Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`George S. Cary (State Bar No. 73858)
`Jeremy J. Calsyn (State Bar No. 205062)
`David I. Gelfand (pro hac vice)
`gcary@cgsh.com
`jcalsyn@cgsh.com
`dgelfand@cgsh.com
`Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
`2112 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: 202-974-1500
`Facsimile: 202-974-1999
`Attorneys for Defendants
`DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG and
`T-MOBILE US, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`KEITH DEAN BRADT, et al.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`T-MOBILE US, INC., et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`June 25, 2020
`Date:
`9:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: 3, Fifth Floor
`Before:
`Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`Please take notice that on June 25, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., or at such other date as may be
`agreed upon or ordered, at the courtroom of the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman, Courtroom 3,
`Fifth Floor, United States District Court, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, Defendants
`Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Mobile US, Inc., SoftBank Group Corp., and Sprint Corp. will and
`hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to
`dismiss with prejudice Plaintiffs’ Complaint To Prohibit The Merger of Sprint by T-Mobile. The
`motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
`Declaration of Jeremy Calsyn, the arguments of counsel, and all other matters properly
`considered by the Court. This motion to dismiss is brought on the grounds that the Complaint
`fails to state a claim against Defendants upon which relief can be granted.
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`Defendants request that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`i
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`Dated: March 18, 2020
`
`
`
`GEORGE S. CARY
`JEREMY J. CALSYN
`DAVID I. GELFAND
`CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON
`LLP
`
`By:
`
` /s/ David I. Gelfand
`DAVID I. GELFAND
`Attorneys for Defendants
`DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG and
`T-MOBILE US, INC.
`DAVID L. MEYER
`BRADLEY S. LUI
`BONNIE LAU
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`By:
`
` /s/ Bonnie Lau
`BONNIE LAU
`Attorneys for Defendants
`SOFTBANK GROUP CORP. and
`SPRINT CORP.
`STEVEN C. SUNSHINE
`KAREN HOFFMAN LENT
`JULIA K. YORK
`SKADDEN ARPS
`
`By:
`
` /s/ Steven C. Sunshine
`STEVEN C. SUNSHINE
`Attorneys for Defendant
`SPRINT CORP.
`ROD STONE
`RICHARD G. PARKER
`GIBSON DUNN
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
` /s/ Rod Stone
`ROD STONE
`Attorneys for Defendant
`DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`
`Dated: March 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 18, 2020
`
`
`Dated: March 18, 2020
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 4 of 36
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`NOTICE OF MOTION ............................................................................................................... i
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................................... i
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ........................................................... 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 2
`A. The Parties and Transaction ........................................................................................... 2
`B. This Action ..................................................................................................................... 6
`III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES (Civil L. R. 7-4(A)(3)) ............................................................ 7
`IV. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 8
`A. Legal Standard ............................................................................................................... 8
`B. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which the Court Could Grant the Relief
`Sought ............................................................................................................................ 9
`1. The Complaint Fails to Allege that the Transaction Before the Court Violates the
`Antitrust Laws .......................................................................................................... 9
`2. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Facts to Establish Standing to Sue for Injunctive
`Relief ...................................................................................................................... 11
`3. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to Injunctive Relief Under Traditional Equitable
`Principles ................................................................................................................ 12
`a. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege Irreparable Injury.......................................... 13
`b. Any Injury Could Be Remedied by Money Damages ..................................... 14
`c. Plaintiffs Do Not Plausibly Allege that the Balance of Hardships Favors
`Plaintiffs ........................................................................................................... 15
`d. A Permanent Injunction Would Disserve the Public Interest .......................... 16
`e. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to a Post-Closing Divestiture Order ...................... 18
`C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Barred by Laches ..................................................................... 19
`D. Plaintiffs’ Claims Should Be Dismissed on Grounds of Comity ................................. 20
`E. Res Judicata Bars the Claims of All But Two of the Plaintiffs .................................... 23
`V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`iii
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Gardner,
`387 U.S. 136 (1967) ..................................................................................................................20
`
`Alaska Sport Fishing Ass’n v. Exxon Corp.,
`34 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................23, 25
`
`Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO v. Weinberger,
`No. C 86-242T, 1986 WL 15495 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 5, 1986) .................................................21
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ....................................................................................................................8
`
`Beegle v. Thomson,
`138 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1943) .....................................................................................................12
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................................................8
