Docket 20 at 1. Instead, Northern Valley, citing Sancom, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D.S.D. 2009), urges the court to find that Qwest's motion is premature and "deny Qwest's motion without prejudice to Qwest's re-filing it after the precedent principally relied upon by Qwest in the motion, All American, is settled law." Docket 20 at 2.

Prior to these opinions, both Judges Schreier and Piersol denied motions by CLECs to dismiss the counterclaims filed by the IXCs under the filed rate doctrine. SeeSancom, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Compnay Limited Partnership, 618 F.Supp.2d 1086 (D.S.D. March 30, 2009), Sancom, Inc. v. Qwest Communications Corporation, CIV. 07-4147-KES, 2008 WL 2627465 (D.S.D. June 26, 2008) and Northern Valley Communications, LLC v. MCI Communications Services, Inc., CIV 07-1016-KES, 2008 WL 2627519 (D.S.D. June 26, 2008). In each of those cases the district court found that the filed rate doctrine did not bar the counterclaims because the IXCs were not challenging the reasonableness of the rates charged by the CLECs, but were instead asserting that the CLECs were billing for services not set forth in the tariff.

Both Chief Judge Schreier and Judge Piersol of the District of South Dakota have denied motions by CLECs to dismiss the counterclaims filed by the IXCs under the filed rate doctrine. See Sancom, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership, 618 F.Supp.2d 1086 (D.S.D. 2009), Sancom, Inc. v. Qwest Communications Corporation, CIV. 07-4147-KES, 2008 WL 2627465 (D.S.D. June 26, 2008), and Northern Valley Communications, LLC v. MCI Communications Services, Inc., CIV 07-1016-KES, 2008 WL 2627519 (D.S.D. June 26, 2008). In each of those cases the district court found that the filed rate doctrine did not bar the counterclaims because the IXCs were not challenging the reasonableness of the rates charged by the CLECs, but were instead asserting that the CLECs were billing for services not set forth in the tariff.