Help -
Help for Webmasters
« back to results for ""
Below is a cache of http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-552.pdf. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Slip Opinion) ) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO., L. P., ET AL . v. APCC SERVICES, INC., ET AL . CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 07552. Argued April 21, 2008Decided June 23, 2008 A payphone customer making a long-distance call with an access code or 1800 number issued by a long-distance carrier pays the carrier
(which completes the call). The carrier then compensates the pay- phone operator (which connects the call to the carrier in the first place). The payphone operator can sue the long-distance carrier for
any compensation that the carrier fails to pay for these dial-around calls. Many payphone operators assign their dial-around claims to billing and collection firms (aggregators) so that, in effect, these ag-
gregators can bring suit on their behalf. A group of aggregators (re- spondents here) were assigned legal title to the claims of approxi- mately 1,400 payphone operators. The aggregators separately agreed
to remit all proceeds to those operators, who would then pay the ag- gregators for their services. After entering into these agreements, the aggregators filed federal-court lawsuits seeking compensation
from petitioner long-distance carriers. The District Court refused to dismiss the claims, finding that the aggregators had standing, and the D.C. Circuit ultimately affirmed. Held: An assignee of a legal claim for money owed has standing to pur- sue that claim in federal court, even when the assignee has promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor. Pp. 323.
(a) History and precedent show that, for centuries, courts have found ways to allow assignees to bring suit; where assignment is at issue, courtsboth before and after the foundinghave always per- mitted the party with legal title alone to bring suit; and there is a
strong tradition specifically of suits by assignees for collection. And while precedents of this Court, Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U. S. 302,
Spiller v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 253 U. S. 117, and Titus v. Wal- 2 SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. v. APCC SERVICES, INC. Syllabus lick, 306 U. S. 282, do not conclusively resolve the standing question here, they offer powerful support for the proposition that suits by as-
signees for collection have long been seen as amenable to resolution by the judicial process, Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 102. Pp. 316.
(b) Petitioners offer no convincing reason to depart from the his- torical tradition of suits by assignees, including assignees for collec- tion. In any event, the aggregators satisfy the Article III standing
requirements articulated in this Courts more modern decisions. Pe- titioners argue that the aggregators have not themselves suffered an injury and that assignments for collection do not transfer the pay-
phone operators injuries. But the operators assigned their claims lock, stock, and barrel, and precedent makes clear that an assignee can sue based on his assignors injuries. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U. S. 765. In arguing that the aggregators cannot satisfy the redressability requirement because they will remit their recovery to the payphone operators, pe-
titioners misconstrue the nature of the redressability inquiry, which focuses on whether the injury that a plaintiff alleges is likely to be redressed through the litigationnot on what the plaintiff ultimately
intends to do with the money recovered. See, e.g., id., at 771. Peti- tioners claim that the assignments constitute nothing more than a
contract for legal services is overstated. There is an important dis- tinction between simply hiring a lawyer and assigning a claim to a lawyer. The latter confers a property right (which creditors might at- tach); the former does not. Finally, as a practical matter, it would be
particularly unwise to abandon history and precedent in resolving the question here, for any such ruling could be overcome by, e.g., re-
writing the agreement to give the aggregator a tiny portion of the as- signed claim itself, perhaps only a dollar or two. Pp. 1620 (c) Petitioners reasons for denying prudential standingthat the
aggregators are seeking redress for third parties; that the litigation represents an effort by the aggregators and payphone operators to circumvent Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23s class-action require- ments; and that practical problems could arise because the aggrega-
tors are suing, e.g., payphone operators may not comply with discov- ery requests or honor judgmentsare unpersuasive. And because
there are no allegations that the assignments were made in bad faith and because the assignments were made for ordinary business pur- poses, any other prudential questions need not be considered here. Pp. 2023. 489 F. 3d 1249, affirmed. B REYER , J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which S TEVENS , Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3 Syllabus K ENNEDY , S OUTER , and G INSBURG , JJ., joined. R OBERTS , C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which S CALIA , T HOMAS , and A LITO , JJ., joined. Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 1 Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 07552 _________________ SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L. P., ET AL ., PETITIONERS v. APCC SERVICES, INC., ET AL . ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT [June 23, 2008] J USTICE B REYER delivered the opinion of the Court. The question before us is whether an assignee of a legal
claim for money owed has standing to pursue that claim in
federal court, even when the assignee has promised to
remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor. Be-
cause history and precedent make clear that such an
assignee has long been permitted to bring suit, we con-
clude that the assignee does have standing. I When a payphone customer makes a long-distance call
with an access code or 1800 number issued by a long-
distance communications carrier, the customer pays the
carrier (which completes that call), but not the payphone
operator (which connects that call to the carrier in the first
place). In these circumstances, the long-distance carrier is
required to compensate the payphone operator for the
customers call. See 47 U. S. C.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Slip Opinion) ) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO., L. P., ET AL . v. APCC SERVICES, INC., ET AL . CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 07552. Argued April 21, 2008Decided June 23, 2008 A payphone customer making a long-distance call with an access code or 1800 number issued by a long-distance carrier pays the carrier
(which completes the call). The carrier then compensates the pay- phone operator (which connects the call to the carrier in the first place). The payphone operator can sue the long-distance carrier for
any compensation that the carrier fails to pay for these dial-around calls. Many payphone operators assign their dial-around claims to billing and collection firms (aggregators) so that, in effect, these ag-
gregators can bring suit on their behalf. A group of aggregators (re- spondents here) were assigned legal title to the claims of approxi- mately 1,400 payphone operators. The aggregators separately agreed
to remit all proceeds to those operators, who would then pay the ag- gregators for their services. After entering into these agreements, the aggregators filed federal-court lawsuits seeking compensation
from petitioner long-distance carriers. The District Court refused to dismiss the claims, finding that the aggregators had standing, and the D.C. Circuit ultimately affirmed. Held: An assignee of a legal claim for money owed has standing to pur- sue that claim in federal court, even when the assignee has promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor. Pp. 323.