`
`Bergh v. Washington,
`535 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1976) (Kennedy, J.) ..............................................................................21
`
`Biggs v. Terhune,
`334 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................................9
`
`Brittingham v. Commission,
`451 F.2d 315 (5th Cir. 1971) .....................................................................................................21
`
`Broad. Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc.,
`441 U.S. 1 (1979) ......................................................................................................................16
`
`Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
`509 U.S. 209 (1993) ..................................................................................................................13
`
`California v. Am. Stores Co.,
`495 U.S. 271 (1990) ............................................................................................................11, 19
`
`Church of Scientology of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army,
`611 F.2d.738 (9th Cir. 1979) ...............................................................................................21, 23
`
`Col. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States,
`424 U.S. 800 (1976) ..................................................................................................................22
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`iv
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`Costello v. United States,
`365 U.S. 265 (1961) ..................................................................................................................19
`
`D’Ambrosio v. Sterling Sav. Bank,
`No. 3:12-CV-01826, 2013 WL 2902715 (D. Or. June 13, 2013) ......................................12, 14
`
`DeHoog v. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV,
`899 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2018) .....................................................................................................10
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ..................................................................................................................13
`
`Ecology Ctr., Inc. v. Austin,
`430 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2005) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Edstrom v. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV,
`No. C 13-1309 MMC, 2013 WL 5124149 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2013) .................................8, 11
`
`Esta Later Charters, Inc. v. Ignacio,
`875 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1989) .....................................................................................................16
`
`FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild,
`450 U.S. 582 (1981) ..................................................................................................................17
`
`Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd. v. Elliott,
`386 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1967) .......................................................................................................19
`
`Garabet v. Autonomous Techs. Corp.,
`116 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2000)............................................................................... 18-20
`
`Gill v. Lasalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n for Wamu Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-
`OA6 Tr.,
`No. CV 14-7526-R, 2014 WL 12607834 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2014) .......................................13
`
`Ginsburg v. InBev NV/SA,
`623 F.3d 1229 (8th Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Golden Gate Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`No. 3:09-CV-03854, 2009 WL 3415680 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2009) ........................................14
`
`Ho by Ho v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist.,
`965 F. Supp. 1316 (N.D. Cal. 1997) .........................................................................................24
`
`In re Exxon Valdez,
`270 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................23
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`v
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 05-MD-1720, 2008 WL 5082872 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008) ............................................22
`
`Kloth v. Microsoft Corp.,
`444 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................19
`
`Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE,
`374 F. Supp. 3d 923 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ........................................................................................9
`
`Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League,
`634 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Malaney v. UAL Corp.,
`No. 3:10-CV-02858-RS, 2010 WL 3790296 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2010) ........................... 11-12
`
`Menzel v. Cty. Utils. Corp.,
`501 F. Supp. 354 (E.D. Va. 1979) .............................................................................................25
`
`Milman v. FCA U.S., LLC,
`No. SACV 18-686, 2018 WL 5867481 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2018) ..........................................15
`
`Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv.,
`572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................................................8
`
`Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................................9
`
`Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail,
`502 U.S. 367 (1992) ..................................................................................................................24
`
`Saint Alphonsus Med. Ctr. - Nampa, Inc. v. St. Luke’s Health Sys., Ltd.,
`No. 1:12-CV-560, 2014 WL 407446 (D. Idaho Jan. 24, 2014) ................................................22
`
`Schroeder v. United States,
`569 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................14
`
`Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.,
`143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................25
`
`Stroman v. W. Coast Grocery Co.,
`884 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1989) .....................................................................................................24
`
`Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency,
`322 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................. 23-24
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`vi
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`Taleff v. Sw. Airlines Co.,
