10) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 153(10)) providing telecommunications

products and services, including but not limited to, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), local
interstate and intrastate long-distance services, local exchange services, dedicated Internet,
wholesale telecommunications services and telecommunications hardware. To the extent T2
provides interstate telecommunications services, T2 is regulated by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Moreover, where T2 provides intrastate telecommunications service, T2 is
regulated by the states in which it operates.
2.

Likewise, Defendants are communications common carriers and are facilities

based providers of interstate and intrastate telecommunications services. As communication

common carriers, Defendants are also regulated by the FCC in connection with their offering of
interstate services and by the various states in which they provide intrastate services. Although
Platte River provides interstate telecommunications services, it also acts as a sales agent for the
Defendants Windstream and McLeod-PAETEC. Nonetheless, Platte River is also subject to
regulation by the FCC in connection with its provision of interstate telecommunications services.
Thus, Platte River is bound by Sections 201(b) and 222(b) of the Act, and its action in assisting
Windstream and McLeod-PAETEC to violate these Sections of the Act, make Platte River also
responsible for engaging in unjust and unreasonable practices under Section 201(b) of the Act

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 15

and responsible for misusing T2 and its customers confidential proprietary network information
under Section 222(b) of the Act. T2 competes with all Defendants in the interstate and intrastate
telecommunications services market place. This Complaint, however, specifically relates to T2s
interstate telecommunications services and Defendants violations of Sections 201(b) and 222(b)
of the Act as they are required to adhering to these provisions as FCC regulated
telecommunications providers.
B.

T2S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS

3.

T2 alleges three claims against Defendants. First, T2 asserts that Defendants

violated Section 201(b) of the Act, in that Defendants engaged in an unjust and unreasonable
practice towards T2 by intentionally misappropriating (that is, without T2s consent) 390
telephone lines (with telephone numbers) assigned to T2 by the North American Numbering
Council (NANC) for use in T2s business as a telecommunications provider of interstate and
intrastate telecommunications service. Second, T2 claims that Defendants violated Section
222(b) of the Act in that the Defendants unlawfully obtained T2 and its customers confidential
proprietary network information without T2s authorization for purposes of Defendants using
such information in their marketing efforts of their telecommunications services to their existing
and prospective customers. T2 seeks damages for Defendants violation of these provisions of
the Act pursuant to Section 206 of the Act, including actual damages, and reasonable attorneys
fees and costs as permitted under that section of the Act.
4.

T2 also claims that Defendants intentionally interfered with T2s existing

contracts with its customers by their actions which resulted in T2 suffering damages to its
business and reputation with its customers.

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 15

C.

DEFENDANTS ACTIONS THAT IMPROPERLY MISAPPROPRIATED T2S 390

TELEPHONE LINES
5.

T2 provided interstate service to Cambridge Group, LLC (Cambridge), an

insurance broker which also leases out office space to third parties. As a part of such lease
Cambridge provides telephone services to its lessees utilizing the 16 lines T2 provided to
Cambridge.
6.

As stated above, T2 is a communications common carrier (as defined in Section

153(10) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 153(1)), or provider of interstate and intrastate telecommunications
service which services T2 purchases from its wholesale provider, XO Telecommunications
Services, LLC (XO). Prior to June 17, 2014, T2 provided a variety of telecommunications
services to Cambridge, located in Denver, Colorado, by means of 16 telecommunications lines
purchased from XO. Because of circumstances not relevant here, T2 and Cambridge decided that
T2 would not continue as Cambridges telecommunications services provider.
D.

CONSEQUENTLY, CAMBRIDGE DECIDED TO SWITCH PROVIDERS AND

CAMBRIDGES DECISION TO KEEP ITS TELEPHONE LINES INVOKED AN
INTER-CARRIER PROCESS ADOPTED BY THE FCC TO TRANSFER THE
LINES.
7.

