Thus, the TELRIC rates set forth in the body of the Pricing Appendix are applicable only to Local Traffic and local Ancillary Traffic, and not to ATCs. 5. Statute of Limitations Applicable to Claims for Tariffed Interstate Charges (Core Petition at 15-17) a. Positions of the Parties Core is of the opinion that we erred in concluding that a four-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations, as codified at 42 Pa. C.S. § 5525 for generic contract claims, is applicable to claims for unpaid interstate switched and special access Verizon’s charges. at 119-20. Core maintains the position that the See December 2016 Order twoyear federal statute of limitations codified at 47 U.S.C. § 415(a) is applicable. Core contends that the decision of the Fifth Circuit in 634 F.3d 779 Castro v. Collecto, Inc., (5th Cir. 2011)(Castro) and the each of August 2013 Core v. AT&T Order, Commission’s which the Commission relied upon as support for its conclusion, actually support the application of the two-year federal statute. Core Petition at 15-16. Core notes that in the Fifth Circuit considered whether the term Castro, as used in 47 U.S.C. § 415(a), should be interpreted to include “lawful charges,” charges or only tariffed charges. Core states that the Fifth Circuit concluded that are limited to tariffed rates and because the charges at issue in that “lawful charges” proceeding were not tariffed, they were not subject to 47 U.S.C. § 415(a). Core submits that in the the Commission, citing found that August 2013 Core v. AT&T Order, Castro, 47 U.S.C. § 415(a) applies to tariffed, or charges. Moreover, Core argues that in “lawful” the the Third Circuit also recognized that was Third Circuit Core v. AT&T Order, Castro limited to tariffed charges. Accordingly, Core posits that because interstate Verizon’s federal access tariff claims are the very that were determined under “lawful charges” the and the Castro, August 2013 Core v. AT&T Order, Third Circuit Core v. AT&T
Thus, the TELRIC rates set forth in the body of the Pricing Appendix are applicable only to Local Traffic and local Ancillary Traffic, and not to ATCs. 5. Statute of Limitations Applicable to Claims for Tariffed Interstate Charges (Core Petition at 15-17) a. Positions of the Parties Core is of the opinion that we erred in concluding that a four-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations, as codified at 42 Pa. C.S. § 5525 for generic contract claims, is applicable to Verizon’s claims for unpaid interstate switched and special access charges. See December 2016 Order at 119-20. Core maintains the position that the twoyear federal statute of limitations codified at 47 U.S.C. § 415(a) is applicable. Core contends that the decision of the Fifth Circuit in Castro v. Collecto, Inc., 634 F.3d 779 (5th Cir. 2011)(Castro) and the Commission’s August 2013 Core v. AT&T Order, each of which the Commission relied upon as support for its conclusion, actually support the application of the two-year federal statute. Core Petition at 15-16. Core notes that in Castro, the Fifth Circuit considered whether the term “lawful charges,” as used in 47 U.S.C. § 415(a), should be interpreted to include charges or only tariffed charges. Core states that the Fifth Circuit concluded that “lawful charges” are limited to tariffed rates and because the charges at issue in that proceeding were not tariffed, they were not subject to 47 U.S.C. § 415(a). Core submits that in the August 2013 Core v. AT&T Order, the Commission, citing Castro, found that 47 U.S.C. § 415(a) applies to tariffed, or “lawful” charges. Moreover, Core argues that in the Third Circuit Core v. AT&T Order, the Third Circuit also recognized that Castro was limited to tariffed charges. Accordingly, Core posits that because Verizon’s interstate federal access tariff claims are the very “lawful charges” that were determined under Castro, the August 2013 Core v. AT&T Order, and the Third Circuit Core v. AT&T