5. Discussion

If the lack of signatures were the only objection to this complaint, the Commission would either grant complainant time to cure that defect or would permit a refiling of the complaint in compliance with Pub. Util. Code § 1702.

The more substantive objection, however, is that the challenged rate is the one set forth in Pacific's tariffs. That rate was authorized by this Commission in D.94-09-065 and compliance Advice Letter 20400. Tariffed rates have the force and effect of law (Colich & Sons v. Pacific Bell (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1225), and Pacific is required to adhere to them.

Pacific admits that, in error, it underbilled complainant for his foreign exchange service between 1995 and early 2000. It does not now seek to recover the underbilled amount. There is no question, however, that once Pacific discovered its error, it was required by Section 532 to assess the lawfully tariffed rate for the foreign exchange service in the North Tahoe area.

As to what complainant believes to be an oral agreement by which Pacific would maintain a $10.65 foreign exchange rate in perpetuity, such an agreement would be unenforceable as a matter of law. First, Pacific is prohibited under Section 532 from agreeing to any rate inconsistent with its tariffs. Second, under California's Statute of Frauds (codified at Civ. Code § 1624), an agreement that cannot be fully performed within a year cannot be an oral contract and must be reduced to writing in order to be enforceable.

Finally, we do not agree with complainant that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to rule on Pacific's foreign exchange rate and that only the Nevada Commission may do so. The Commission has jurisdiction to regulate the rates that local exchange carriers charge to California end-users. Complainant is a resident of Kings Beach, California, and is a Pacific end-user. Moreover, the Commission has approved tariffs specifically addressing the foreign exchange rate challenged in this complaint. As Pacific points out, if complainant were correct that this Commission lacks jurisdiction, we then would have no choice but to dismiss the complaint and deny the relief requested.

Accordingly, we grant Pacific's motion to dismiss under Pub. Util. Code §§ 1702 and 532. We note that complainant still has the option of converting to less costly flat rate service in his local exchange area. While he may incur toll charges for calls that are toll-free under the foreign exchange service, the total cost each month could be less than the tariff rate for foreign exchange.

The scope of this proceeding is set forth in the complaint and answer. Our order today confirms that ALJ Walker is the presiding officer, and that no hearing is necessary.