Cambridge, on March 18, 2014, selected Windstream and/or McLeod-PAETEC,

with the assistance of Platte River as Cambridges new telecommunications provider. Such
retention is known as Local Number Portability (LNP), and is mandated by Section
251(b)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 251(b)(2). Cambridges decision invoked a process on the part
of T2, XO and Defendants to effect the porting of Cambridges lines to Defendants. Section
251(b)(2) of the Act requires local exchange carriers to provide LNP, i.e., the ability to retain
ones telephone number (i.e., line) when switching from one carrier to another. Cambridges
choice of Defendants, Windstream and McLeod-PAETEC, as their telecommunications carrier
5

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 15

triggers an inter-carrier process for LNP. Thus, Defendants, at the direction of Cambridge,
submitted through Platte River or directly by Defendants a Local Service Request (LSR) to
XO requesting cancellation of T2s service to Cambridge and requesting XO to port
Cambridges 16 telephone lines to Defendants. After submitting the LSR to T2 and XO,
Defendants purportedly sent to the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) a
message to enter a pending subscription record with the necessary routing data or other numbers
to record Cambridges porting of its 16 lines. The NPAC was created to support the
implementation of LNP by operating regional number portability databases. Defendants,
however, sent NPAC a message to record Defendants porting of an additional 390 lines (i.e.,
telephone numbers for the 390 lines) NPAC had assigned to T2. The NPAC data base contains
proprietary information of both telecommunications providers and their customers. Upon
receiving the LSR, XO confirmed that it contained sufficient information to accomplish port, and
then created an internal service order which it sends to the appropriate operation support systems
within XO to port the numbers to Defendant. The LOC confirmed Defendants porting of a total
of 406 T2 lines comprised of the 16 lines T2 had assigned to Cambridge as well as an additional
390 lines T2 had assigned to its existing customers and which were working T2 telephone lines
T2 had not authorized to be ported to Defendants. XO did then automatically send Defendants
an LSR Confirmation (LOC) which creates a disconnect order that establishes that service to
Cambridge will be disconnected on a specific date, in this case June 17, 2014. Moreover, XO
established a 10-digit trigger in its telecommunications switches (this equipment routes, on
behalf of T2 inbound and outbound calls to and from Cambridge to the proper destination.). This
trigger is necessary to prevent the misrouting of certain calls in the short interval after
Cambridges numbers have been ported to Defendants, but before disconnection of T2s retail

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 15

service to Cambridge has been completed. The data that Defendants send to NPAC also serves
the purpose of preventing the inadvertent porting of numbers. Defendants and XO did perform
these afore mentioned functions.
8.

Defendants also obtained a letter of authorization (LOA) from Cambridge on

March 18, 2014, authorizing Defendants to implement Cambridges switch of its

telecommunications services to Defendants for the 16 lines T2 provided to Cambridge.
E.

DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY PORTED AN ADDITIONAL 390 LINES FROM T2

WITHOUT T2S CONSENT.
9.

While T2 and XO ported the 16 lines to Defendants that T2 had assigned to

Cambridge, Defendants had also requested XO to port 390 additional T2 lines which are among
the large blocks of telephone numbers which the NANC had assigned to T2 for use in providing
its interstate and intrastate telecommunications services to its existing customers. T2 then
assigns these numbers to telephone lines. Defendants made this request based on Defendants
representation to XO that T2 had given its oral and written permission for XO to port these 390
additional T2 lines to Defendants. Windstream made the representation in writing to XO by
means of an LSR. In fact, T2 had not given such authorization either orally or in writing.
Nonetheless, based on Defendants LSR that T2 had authorized Defendants to receive the 390
lines, XO ported them to Defendants and sent Defendants a LOC confirming that Windstream
had requested XO to port the 16 lines T2 had assigned to Cambridge plus an additional 390 T2
telephone lines. Defendants then had XO disconnect these numbers from XOs database
preventing T2s use of lines in connection with its telecommunications platform of services. The
disconnection meant T2 and its customers no longer had use of these 390 lines.

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 15

10.

Defendants were able to determine that T2 had these additional 390 lines by

accessing the data base managed by NPAC. Under NPAC regulations, telecommunications
providers are only allowed to access the NPAC data base for the exclusive purpose of routing,
rating of calls, billing of calls, or performing maintenance in connection with the provision of
telecommunications services. Contrary to these NPAC regulations, Defendants accessed the
NPAC database to find T2s 390 telephone lines as well as to obtain T2 and its customers
proprietary network information for use in marketing T2s lines to their existing and prospective
customers.
F.

T2 ASSIGNED THESE ADDITIONAL 390 LINES TO ITS CUSTOMERS.

11.

