989 F.Supp. 636 (1997) Leslie J. BAUCHELLE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT & T Corp., Defendant. No. CIV. 97-1710 MTB. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. November 17, 1997. *637 *638 *639 Allyn Zissel Lite of Goldstein, Lite & DePalma, P.C., Newark, NJ, for Plaintiff. Terry L. Trantina, Ravin, Sarasohn, Cook, Baumgarden, Fisch & Rosen, P.C., Roseland, NJ, for Defendant. OPINION CHESLER, United States Magistrate Judge. I. Introduction This matter comes before the Court on the application of Plaintiff Leslie J. Bauchelle for remand of this action to the New Jersey Superior Court. The motion was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry, U.S.D.J. Oral argument was heard on August 7, 1997. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for remand is granted. II. Background Plaintiff Leslie J. Bauchelle, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed this class action Complaint against Defendant AT & T Corporation on February 18, 1997 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. Plaintiff and the stated Class represent persons who: since the initiation of AT & T's 10-cents-per-minute long-distance telephone service option for residential customers, contacted AT & T and asked for or about AT & T's least expensive residential long-distance telephone service option, were told that an option other than AT & T's 10-cents-per-minute option was the least expensive option offered to residential customers, and subsequently signed up for an AT & T residential long-distance telephone service option other than the 10-cents-per-minute option. (Compl. at ¶ 5.) The class excludes Defendant and employees of Defendant. (Id.) Defendant provides interstate communications services including long-distance telephone services and is a common carrier subject to the Federal Communications Act ("FCA" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. Section 203(a) of the Act requires carriers to file tariffs, which show the carriers' charges for service, and keep such tariffs open for public inspection in the manner directed by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). Section 203(c) prohibits carriers from charging any rates other than those set forth in the filed tariff for the particular service to which the customer subscribed. Defendant's "One Rate" and "One Rate Plus" residential service plans were both federally tariffed service offerings properly filed with the FCC and were in effect as of the date the above-captioned action was filed in state court. Plaintiff alleges that she contacted Defendant in December 1996 to inquire about its least expensive telephone service option for *640 residential customers. At the time, Defendant offered both the "One Rate" and "One Rate Plus" plans. Under the "One Rate" plan, Defendant offered residential long-distance telephone service consumers a 15-cents-a-minute option for calls placed at any time and on any day. Under the "One Rate Plus" plan, however, Defendant offered a 10-cents-a-minute option for calls placed at any time and on any day for a $4.95-per-month fee. Plaintiff was told only about the "One Rate" plan and contends that, by companywide policy, Defendant's representatives "regularly …
Original document ES