`828 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................. 13-14, 16, 18
`
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308 (2007) ....................................................................................................................8
`
`United States v. Baker Hughes Inc.,
`908 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Thomas, J.) .............................................................................13
`
`United States v. Borden Co.,
`347 U.S. 514 (1954) ............................................................................................................ 11-12
`
`United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,
`300 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2004) ..................................................................................... 8-9
`
`W. Airlines, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,
`480 U.S. 1301 (1987) (O’Connor, Circuit Justice) ...................................................................20
`
`West Gulf Mar. Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24 et al.,
`751 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1985) ............................................................................................... 21-23
`
`White v. Williams,
`179 F. Supp. 2d 405 (D.N.J. 2002) ..................................................................................... 21-22
`
`State Cases
`
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Gault,
`627 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. 2006) ........................................................................................................25
`
`Federal Statutes & Rules
`
`15 U.S.C. § 16 ...................................................................................................................................4
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ........................................................................................................................20
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) ..........................................................................................................................6
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201 ..............................................................................................................................8
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Matter of Applications of T-Mobile US, Inc. and Sprint Corporation,
`WT Docket No. 18-197, FCC 19-103 ............................................................................... passim
`
`State of New York, et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al.,
`No. 1:19-cv-05434 (S.D.N.Y.) .......................................................................................... passim
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`vii
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 9 of 36
`
`
`United States, et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al.,
`No. 1:19-cv-2232-TJK (D.D.C.) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`viii
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs’ eleventh-hour challenge to the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint should be
`dismissed. Since the merger was announced in April 2018, it has been investigated extensively
`by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and the Antitrust Division of the
`Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Having imposed certain commitments, the FCC and DOJ found
`the transaction to be in the public interest and procompetitive. In June 2019, certain states sought
`to block the merger on the same basis that Plaintiffs belatedly advance here. That effort was
`considered and rejected by Judge Marrero in the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY
`Action”) after a trial in December 2019. Plaintiffs, who admit they sat idly by during the federal
`investigations and the SDNY Action, waited until the eve of trial in the SDNY Action to bring
`this case. Their Complaint fails for multiple reasons.
`First, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which the Court could grant the only relief
`Plaintiffs seek: an injunction blocking or unwinding the transaction. As a threshold matter, the
`Complaint is directed toward the T-Mobile-Sprint merger as it was initially constituted and
`ignores the extensive accompanying divestitures and commitments. It fails plausibly to allege
`that the actual transaction at issue would violate the antitrust laws. Plaintiffs likewise fail to
`allege, as is required under the Clayton Act, that they would suffer specific personal harm from
`the transaction. Instead, they merely assert very generalized concerns about preserving
`competition of the sort that might be asserted by the public at large, which is insufficient to state a
`claim. Finally, Plaintiffs have not alleged that they are entitled to an injunction under the basic
`principles of equity. To the contrary, the alleged higher prices they fear would readily be
`compensable by money damages, the balance of hardships overwhelmingly favors Defendants,
`and an injunction would disserve the public interest.
`Second, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of laches: Plaintiffs filed this action
`nineteen months after the merger was announced in April 2018, more than five months after the
`SDNY Action commenced, and four months after the DOJ approved the merger. This delay was
`a purposeful tactic by experienced counsel and clients designed to create uncertainty for
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defendants on the verge of closing their transaction. Courts dismiss private merger challenges
`filed at the last minute, especially in the face of significant prior proceedings, and this eleventh-
`hour challenge should meet the same fate.
`Third, this case duplicates the SDNY Action. Allowing it to proceed would be a waste of
`judicial resources and would risk inconsistent results. Well-established doctrines of judicial
`comity call for dismissal in these circumstances.
`Fourth, when a state litigates or resolves claims under parens patriae on behalf of its
`residents, those residents may not pursue those same claims in separate actions. Res judicata thus
`bars claims of the twenty-two Plaintiffs who are residents of states that already pursued such
`claims in the SDNY Action or through the DOJ settlement and related Tunney Act Proceeding.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`II.
`A. The Parties and Transaction
`Defendants T-Mobile and Sprint are the third- and fourth-largest U.S. providers of mobile
`wireless telecommunications services. Compl. ¶ 2. On April 29, 2018, T-Mobile and Sprint
`agreed to merge in a transaction valued at approximately $26 billion at the time. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 55.
