descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Joseph R. Evanns, as an Individual and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v. At&t Corporation, a Corporation MCI Corporation, a Corporation Pacific Bell, Inc., a Corporation MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Erroneously Sued as MCI Corporation MCI Communications Corporation, Erroneously Sued as MCI Corporation

Citations: 229 F.3d 837; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 11381; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8543; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26760Docket: 12-56298

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; October 25, 2000; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a legal dispute initiated by Joseph R. Evanns against telecommunications companies AT&T, MCI, and Pacific Bell regarding the imposition of the Universal Service Fund (USF) fee. Evanns claimed that the fee, passed on to consumers, was illegal and sought substantial damages. The defendants successfully removed the case to federal court, where the district court dismissed it under the filed-rate doctrine. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this dismissal, emphasizing that the doctrine, rooted in the Federal Communications Act (FCA), prohibits challenges to rates and terms specified in tariffs filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The court highlighted that such tariffs have the force of law and bind consumers and carriers to the specified rates. Evanns' argument that the carriers failed to disclose the non-mandatory nature of the USF charges was rejected, as the charges were already included in the tariffs. Consequently, any claims contradicting the filed tariffs were barred. The appellate court confirmed that Evanns could not establish a viable claim under federal or state law, affirming the district court's decision and leaving the filed-rate doctrine unchallenged in its application to this case.

Legal Issues Addressed

Filed-Rate Doctrine Under the Federal Communications Act

Application: The court applied the filed-rate doctrine to dismiss claims challenging the legality of the Universal Service Fund fee, as the fee was included in the carriers' tariffs filed with the FCC.

Reasoning: The filed-rate doctrine, originating from the Federal Communications Act (FCA), establishes that once a carrier's tariff is approved by the FCC, it governs the rights and liabilities between the carrier and its customers.

Prohibition of Claims Contradicting Filed Tariffs

Application: The court barred Evanns' claim that carriers had additional disclosure duties regarding the USF fee, as it contradicted the terms of the filed tariffs.

Reasoning: Evanns' assertion that the carriers had additional disclosure duties beyond the filed tariffs is also precluded by the filed-rate doctrine.

Tariff as Binding Contract

Application: The tariffs filed by the carriers with the FCC were deemed to have the force of law, binding both the carriers and consumers to the rates and terms specified therein.

Reasoning: The filed tariff constitutes the binding contract between the carrier and the customer, possessing the force of law and transcending mere contractual obligations.

Uniformity of Rates Under the Federal Communications Act

Application: The court confirmed that the FCA mandates uniform rates for all shippers, thus barring any private rate agreements or claims that would alter the filed tariffs.

Reasoning: The FCA mandates uniform rates for all shippers, prohibiting private rate agreements.