Opinion ID: 543617
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts at Your Fingertips

Text: 2 In 1983, Bruce and James Penny began operating a bulletin board service in three Texas cities. Their business provided information exchange services through the use of computer systems, modems, and telephone lines. The Pennys had sixteen telephone access lines for which they were paying the lowest rates available to a business. 3 According to the Pennys, in 1986 and 1987 the level of use of their service declined significantly. At that time they became aware that their competitors were being charged a lower rate for their telephone access. Southwestern Bell, they claim, was billing the competitors at a residential rate rather than at the business rate charged the Pennys. 4 In March 1987, Bruce Penny sent a letter to Southwestern Bell complaining of the rates he was being charged. Three months later, he filed an informal complaint with the PUC. He alleged that the disparate rate application was interfering with his ability to compete. 5 The PUC responded by letter to Penny's claim. The letter answered a number of specific questions posed by Penny and then concluded that the actions taken by Southwestern Bell are correct and in accordance with its tariffs. Penny filed an opposition to the PUC's action, thereby requesting a hearing. An administrative law judge found that the PUC had jurisdiction in the matter, pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 1446c (Vernon Supp.1990). The ALJ scheduled a prehearing conference. 6 Before the conference took place, Bell filed a proposal for new tariffs for the types of lines used in bulletin board services. During the prehearing conference, the ALJ suggested that Penny's complaint could be resolved. The parties reached a tentative settlement under which Bell's General Counsel would write a letter stating that Bell had not properly applied certain tariffs, and Penny would be permitted to intervene in the case involving Bell's recent tariff proposal. The ALJ set a date for the letter to be filed, after which time Penny would withdraw his complaint if satisfied with the letter or request leave to amend his complaint if dissatisfied. 7 In accordance with the agreement reached during the prehearing conference, Bell's General Counsel began to draft the requested letter. In the meantime, the ALJ scheduled a prehearing conference on Bell's proposed tariffs. Penny was permitted to intervene in that proceeding. On June 10, 1988, the day after that conference was held, Bell filed with the ALJ the final draft of its letter. Penny dismissed his original complaint. The case involving Bell's proposed new tariffs has not come a long distance; it is still pending. 8 In September 1988, Bruce and James Penny filed the present suit in Texas court, alleging a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Tex.Bus. & Comm.Code Ann. Sec. 17.01 et seq. (Vernon 1987 Supp.1990). They claim that they were charged at a higher rate than their competitors and that this rate disparity eventually forced them out of business. Additionally, they claim that Southwestern Bell retaliated against them for complaining about the differences in rates. The retaliation, they contend, took the form of charging even higher rates. They also allege that Bell made misrepresentations to the Pennys at the time that they subscribed to the service. 9 Southwestern Bell removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. The district court dismissed the suit without prejudice on the ground that the Pennys failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by PURA. The Court determined that the case could not be refiled until the PUC issued findings on the discriminatory pricing. 10 The Pennys urge that the district court wrongly required them to exhaust administrative remedies. They argue that PURA does not grant the PUC exclusive jurisdiction over their case because the PUC has no authority to hear their DTPA claims and because the PUC is powerless to award the damages they claim resulted from the discriminatory rate application. The Pennys' contention that the PUC does not have exclusive jurisdiction over their claim rings true. We acknowledge, however, that the PUC offers expertise and uniformity that could aid in the adjudication of this case. For this reason we apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. That doctrine allows a court to put a case on hold, pending a specific administrative decision.