Wilson

Wilson v. A. H. Belo Corp.

Good Law
87 F.3d 393·96 Daily Journal DAR 7667·24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2166·3 Communications Reg. (P&F) 586·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 15328
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 27, 1996Nos. 92-16040, 92-16576California3,615 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tashima, J.

The two actions underlying these consolidated appeals seek to recover alleged overcharges for political advertising in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 315 (b). The district court held that a preemptive Declaratory Ruling issued by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) during the pendency of the first action divested the district court of jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342 . We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Various political candidates and their campaign committees (collectively, the “Candidates”) initiated these two actions against numerous California television stations (the “Stations”) to recover amounts allegedly overpaid for campaign advertisements. The first complaint, filed September 10, 1991, seeks to recover overcharges in the 1988 race for United States Senator from California. The second complaint, filed April 3, 1992, seeks to recover for overcharges in the 1990 campaigns. The Candidates allege that the Stations’ charges exceeded the “lowest unit charge” limitation imposed, by § 315(b). 1 Both complaints include supplemental claims…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.