2002-05-22 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There is no basis for any order or finding that AT&T Broadband violated the Franchises. a. No Franchise provision prohibits our Arbitration Provisions. The basis for the LFA Communications appears to be a belief of the LFAs that 1) the Arbitration Provisions violate a constitutional provision regarding jury trials and 2) violate state contract law prohibiting contracts of adhesion. As a result, the .LFA Communications .suggest that there has been a failure to meet general requirements in the Franchises that AT&T Broadband "comply with all laws affecting the cable system," (Columbia Heights Order at Finding 7) or "comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations." (Ramsey/Washington Order at Finding 5). As an initial matter, we note that no provision in the Franchise expressly provides that a violation of constitutional provisions or state contract laws by AT&T Broadband would constitute a distinct violation of the Franchise.30 More importantly, there simply is no support for the implication in the LFA Communications that the Arbitration Provisions violate constitutional provisions or any other provisions of state or feeleral law. As demonstrated above, all applicable statutes and judicial precedent support the fact that the Arbitration Provisions comply with state and federal statutes and rules. The LFAs do not and cannot point to any judicial or other determinations finding that AT&T Broadband's implementation of the Arbitration Provisions violate any provision of state or federal law. Instead, the LFA Communications appear to rely solely on the LFAs own subjective assessment that the Arbitration Provisions somehow violate constitutional rights and state contract law. Neither the Franchises nor any provision of applicable law gives the LFAs jurisdiction or authority to so. adjudicate matters of constitutional or state contract law. See aenerallv Minn. Stat. 99 238.01 et sea., 412.211; Welsh v. City of Orono, 355 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 1984) ("A municipality has no inherent powers, but only such powers as are expressly conferred by statute or are implied as necessary in aid of those powers which are expressly conferred."). Rather, authority to adjudicate constitutional rights and contractual dispute remains constitutionally vested in the appropriate state and federal courts. See. e.a., Minn. Const. Art VI, 99 1 & 3 (vesting judicial power exclusively in the judiciary and providing the district courts with original jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters); Holmbera v. Holmbera, 588 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 1999) (holding that the original jurisdiction of the courts over core judicial matters may not be encroached upon by non- jUdicial bodies). Simply put, the LFAs have no authority to make a determination that the Arbitration Provisions violate an applicable law. 30 As noted above, only two provisions in the Franchise could be interpreted as addressing matters of AT&T Broadband compliance with constitutional provisions or state contract laws applicable to the Arbitration Provisions. First, Section 2.7 of the Franchise expressly acknowledges the authority of AT&T Broadband to adopt rules, regulations, terms and procedures governing its business; at least so long as such rules, regulations, terms and procedures .shall not be in conflict with... the laws of the state of Minnesota... or any other body having lawful jurisdiction." Section 13.4 of the Franchise provides that the Company shall comply with any changes in state or federal law, regardless of whether they conflict with the Franchise. Neither of these provisions imposes any express or distinct Franchise obligation with respect to compliance with state and federal laws or provides that a failure to comply with such laws would constitute a separate Franchise violation. 8 P.43