`Various regulatory entities, including the FCC and the DOJ, extensively reviewed the
`merger. The FCC “conducted an exhaustive review of the proposed transaction, in which it:
`reviewed thousands of pages of pleadings; issued multiple document and information requests to
`[T-Mobile, Sprint] and third parties; examined the documents produced in response to these
`requests; studied and analyzed engineering and economic models submitted by [T-Mobile, Sprint]
`and other commenters; and conducted independent analyses of the public interest claims of
`[T-Mobile, Sprint] and third parties.” Declaration of Jeremy Calsyn (“Calsyn Decl.”), Ex. 1,
`Memorandum Opinion and Order in the Matter of Applications of T-Mobile US, Inc. and Sprint
`Corporation, WT Docket No. 18-197, FCC 19-103, ¶ 4 (Oct. 16, 2019) (“FCC Order”). The
`investigation included extensive participation by third parties, including the submission of
`nineteen different Petitions to Deny in response to the merging parties’ Public Interest Statement,
`responses by third parties to subsequent submissions by T-Mobile and Sprint, and numerous
`meetings and discussions between third parties and FCC staff. Id. ¶¶ 21-23. Notably, none of
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`2
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`these Plaintiffs availed themselves of the opportunity to participate in the FCC proceedings.
`The FCC investigation culminated in Defendants making certain commitments to the FCC
`regarding the transaction, including, among others, (1) to divest Sprint’s Boost business,
`including subscribers, stores, and employees; (2) to meet nationwide coverage targets for the next
`generation of mobile wireless networking, known as “5G,” in particular to “cover 97% of the U.S.
`population with 5G service within three years of the consummation of the transaction, and 99%
`within six years”; (3) to “provide 5G service with download speeds of at least 50 Mbps to three-
`quarters of the U.S. population, and download speeds of at least 100 Mbps to almost two-thirds of
`the U.S. population (63%)” within three years, rising to 99% and 90%, respectively, within six
`years; (4) to meet coverage targets in rural areas; and (5) to provide in-home broadband service to
`millions of customers. FCC Order ¶¶ 25-29. T-Mobile and Sprint also agreed to a number of
`verification and enforcement mechanisms, including potentially billions of dollars in penalties for
`failure to meet these commitments. Id. ¶¶ 30-32.
`Upon careful consideration of the transaction and these commitments, the FCC concluded
`that “as conditioned, the transaction would not substantially lessen competition, and would be in
`the public interest.” FCC Order ¶ 11. Specifically, the merger “will result in significant public
`interest benefits, including encouraging the rapid deployment of a new 5G mobile wireless
`network, and improving the quality of [wireless] services for American consumers.” Id. ¶ 5. The
`FCC concluded that “[b]uilding leading 5G networks is of critical importance for our nation,” id.
`¶ 3, that the “network benefits of the transaction are particularly important for the nation’s
`underserved rural areas,” id. ¶¶ 7, 268, and that New T-Mobile’s significant expansion of network
`capacity and improvement of service quality will enhance competition in “the new 5G wireless
`world, strengthening incentives for market participants to innovate,” id. ¶ 10. In addition, the
`FCC concluded that “significant public interest benefits would flow from DISH’s deployment of
`5G broadband services over its spectrum holdings, which for many years have been underutilized,
`and that the acquisition of Boost Mobile will help DISH achieve that deployment.” Id. ¶ 12.
`Finally, the FCC found that the merger would “likely facilitate the development of innovative
`service offerings,” benefit “the overall United States economy,” and “support American
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`3
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`technological leadership.” Id. ¶¶ 8, 315. In particular, the FCC recognized that 5G “holds the
`potential to create three million new jobs in our country and $500 billion in GDP growth.”
`Id. ¶ 3. According to the FCC, the merger’s benefits “will thus extend beyond mobile wireless
`services alone, to enhance the competitiveness of the United States’ economy.” Id. ¶ 8.
