20260717Motion to Dismiss Complaint.pdf

RECEIVED
J U LY 17, 2026
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Stephen R. Thomas, ISB No. 2326
Brandon Helgeson, ISB No. 11615
HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS &HAWLEY LLP
877 W. Main Street, Suite 200
P.O. Box 1617
Boise, ID 83701-1617
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 208.954.5253
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Respondent
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
STABILITY NETWORKS, INC.,
Case No. QCC-T-26-01
COMPLAINANT,
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
V.
CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC d/b/a LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES
GROUP
RESPONDENT.
Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
("Commission"), IDAPA 31.01.01.056 and .057 (Rules 56 and 57), CenturyLink
Communications, LLC d/b/a Lumen Technologies Group ("Respondent")respectfully moves
that the Commission dismiss the Formal Complaint ("Complaint") filed by Stability Networks,
Inc. ("Complainant") on or about May 11, 2026. Respondent provides this Motion in response to
the Complaint in accordance with the Summons issued by the Commission on June 8, 2026 and
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT— 1
40619.0034.4917-7869-3 3 09.2

the Commission's Interlocutory Order No. 37094 issued on July 10, 2026 extending the time for
filing a response to the Complaint.
I. FACTS
I. Respondent is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Lumen Technologies, Inc.
("Lumen"). Lumen provides voice and data services to enterprise, government, wholesale and
carrier customers over its IP-based network through its wholly-owned indirect subsidiaries,
including Respondent. Respondent is a telephone corporation certified to provide local exchange
and interexchange services pursuant to a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
("CPCN") issued by the Commission.t
2. Respondent and Complainant entered into a contract for converged voice/data
services in August of 2011 for Complainant's 2404 Bank Drive location (the "Converged
Services Contract"), which, together with Respondent's price lists on file with the Commission,
governed the terms and conditions of Respondent's provision of said services to Complainant.
See Exhibit 41 to Complaint. The Converged Services Contract relates to the account referenced
by BAN 321457 and invoice account number 5-VHGR2XGG.
3. In August of 2020, Complainant installed a circuit at its Bank Drive location for
fiber services from Respondent, referenced as circuit ETH1000-24051577. Billing for the
services associated with this circuit were made under BAN 90503798 and invoice account
number 5-BI ILZ33S.
1 See CPCN No.402 issued in Case No. QCC-T-04-01 and related amendments thereto.
2 Respondent is the successor in interest to tw telecom holdings inc.
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT—2

4. As the Complaint and Exhibits thereto show, Complainant's request for
disconnection of services relating to its Bank Drive location in 2021 related solely to circuit
ETHI000-24051577 billed under BAN 90503798 and invoice account number 5-131 ILZ33S.
Respondent ultimately completed this request and issued a credit to Complainant for a delay in
disconnection for this circuit. See Exhibit 48 to Complaint.
5. During this time, Complainant did not request disconnection of its converged
voice services under the Converged Services Contract relating to BAN 321457 and invoice
account number 5-VHGR2XGG and continued to pay for said services for several years pursuant
to the monthly invoices issued by Respondent. See Exhibit 44 to Complaint. Respondent does
not disconnect services unless explicitly requested by the customer, or if other grounds exist for
termination by Respondent pursuant to its contracts,price lists, and applicable Commission
rules.
6. Complainant is ultimately responsible for not only requesting a disconnection of
services for its specific services and related accounts, but also for payment of charges for
services provided by Respondent and timely disputing any charges billed to it. See Exhibit 41 to
Complaint; see also Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.4 for Respondent's Price List Catalog No. 2 for Local
Exchange Services on file with the Commission.
II. ARGUMENT
7. Complainant brings several counts in the Complaint alleging that Respondent has
(i)billed unjust and unreasonable charges, (ii)used unreasonable billing, account-management,
and recordkeeping practices, and(iii)used unreasonable dispute-resolution and disconnection
practices under various provisions of Title 61, Idaho Code. See Complaint at 7-9.
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT—3

