Opinion ID: 752071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merits of Marcus Appellants' Breach of Warranty Claim

Text: 34 Having determined that removal was proper, we turn to the Marcus appellants' assertion that the district court improperly dismissed their cause of action for breach of warranty. We review a district court's order granting a motion to dismiss de novo, construing all facts and drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Olkey v. Hyperion 1999 Term Trust, Inc., 98 F.3d 2, 4-5 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 2433, 138 L.Ed.2d 194 (1997). 35 As we have previously noted, the gravamen of the Marcus appellants' breach of warranty claim is that, in its filed tariff, AT & T expressly or impliedly warrants that AT & T would (1) disclose the true nature of its billing practices for residential long distance telephone calls and (2) bill in a manner that would result in 'True Savings' to its customers. Marcus Complaint p 42. We conclude that the Marcus appellants have failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the first purported warranty is met and the second warranty cannot be found in the tariff either expressly or by implication. 36 The tariff filed by AT & T with the FCC states in pertinent part: 37 A. Initial Period--Initial Period is the initial rate increment of a [long distance] call. The specific length of the initial period is indicated on the applicable rate schedule. 38 B. Additional Minute--Additional Minute is the rate element used to bill for the chargeable time when a [long distance] call continues beyond the initial period. Additional Minute begins when the initial period ends (e.g., with the second minute of a call for which the initial period is one minute). Additional Minute rates apply to each additional minute, or any fraction thereof, that chargeable time continues beyond the initial period. 39 Peterson Aff., Ex. A (Dec. 7, 1995) (emphasis added). Thus, AT & T expressly discloses its billing practices in the filed tariff; the Marcus appellants have not shown why this disclosure is insufficient to meet the first claimed warranty obligation. 40 As to the second claimed warranty, the tariff makes no promise with regard to billing practices that will result in True Savings, an advertising slogan from which contractual obligations generally do not arise, see generally E. Allan Farnsworth, 1 Farnsworth on Contracts § 3.10 at 217-18 (1990). As the Marcus appellants concede, AT & T's tariffs do not contain any provisions concerning disclosure of its rounding-up practices in its bills or advertisements (or elsewhere), and plaintiffs accordingly were unable to sue for tariff violations. Marcus Appellants's Reply Brief at 2. We too find no implied or express promise on which the Marcus appellants' breach of warranty claims can rest and therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of the breach of warranty claim. 41