Narrative Opinion Summary
The trial court's non-final order approving a limited class action against BellSouth is affirmed. Christopher, representing himself and other similarly situated Florida consumers, alleges that BellSouth improperly charged a $3.50 monthly "Roamer Admin Fee" for calls made outside its service area. This decision follows a remand from the case BellSouth Mobility LLC v. Christopher, 819 So.2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The appellate court reviewed the trial court's comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding class certification and determined that the trial court correctly applied Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(3) and relevant case law. No errors were found, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's decision. Judges Polen, Klein, and Shahood concur.
Legal Issues Addressed
Allegations of Improper Charges by Service Providerssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Christopher, representing Florida consumers, challenged BellSouth's imposition of a 'Roamer Admin Fee' as improper, forming the basis of the class action.
Reasoning: Christopher, representing himself and other similarly situated Florida consumers, alleges that BellSouth improperly charged a $3.50 monthly 'Roamer Admin Fee' for calls made outside its service area.
Appellate Review of Trial Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found no errors in the trial court's decision, affirming the order approving a limited class action against BellSouth.
Reasoning: No errors were found, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's decision.
Class Action Certification under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(3)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court applied the standards for class action certification correctly, allowing a limited class action to proceed against BellSouth.
Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the trial court's comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding class certification and determined that the trial court correctly applied Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(3) and relevant case law.