On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Civil Action No. 00-cv-01491 (Honorable Katharine S. Hayden)
Before: Scirica, Chief Judge, *fn1 Ambro and Weis, Circuit Judges
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scirica, Chief Judge.
The principal issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred by retroactively increasing the amount of an injunction bond upon dissolution of a preliminary injunction.
Sprint Communications Company L.P. is a provider of long distance telephone service. CAT Communications International, Inc. is a reseller of local telephone service. The underlying dispute here arises from the allegedly improper use of Sprint's services by CAT Communications's customers.
Telephone users typically receive their local telephone service from a Local Exchange Carrier, which operates in a geographically defined exchange area. CAT Communications is a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier that leases lines from other Local Exchange Carriers and sells local telephone service available on these lines to the public on a prepaid basis. CAT Communications has no telephone facilities of its own.
As a long distance carrier, Sprint carries long distance calls forwarded to it by Local Exchange Carriers. In order to bill the long distance callers using its services, Sprint usually receives billing name and address information from the Local Exchange Carriers. As an alternative, the Local Exchange Carriers may provide billing and collecting services on behalf of Sprint.
Sprint contends that its network received unauthorized long distance telephone calls from CAT Communications's local service customers. The calls originated from several states, the largest number coming from New Jersey. None of these calls were paid for.
Sprint asked CAT Communications to prevent its customers from gaining access to Sprint's network and also to provide a billing mechanism or billing information to facilitate Sprint's collection efforts. When CAT Communications did not respond, Sprint filed suit in federal court alleging trespass, conversion, nuisance, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, common law fraud, and violation of the Federal ...