(“These rules satisfy section 276 by identifying the party liable for compensation and establishing a mechanism for PSPs to be paid.”); APCC SERVS., 20 F.C.C.R.2084, ¶ 25, 2005 WL 235800 (refusing to accept an argument that “conflicts with the Commission’s reasoned decision to place responsibility on facilities-based carriers only”). Here, imposing a duty that may make carriers liable for calls for which other carriers are responsible would be inconsistent with the Commission’s careful assignment of liability. We do not hold that state law remedies — for example, damages for breach of an express contract relating to payphone services — would be preempted simply because they provide recovery in amounts more than the contractual or default per-call amount. See Bates, 125 S.Ct. at 1800-01 (<HOLDING>). Here, however, where Plaintiff seeks to
holding that entry of summary judgment while a motion for additional discovery was pending should be construed as an implicit denial of the motion for additional discovery holding that general allegations of a need for additional discovery will not suffice the person presenting such a claim must show what discovery has been obtained why it is inadequate and the what additional information he expects to obtain from additional discovery holding that tolling does not apply to additional defendants who were not named in the class action holding that an additional remedy does not constitute an additional requirement holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion