Agenda Packets - 1986/05/19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- 12 - the other to avoid the appearance of impropriety. New counsel have been selected, but it is unclear now when or whether the case will go to trial. IV. CHALLENGES TO A FRANCHISING AUTHORITY'S ACTION IN CONNECTION WITH OR PRIOR TO REN'nWAL REQUEST A. The Jefferson City Cass Since 1978, TCI Cablevislon, Inc. (hereinafter "TCI") has been the sole cable operator in Jefferson City, Missouri. In late 1980, the City issued a Request for Proposals for Cable Television Service ("RFP"), indicating that a new franchise would be awarded effective April 1, 1981, when TCI's franchise was scheduled to expire. Ultimately, however, the City Council voted to grant TCI a new franchise. Central Telecommunications, Inc. (hereinafter "Central") had responded to the 1980 RFP. Alleging that TCI illegally contacted and threatened the consultant retained by the City, warned that it would cut off cable service to the City, withheld franchise payments fr^m the City, instituted sham litigation, met illegally with City officials and threatened other bidders, Central sued both the City and TCI. Central raised three claims: (1) that a conspiracy existed between certain City officials and TCI to restrain and monopolize trade; (2) that actual ronopolization existed; and 0; that tortious interference with its business expectancy had occurred. The United Stater District Court for the Western District of Missouri upheld the jury verdict in fevor of Central against TCI on all three claims and dismissed TCI's motion for judgment notwithstanding the -verdict. Central Telecommunicatiors v. TCI Cablevision, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 891 (W.D.Mo. 1985). The court found that TCI's allegedly wrongful conduct vas not protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which is based on the principle that civil liability should not be imposed on persons for exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government. Nor was it protected by the First Amendment. The court Indicated that the First Amendment rights of cable operators were probably not coextensive with those of the print media. Noting that th& l*w rnnrarn,no rn• franchising process was unsettled, the court hald that where -- as here -- a natural monopoly exists, franchising ..