8. Complainant cites to various statutory authority under Title 61 governing public
utilities subject to the provisions thereof in its Complaint as the basis for the relief it requests.
However, Respondent is exempted from regulation under Title 61 and is instead subject to
Chapter 6, Title 62, Idaho Code (the "Telecommunications Act of 1988" or the "Telecom Act")
and the Commission's limited jurisdiction granted thereunder.
9. Although the Commission retains limited jurisdiction regarding the noneconomic
regulatory requirements relating to basic local exchange service under the Telecom Act,
including as reflected in IDAPA 31.41.01, et seq. (the "Customer Relations Rules"),
Complainant has not alleged violation of any of these specific rules.
10. Subject to the requirements of the Customer Relations Rules, the Converged
Services Contract between the parties governs here, and Complainant has not alleged any
violations of the provisions of the Converged Services Contract or Respondent's price lists on
file with the Commission. The "internal dispute deadline"referenced in the Complaint is a
specific contractual term in the Converged Services Contract requiring that charges be disputed
within 120 days of the date of the invoice containing disputed charges. See Exhibit 41 to
Complaint. Once a dispute was filed by Complainant with Respondent, Respondent investigated
in accordance with the Customer Relations Rules and determined there was no billing error as
shown in the Exhibits to the Complaint. The Complaint does not allege that Respondent billed
for converged services at an improper rate or failed to bill, nor does it allege that the converged
services under BAN 32147 were actually disconnected pursuant to a customer request and still
subsequently billed for. Without allegations of what Customer Relations Rules,provisions of the
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT—4

Telecom Act, or price lists of Respondent were allegedly violated, Complainant makes no claim
for which the Commission can grant relief.
11. However, even if Complainant were to argue that the Commission should assert
jurisdiction to adjudicate what is essentially a contractual dispute, Complainant does not allege
that Respondent has billed service charges that do not comply with the Converged Services
Contract and applicable price list. Complainant ultimately seeks a refund for charges properly
billed that it continually paid for up to the date of disconnection of services for BAN 321457
because Complainant failed to recognize that it was paying for these services for several years
without any reasonable inquiry on its part to determine what services it was paying for under two
separate accounts. Yet, responsibility for requests for disconnection and the payment and dispute
of charges resides with the customer, and the Exhibits to the Complaint show no failures on
Respondent's part to comply with its contractual obligations.
III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Complainant has failed to bring any claims for which the Commission can grant relief
under Chapter 6, Title 62, Idaho Code and related Customer Relations Rules. Respondent has
provided services and engaged with Complainant consistent with the Converged Services
Contract and terms of service set forth in Respondent's filed price lists. Therefore, Respondent
respectfully requests that the Commission dismiss the Complaint with prejudice on the grounds
that Complainant has not stated a claim for which the Commission can grant relief.
IV. CONCLUSION
Respondent respectfully requests the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respondent
reserves the right to file an Answer to the Complaint to admit or deny the allegations contained
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT—5

there in accordance with Commission Rule 57.02 should the Commission deny this Motion to
Dismiss.
Dated: July 17, 2026. HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP
By -- -
Brandon Helgeson, ISB No. 11615
Attorneys.for Respondent
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT—6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I caused to be served a true copy of the foregoing MOTION
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT by the method indicated below, and addressed to each of the
following:
Commission Staff ❑ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Commission Secretary ❑ Hand Delivered
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ❑ Overnight Mail
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201-A Q E-mail
Boise, ID 83714 ❑ Facsimile
secretgakpuc.idaho.gov ❑ iCourt
Miles L. Russon ❑ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Taylor Law Offices, PLLC ❑ Hand Delivered
1112 W. Main Street, Ste. 101 ❑ Overnight Mail
Boise, Idaho 83702 Q E-mail:
miles(ktaylorlawoffices.com ❑ Facsimile
❑ iCourt
Joshua Trauner ❑ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Assistant General Counsel ❑ Hand Delivered
Lumen Technologies ❑ Overnight Mail
100 CenturyLink Drive Q E-mail:
Monroe, LA 71203 ❑ Facsimile
joshua.trauner(c�,lumen.com ❑ iCourt
Dated: July 17, 2026.
Brandon Helgeson ISB No. 11615
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT—7