T2 had actually assigned the additional 390 lines that Defendants unlawfully

ported to themselves to T2 customers, including but not limited to, the Department of Defense,
Department of Energy; multiple medical emergency facilities as numbers used for general, pre
and post-surgical contact, and obstetric or gynecological emergencies; Federal Contract Support
Desks; Whitehouse Military Operations support desks, several financial institutions main
telephone numbers, multiple Denver-based Charter schools main and backdoor phone numbers,
a US-Based telephone number for IBM China, multiple other information technology companies
and their support and internal telephone numbers, as well as T2s main telephone numbers,
including T2s HELP desk numbers, all of which require their customers to have by contract 24/7
access to T2; T2s employees home telephone numbers; and other internal telephone numbers T2
had assigned to itself for internal use. Defendants actions causing the disconnection of the 390
numbers caused T2s customers to be unable to contact T2 or for T2 to contact its customers, for
at least 21 hours, probably much more, beginning June 17, 2014. T2 learned of Defendants
misappropriation of T2s additional 390 lines on June 17, 2014. T2 then spent at least 10 days
8

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 15

unwinding Defendants illegal port of T2s 390 numbers. Defendants illegal porting of T2s 390
lines plus their action in obtaining T2 and its customers confidential proprietary network
information, caused T2 to suffer significant costs and damages totaling at least $360,000, if not
more. Defendants actions constitute an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of Sections
201(b) of the Act. Defendants actions also violated Section 222(b) of the Act by accessing the
NPAC to learn of T2 and its customers confidential proprietary network information.
G.

DEFENDANTS ACTIONS IN PORTING T2S 390 TELEPHONE LINES CAUSED

DEFENDANTS TO VIOLATE SECTIONS 201(b) AND 222(b) OF THE ACT;
DEFENDANTS ALSO INTENTIONALLY INTERFERED WITH T2S EXISTING
CUSTOMERS CONTRACTS
12.

Defendants actions in porting T2s 390 telephone numbers without T2s

authorization constitute an unjust and irresponsible practice under Section 201 (b) of the Act.
That Section of the Act states, in pertinent part, that all practices of common carriers, and in
connection with interstate telecommunications services, must be just and reasonable and that any
such practice that is unjust or unreasonable shall be declared unlawful.
13.

Moreover, as alleged above, Defendants actions caused T2 to incur substantial

damages, including but not limited to, the costs of unwinding the unauthorized porting of T2s
numbers, T2s credits to its customers for the outage, and credits to customers who require 24/7
service, damage to T2s reputation in the industry, T2s loss of customers, with total at least
$360,000.
14.

Defendants actions also violated Section 222(b) of the Act in that Defendants

intentionally misappropriated T2s 390 telephone numbers which include T2s customers
confidential proprietary network information for the purpose of marketing these numbers to
existing or prospective customers. Section 222(b) prohibits Defendants use of T2 and its
9

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 15

customers proprietary network information. Such information is defined as information that

relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, and usage of service subscribed
to by T2s customers, and that is made available to T2 by its customers by virtue of T2s
relationship with its customers. Defendants improper acquisition of such information about T2
and its customers allows Defendants to unfairly compete with T2.
15.

Finally, Defendants actions in porting the 390 lines without T2s authorization

intentionally interfered with T2s existing customers contracts.

RELIEF REQUESTED
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unjust and Unreasonable Practices in violation of section 201 (b) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (Intentional Misappropriation (without T2s consent) of 390 of
T2s telephone numbers))
16.

T2 repeats and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15, as if fully set

forth herein.
17.

Defendants have engaged in unjust and unreasonable practices in violation of

Section 201(b) of the Act by misappropriating (i.e., without T2s authorization) T2s 390
telephone numbers in connection with Defendants interstate telecommunication service.
Defendants actions misappropriating these telephone numbers were intended to injure T2 in its
provision of interstate telecommunication services in competition with Defendants, and benefit
Defendants.
18.

Defendants are liable to T2 for actual damages T2 incurred by reason of

Defendants above alleged actions pursuant to Section 206 of the Act.

10

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 15

19.

T2 is entitled to recover such damages, including reasonable attorneys fees and

costs, pursuant to Section 206 of the Act.

20.

Defendants actions caused T2 damages to its business and reputation in an exact

amount be proven at trial.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Misuse of T2 and its Customer Proprietary Network Information in Violation of Section
222(b) of the Communications Act 1934, as Amended (Illegally Taking and Using T2s
telephone lines for marketing purposes))
21.

