ORLANDO COMMUNICATIONS CLUB, INC.
v.
SOUTHERN BELL TEL. & TEL. CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Orlando Communications Club sought to compel Southern Bell to provide intrastate WATS lines, but the court dismissed the complaint on jurisdictional grounds, finding that the Florida Public Service Commission has exclusive authority to resolve tariff and rate disputes and that the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.
The court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The Florida Public Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over controversies involving the reasonableness of rate and tariff structures in telecommunications services, and judicial abstention is required to protect the integrity of the regulatory scheme. The plaintiff must exhaust its administrative remedies before the Commission before seeking judicial relief.
[1] A court must abstain from adjudicating issues that necessarily involve the construction and application of a public service commission's tariff and require knowledge of c…
[2] Jurisdiction to resolve issues involving the reasonableness of rate and tariff structures is vested in the appropriate public service commission.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Adjudication of plaintiff's rights will necessarily involve the construction and application of WATS Tariff 11 and a knowledge of commercial and technical factors bearing on rate and tariff structures. Jurisdiction to resolve such issues is vested in the appropriate public service commission.”
Establishes that tariff and rate disputes fall within exclusive PSC jurisdiction, not courts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOrlando Communications Club sought intrastate Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS) lines from Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company. Southern Be…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Abstention cases and more on FLexlaw
Final judgment: This cause came on for hearing before this court upon the motion of defendant, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, for a judgment on the pleadings which show that the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, and the court having heard argument from the respective parties in regard hereto, the court finds —
(1) Plaintiff has sought to compel defendant Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company to provide plaintiff with intrastate Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS) lines.
(2) Defendant has declined to provide the service on the ground that the usage of WATS lines intended by plaintiff would be in violation of WATS Tariff 11 filed with the Florida Public Service Commission.
(3) Adjudication of plaintiff’s rights will 'necessarily involve the construction and application of WATS Tariff 11 and a knowledge of commercial and technical factors bearing on rate and tariff *29structures. Jurisdiction to resolve such issues is vested in the appropriate public service commission. §364.01(2), Florida Statutes; United States v. Western Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 65-67, 1 L. Ed.2d 126, 132-34 (1956). Moreover, it appears that any adjudication of plaintiff’s rights may have a significant impact upon the uniform rate and regulatory structure established by the Florida Public Service Commission. Accordingly, “judicial abstention” is required “where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme.” United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 353, 10 L. Ed.2d 915, 939 (1963).
(4) Plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before the Florida Public Service Commission, which could afford plaintiff complete relief. The commission has been held to have exclusive jurisdiction over controversies involving the reasonableness of rate and tariff structures. §364.01 (2), Florida Statutes; Cole v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 221 So.2d 200 (Fla. App. 3d 1969). Until plaintiff exhausts its administrative remedies, the courts will not act. Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 120 So.2d 586, 593 (Fla. 1961); Pushkin v. Lombard, 279 So.2d 79, 82 (Fla. App. 3d 1973).
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with prejudice, but with the right vested in plaintiff to pursue its administrative remedies before the Florida Public Service Commission as provided by law.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59 (U.S. 1956)
- United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1963)
- Pushkin v. Lombard, 279 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Cole v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 221 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- In re Florida Appellate Rules, 120 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1960)