United States District Court, C.D. California
Acumen Communications, Inc.
City of Covma, et al.
Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
IN CHAMBERS ORDER REMANDING CASE
Acumen Communications, Inc. ("Acument") and Metro
Two Way LLC "Metro Two War", collectively
"Plaintiffs") filed this case on September 18,
2015, agamst ten defendants comprised of various cities,
individuals, and the companies Motorola Solutions, Inc.
("MSI" or "Defendant") and Public Safety
Technologies, Inc. ("PST"). Dkt. 1. MSI is the sole
remaining Defendant. From the beginning of the case, the
Court had concerns about its subject-matter jurisdiction.
Originally, part of the case seemed to hinge on whether the
Federal Communications Act ("FCA") was violated by
the actions of PST or MSI. This Court stayed the case pending
FCC review of a complaint ostensibly related to PST's
actions. Dkt. 55. The FCC made a decision, and the stay was
lifted. Dkt. 58. At oral argument Plaintiffs said that these
issues were cured and therefore Plaintiff no longer needed an
injunction agamst the pmported FCA violations, but rather
still seeks relief for "the damage that was done".
Dkt. 69, October 31, 2016, Hearing Transcript 13:13-22.
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs dismissed PST as a defendant.
later stams conference, this Court again questioned it
subject-matter jurisdiction in light of the developments in
this case and ordered supplemental briefing. Dkt. 71. MSI
filed supplemental briefing asking this Court to assert
jurisdiction and dismiss the claims with prejudice. Dkt. 72.
Plaintiffs filed supplemental briefing asking this Court to
find it has no subject matter jurisdiction and remand the
case to state court. Dkt. 73. For the following reasons, this
Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and REMANDS
the case to state court.
facts of this case are taken from the Fust Amended Complaint
("FAC"). Dkt. 30. Since 2001, certain cities in
California have attempted to create region-wide radio systems
using federal grant money. MSI already provided
telecommunications seivices for some of these cities,
including Glendale. The complaint then specifically tracks
two Glendora Requests for Proposals ("RFP") over a
several month period.
RFP #1 (FAC ¶¶ 32-36)
Police Department issued a RFP in July 2012 for mobile and
portable radios ("July 2012 RFP"), with a deadline
to submit proposals of August 7, 2012. Only PST and a
third-party "CDW Government LLC" issued proposals.
Plaintiff alleges that CDW did not meet the requirements for
a qualified proposer and that
"DEFENDANTS" requested CDW to submit a bid to create
the illusion of multiple proposers. The PST proposal was
chosen, however Plaintiffs allege that Glendora actually
purchased then mobile radios from MSI, not PST. Plaintiffs
allege that, as the successful bidder, PST should have been
the entity to deliver the radios to Glendora.
RFP #3 (FAC ¶¶ 37-45)
issued the second RFP which was for a public radio system on
October 30, 2012 ("October 2012 RFP"), with a
deadline for proposals of November 20, 2012. Plaintiff
discusses the "stringent requirements" for the RFP
that it alleges prevented any "real proposer" to
submit a proposal within the twenty-day timeframe. MSI,
however, submitted a proposal on November 20,
2012. Plaintiff alleges that the RFP mandated
that "the successful Proposer shall subcontract with
[MSI] . . ." and that therefore MSI was selected
"as a matter of default". The complaint then
alleges that PST licensed certain frequencies to the city of
Glendora, which it claims is a practice not allowed by the
Radio Frequency Interference
complaint then describes the broad framework of radio
frequency pools. One pool of frequencies is for
"Industry/Business", whereas the other is for
"Public Safety". The pool used by ICIS and the
corresponding cities should have been the Public Safety pool.
Plaintiffs allege that MSI could not secure Public Safety
frequencies in time to submit its radios to the corresponding
cities and for the cities to secure the federal grant money
to purchase such radios.
using frequencies in the Industry/Business pool instead of
the Public Safety pool, MSI interfered with Plaintiffs'
businesses that provided radios for taxis, delivery services,
and other commercial activities. Plaintiffs allege that MSI
and PST knew this interference would occur and ...