Case ID: so2d_221/html/0200-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Phyllis COLE, personally, and on behalf of all others similarly situated In the State of Florida, to-wit, all customers of Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company in the State of Florida, Appellants, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a New York corporation doing business in Florida; William T. Mayo, Chairman of the Florida Public Service Commission, an agency of the State of Florida, and individually; Jerry W. Carter, as member of the Florida Public Service Commission, an agency of the State of Florida, and individually; and Edwin L. Mason, as a member of the Florida Public Service Commission, an agency of the State of Florida, and individually, Appellees.
    No. 68-807.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
    April 8, 1969.
    Rehearing Denied April 30, 1969.
    
      Weinstein, Weissenborn & Burr, Miami, for appellants.
    Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, Miami, Lewis W. Petteway, Tallahassee, for appellees.
    Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an alleged class plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of a final judgment dismissing her action contesting certain telephone rates fixed by the Public Service Commission. Said final judgment, in part, found that the trial court was without jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s action was “not ripe, as a matter of policy, for judicial determination, and that justice requires the application of the principles of prior resort and exhaustion of administrative remedies,”. We affirm. Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 586; Florida State Board of Medical Examiners v. James, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 574; Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576; 1 Fla.Jur., Administrative Law, § 234; 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, §§ 788, 789, 795.

Said affirmance is without prejudice to the plaintiff instituting such action as she might have for any illegally collected rate. Natural Gas Co. of West Virginia v. Sommerville, 113 W.Va. 100, 166 S.E. 852; Charleston Apartments Corporation v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 118 W.Va. 694, 192 S.E. 294.

Affirmed, as modified. 
      
      . We do not, by this opinion, determine that tlie plaintiff is or is not a proper person to institute a class action, nor that the cause is a proper subject matter for a class action.