T2 repeats and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully set

forth herein.
22.

Defendants have engaged in intentional misuse of T2 and its customers

proprietary network information in violation of Section 222 (b) of the Act by taking T2s
telephone numbers without T2s consent and using these numbers for the purpose of marketing
its telecommunication services to Defendants existing or prospective customers.
23.

Defendants are liable to T2 for damages T2 incurred by reason of Defendants

above alleged actions pursuant to Section 206 of the Act.

24.

T2 is entitled to recover such damages, including reasonable attorneys fees and

costs, pursuant to Section 206 of the Act.

25.

Defendants actions caused T2 damages in an exact amount be proven at trial.

11

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 15

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Interference with Exiting Contracts)
26.

T2 repeats and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 25, as if fully set

forth herein.
27.

T2 had contracts with the Department of Defense, Department of Energy;

multiple medical emergency facilities as numbers used for general, pre and post-surgical contact,
and obstetric or gynecological emergencies; Federal Contract Support Desks; Whitehouse
Military Operations support desks, several financial institutions main telephone numbers,
multiple Denver-based Charter schools main and backdoor telephone numbers, a US-Based
telephone number for IBM China, multiple other information technology companies and their
support and internal telephone numbers, as well as T2s main telephone lines, including T2s
HELP desk lines, all of which require 24/7 access by T2s customers and T2s ability to respond
to customer inquiries; T2s employees home telephone lines; and other internal telephone lines
T2 had assigned to itself for internal use.
28.

In these contracts, each of the parties (except for T2s employees and T2s internal

lines) with whom T2 contracted had agreed to subscribe to T2s interstate telecommunications
services in return for 24 hour, 7 days per week access to T2s interstate services for the purposes
of inquiring about, improving, modifying, changing, adding or discussing T2s existing
telecommunications services. T2 also committed to respond immediately to such inquiries,
among the other contractual commitment on the part of both parties. One and or more of the
parties with whom T2 contracted accessed T2s interstate telecommunications services on a daily

12

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 15

basis, and T2 responded to such inquiries very promptly as it was required to do under its
contracts with these parties.
29.

Defendants knew or reasonably should have known of these contracts.

30.

Defendants by conduct, intentionally caused interference with the parties with

whom T2 contracted ability to access T2s services as well as T2s ability to give such access.
31.

Defendants interference with T2s contracts with parties with whom T2

contracted and T2s ability to give access to such parties described above was improper.
32.

As a result of Defendants actions, T2 suffered damages, including, but not

limited to, granting credits to the parties with whom T2 contracted against their payments to T2
for T2s telecommunication services, in an exact amount to be proved at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:
(a)

As to the First claim for relief, this Court determine that Defendants violated

Section 201(b) of the Act, by intentionally misappropriating (i.e,. without T2s authorization)
T2s 390 telephone numbers for and in connection with Defendants interstate
telecommunication services;
(b)

As to the first claim for relief, this Court award T2 actual damages in an exact

amount T2 proves at trial pursuant to Section 206 of the Act;

(c)

As to the first claim for relief, this Court award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys fees

and costs pursuant to Section 206 of the Act; and

13

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 15

(d)

As to the first claim for relief, this Court award such other and further relief as

may be deemed just and reasonable;

(e)

As to the second claim for relief, this Court determine that Defendants violated

Section 222 (b) of the Act taking T2s telephone numbers without T2s consent for the purpose of
marketing its telecommunication services to Defendants existing or prospective customers;
(f)

As to the second claim for relief, this Court award T2 actual damages pursuant to

Section 206 of the Act in an exact amount T2 proves at trial;

(g)

As to the second claim for relief, this Court award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys

fees and costs pursuant to Section 206 of the Act; and

(h)

As to the second claim for relief, this Court award T2 such other and further relief

as may be deemed just and reasonable.

(i)

As to the third claim for relief, this Court determine that Defendants intentionally

interfered with T2s existing contracts;

(j)

As to the third claim for relief, this Court award T2 actual damages incurred as a

result of Defendants intentional interference with T2s existing contracts in an exact amount T2
proves at trial;
(k)

As to the third claim for relief, this Court award T2 such other and further relief as

may be appropriate.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY

14

Case 1:14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 15