`The DOJ also conducted “a comprehensive, fifteen-month investigation” into the
`transaction, culminating in the DOJ’s approval of the transaction subject to certain additional
`commitments, primarily related to a series of divestitures and other undertakings designed to
`facilitate entry into the mobile wireless market by Dish Network Corp. (“DISH”). Calsyn Decl.,
`Ex. 4, Response of Plaintiff United States to Public Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment,
`ECF No. 42, United States, et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al., No. 1:19-CV-2232-TJK (the
`“Tunney Act Proceeding”) (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2019) (“Response to Public Comments”), at 8. On
`July 26, 2019, the DOJ submitted these commitments in the form of a Proposed Final Judgment
`(the “PFJ”) for review by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as required by the
`Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16 (the “Tunney Act”). Calsyn Decl., Ex. 3,
`ECF No. 2-2, Tunney Act Proceeding (July 26, 2019). Among other things, T-Mobile will divest
`Sprint’s prepaid assets to DISH, divest certain Sprint wireless spectrum, and provide DISH access
`to the T-Mobile network through an MVNO agreement. PFJ Sections IV, VI. Additional
`provisions require T-Mobile and DISH to comply with network build commitments made to the
`FCC and give DISH access to thousands of cell sites and retail locations that T-Mobile
`decommissions as it integrates the T-Mobile and Sprint businesses. See PFJ Sections IV, VIII.
`Members of the public—though, again, none of these Plaintiffs—submitted comments on
`the Proposed Final Judgment in the Tunney Act Proceeding. See Response to Public Comments
`at 15 (“The United States received 32 comments from different categories of commenters . . . .”).
`The DOJ’s response to these comments emphasized that “[t]he proposed Final Judgment provides
`for a substantial divestiture which, when combined with the mobile wireless spectrum already
`owned by DISH . . . will enable DISH to enter the market as a new 5G mobile wireless services
`provider and a fourth nationwide facilities-based wireless carrier.” Response to Public Comments
`at 1-2. In the DOJ’s view, the transaction “promises to expand output in the mobile wireless
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`4
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 14 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`market and be a boon for American consumers” and “is in the public interest.” Response to
`Public Comments at 1. In addition, the transaction will “provide substantial long-term benefits
`for American consumers by ensuring that large amounts of currently unused or underused
`spectrum are made available to American consumers in the form of advanced 5G networks” and
`would result in “stronger 5G competition and expanding output.” Id. at 2, 35. This includes
`“enabling DISH’s entry as a fourth nationwide facilities-based wireless competitor” and
`“expediting deployment of advanced 5G networks for American consumers.” Id. at 8.
`Ten states—Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma,
`South Dakota, and Texas—have joined the Tunney Act Proceeding as Plaintiffs and, acting “as
`parens patriae on behalf of and to protect the health and welfare of their citizens and the general
`economy of each of their states,” resolved their claims via the PFJ. Calsyn Decl., Ex. 2, Fifth
`Am. Compl., ECF No. 50, Tunney Act Proceeding (Nov. 27, 2019) (“Tunney Act Compl.”), ¶ 26.
`In doing so, all of these states have settled the claims of their residents. It is expected that the
`final judgment in the Tunney Act Proceeding will be entered shortly.
`On June 11, 2019, a group of nine states and the District of Columbia, acting by and
`through the Offices of their respective Attorneys General “as parens patriae on behalf of and to
`protect the health and welfare of their residents and the general economy of each of their states,”
`filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York seeking a permanent injunction against the
`transaction. Calsyn Decl., Ex. 5, Complaint, ECF No. 2, State of New York, et al. v. Deutsche
`Telekom AG, et al., No. 1:19-CV-05434 (“SDNY Action”) (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2019) (“SDNY
`Compl.”), ¶ 10. These plaintiffs alleged that the transaction would substantially lessen
`competition in the market for retail mobile wireless telecommunications services in the United
`States and numerous local markets, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Calsyn Decl.,
`Ex. 6, Decision & Order, ECF No. 409, SDNY Action (Feb. 11, 2020) (“SDNY Decision”), at 1,
`47. After the complaint was filed, Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada, and Texas withdrew pursuant
`to settlements, id. at 33-34, and a few other states joined the SDNY Action, id. at 1 (listing states
`that litigated through trial).
`Judge Marrero conducted a two-week bench trial in December 2019 and heard closing
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`5
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-7752-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-07752-BLF Document 84 Filed 03/18/20 Page 15 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`arguments on January 15, 2020. SDNY Decision at 1. On February 11, 2020, Judge Marrero
`entered final judgment for the defendants and issued a 170-page opinion. Among other things,
`Judge Marrero concluded that “there is substantial merit to Defendants’ claims that the
`efficiencies arising from the Proposed Merger will lead T-Mobile to compete more aggressively
`to the ultimate benefit of all consumers, and in particular the subscribers of each of the four major
`competitors. Sprint customers would benefi