A federal appeals court overturned a district court’s dismissal o...

in 1996 when the city passed an ordinance requiring municipal franchises for payphone providers. Plaintiffs Best Payphone and New Phone said the city repeatedly denied them a franchise, forcing them to file multiple federal court appeals to preserve their rights under city law to challenge each of the denials. In 2004, the city added new requirements for payphone franchises including a franchise fee increase and a ban on advertisements on payphone enclosures in lower Manhattan. The plaintiffs filed new appeals and sought to amend their other pending complaints, resulting in seven different appeals pending at the U.S. District Court, New York City, at the end of 2004. The district court in early August 2005 enjoined the companies from filing further appeals without the court’s permission and dismissed one complaint challenging the newest city franchise rules as duplicating claims in the other six. Three weeks later, at the end of August, the plaintiffs sought to file an eighth appeal against the city but the district court refused to accept it. The plaintiff payphone companies asked the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, New York, to reverse the dismissal and lift the trial court’s injunction against more appeals. The 2nd Circuit (Case 05-4935-CV-L) reversed the complaint dismissal on ground the trial court didn’t adequately analyze how challenges to the newest city payphone franchise regulations duplicated claims that predated adoption of the new rules. The 2nd Circuit disclaimed jurisdiction to hear appeals of the injunction on a legal technicality, but remanded the denial of the eighth appeal with instructions to consider whether it raised new issues not addressed in the other appeals.