Total Tv, a Wisconsin Corporation, Dba Total Tv v. Palmer Communications, Inc. And Colony Communications, Inc.

Good Law
69 F.3d 298·95 Daily Journal DAR 14263·1995 WL 619484·1 Communications Reg. (P&F) 191·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 29835
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 24, 199594-55112California2,760 words

Opinion

Opinion

Poole, J.

Appellants, cable television operators Colony Communications, Inc. (“Colony”) and Palmer Communications, Inc. (“Palmer”), in-terlocutorily appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss on federal preemption grounds competitor Total TV’s diversity action. We granted permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b), and we affirm.

I. Background

Colony is a franchised cable operator that provides cable television services in California and other parts of the United States. Before it was purchased by Colony, Palmer was also a franchised cable operator in California. They are subject to federal regulation as franchised cable operators, under both the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. §§ 521 et seq. (1988) (amended 1992), and the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. §§ 521 et seq. (Supp. IV 1992) (collectively “the Cable Acts”). Total TV operates as a “cable television dealer” and competes with Colony and Palmer for certain private customers in the Coachella Valley of Riverside County, California, but is not subject to federal regulation of its subscriber rates because it is a non-franchised dealer.

This…

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.