Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc.
| Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided June 23, 2008 | |
| Full case name | Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. |
| Citations | 554 U.S. 269 (more) |
| Holding | |
| 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. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Thomas, Alito |
Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that 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.[1][2]
Background
In Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that the Communications Act of 1934 creates a private right for payphone operators to sue telephone carriers for failure to pay reimbursement for calls that are required to be toll-free. However, because the cost of that sort of lawsuit is prohibitive, telephone operators began to assign their right to sue to billing and collection firms (aggregators) so that, in effect, these aggregators could bring suit on their behalf.[3]
A payphone customer making a long-distance call with an access code or 1–800 number issued by a long-distance carrier pays the carrier (which completes the call). The carrier then compensates the payphone 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. A group of aggregators (including APCC Services) were assigned legal title to the claims of approximately 1,400 payphone operators. The aggregators separately agreed to remit all proceeds to those operators, who would then pay the aggregators for their services. After entering into these agreements, the aggregators filed federal-court lawsuits seeking compensation from long-distance carriers including Sprint Communications. The federal District Court refused to dismiss the claims, finding that the aggregators had standing, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[1]
Opinion of the court
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 23, 2008.[1]
Later developments
References
- ^ a b c Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008).
- ^ Harrow, Jason (June 24, 2008). "More on Yesterday's Opinion in Sprint v. APCC". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved January 8, 2026.
- ^ Samuel Issacharoff, Private Claims, Aggregate Rights (November 24, 2008). The Supreme Court Review, 2008, NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 08-54, Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 09-01, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1289505.
External links
- Text of Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008) is available from: Justia
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.