(a) History and precedent show that, for centuries, courts have found ways to allow assignees to bring suit; where assignment is at issue, courtsboth before and after the foundinghave always per- mitted the party with legal title alone to bring suit; and there is a
strong tradition specifically of suits by assignees for collection. And while precedents of this Court, Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U. S. 302,
Spiller v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 253 U. S. 117, and Titus v. Wal- 2 SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. v. APCC SERVICES, INC. Syllabus lick, 306 U. S. 282, do not conclusively resolve the standing question here, they offer powerful support for the proposition that suits by as-
signees for collection have long been seen as amenable to resolution by the judicial process, Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 102. Pp. 316.
(b) Petitioners offer no convincing reason to depart from the his- torical tradition of suits by assignees, including assignees for collec- tion. In any event, the aggregators satisfy the Article III standing
requirements articulated in this Courts more modern decisions. Pe- titioners argue that the aggregators have not themselves suffered an injury and that assignments for collection do not transfer the pay-
phone operators injuries. But the operators assigned their claims lock, stock, and barrel, and precedent makes clear that an assignee can sue based on his assignors injuries. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U. S. 765. In arguing that the aggregators cannot satisfy the redressability requirement because they will remit their recovery to the payphone operators, pe-
titioners misconstrue the nature of the redressability inquiry, which focuses on whether the injury that a plaintiff alleges is likely to be redressed through the litigationnot on what the plaintiff ultimately
intends to do with the money recovered. See, e.g., id., at 771. Peti- tioners claim that the assignments constitute nothing more than a
contract for legal services is overstated. There is an important dis- tinction between simply hiring a lawyer and assigning a claim to a lawyer. The latter confers a property right (which creditors might at- tach); the former does not. Finally, as a practical matter, it would be
particularly unwise to abandon history and precedent in resolving the question here, for any such ruling could be overcome by, e.g., re-
writing the agreement to give the aggregator a tiny portion of the as- signed claim itself, perhaps only a dollar or two. Pp. 1620 (c) Petitioners reasons for denying prudential standingthat the
aggregators are seeking redress for third parties; that the litigation represents an effort by the aggregators and payphone operators to circumvent Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23s class-action require- ments; and that practical problems could arise because the aggrega-
tors are suing, e.g., payphone operators may not comply with discov- ery requests or honor judgmentsare unpersuasive. And because
there are no allegations that the assignments were made in bad faith and because the assignments were made for ordinary business pur- poses, any other prudential questions need not be considered here. Pp. 2023. 489 F. 3d 1249, affirmed. B REYER , J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which S TEVENS , Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3 Syllabus K ENNEDY , S OUTER , and G INSBURG , JJ., joined. R OBERTS , C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which S CALIA , T HOMAS , and A LITO , JJ., joined. Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 1 Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 07552 _________________ SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L. P., ET AL ., PETITIONERS v. APCC SERVICES, INC., ET AL . ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT [June 23, 2008] J USTICE B REYER delivered the opinion of the Court. The question before us is whether an assignee of a legal
claim for money owed has standing to pursue that claim in
federal court, even when the assignee has promised to
remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor. Be-
cause history and precedent make clear that such an
assignee has long been permitted to bring suit, we con-
clude that the assignee does have standing. I When a payphone customer makes a long-distance call
with an access code or 1800 number issued by a long-
distance communications carrier, the customer pays the
carrier (which completes that call), but not the payphone
operator (which connects that call to the carrier in the first
place). In these circumstances, the long-distance carrier is
required to compensate the payphone operator for the
customers call. See 47 U. S. C.
