throbber
Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:792
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Saima Ali Gipson, Esq. (SBN 324752)
`EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC
`1001 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Telephone: (213) 382-2222
`Facsimile: (213) 382-2230
`Email: sali@ejlglaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`LANCE BAIRD, FABIAN HUERTA, AND KOYAANA REDSTAR individually,
`and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS
`
`Assigned to the Hon. Fernando L.
`Aenlle-Rocha in Courtroom 6B
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS
`ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`LANCE BAIRD, FABIAN HUERTA,
`AND KOYAANA REDSTAR,
`individually and on behalf of a class of
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
` vs.
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`dba CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
`(CCI), INC., a Delaware Corporation;
`and DOES 1-100,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:793
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Lance Baird, Koyaana Redstar, and Fabian Huerta (“Plaintiffs”),
`
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“the Class”), alleges, upon
`
`personal knowledge as to themselves and upon information and belief as to other
`
`matters, as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Defendant Charter Communications, Inc., dba Charter Communications
`
`(CCI), Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”) provides internet service to customers across the
`
`United States and the State of California under the branding name “Spectrum.”
`
`2.
`
`In steep competition with Comcast and other internet providers,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Defendant is forced to reinvent advertising to attract new customers to its service.
`
`11
`
`3.
`
`One way Defendant draws in new customers in California is to offer
`
`12
`
`“free” internet modems for use by customers in their homes.
`
`13
`
`4.
`
`New customers then have the option for how they would like their new
`
`14
`
`Spectrum internet service to be set up inside their homes. Defendant advertises that
`
`15
`
`customers can either pay a professional to come to their home to install the service –
`
`16
`
`which costs upwards of $50 – or they can self-install the service. Self-installing
`
`17
`
`Defendant’s internet service is, according to Defendant “quick and easy.” All the
`
`18
`
`customer needs is one of Defendant’s “free” modems, or a modem of their own that
`
`19
`
`will meet the technical specifications required to receive Defendant’s service, and the
`
`20
`
`“step-by-step” instructions included with the modem and available online through
`
`21
`
`Defendant’s website.
`
`22
`
`5.
`
`Despite advertising that its modems are “free,” Defendant charges a one-
`
`23
`
`time self-installation “fee” for new customers of its internet service. In addition, many
`
`24
`
`customers are required to physically travel out to Defendant’s stores, pick up the
`
`25
`
`modems, and return back to install the service themselves.
`
`26
`
`6.
`
`Defendant also charges the one-time self-installation “fee” for new
`
`27
`
`customers who opt to use their own modems.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant provides no service or anything of value in exchange for the
`
`28
`
`
`
`-2-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:794
`
`
`
`
`
`one-time self-installation “fee.” Defendant misrepresents that the “fee” is being paid
`
`in exchange for anything of value – a fact which is not apparent at the point of sale.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant intentionally misrepresents its modems as being “free” for new
`
`customers.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant intentionally misrepresents that the self-installation “fee” is
`
`being paid in exchange for anything of value.
`
`10. Plaintiffs and the putative class purchased subscriptions for Defendant’s
`
`internet service and paid a one-time self-installation fee in exchange for no service or
`
`value from Defendant. Plaintiffs and the putative class were uniformly promised “free”
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`use of Defendant’s internet modems, but it is unclear whether the one-time fee actually
`
`11
`
`went toward paying for use of Defendant’s modem.
`
`12
`
`11. Plaintiffs and the putative class were directly and uniformly damaged by
`
`13
`
`Defendant’s intentional misrepresentations.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`12. Plaintiff Lance Baird is an individual resident of Los Angeles County,
`
`PARTIES
`
`16
`
`California.
`
`17
`
`13. Plaintiff Koyaan Redstar is an individual resident of Los Angeles County,
`
`18
`
`California.
`
`19
`
`14. Plaintiff Fabian Huerta is an individual resident of Los Angeles County,
`
`20
`
`California.
`
`21
`
`15. Defendant is a Delaware corporation that is qualified to conduct business
`
`22
`
`in the State of California. Defendant operates dozens of physical stores throughout
`
`23
`
`California, and advertises and markets its services directly to customers in California
`
`24
`
`and in the United States.
`
`25
`
`16. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities of Does 1-100 and
`
`26
`
`therefore uses fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the complaint to allege the names
`
`27
`
`and capacities when ascertained.
`
`17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, its contractors, agents,
`
`28
`
`
`
`-3-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:795
`
`
`
`
`
`directly or else through other persons acting on its behalf, conspired to, agreed to,
`
`contributed to, assisted with, and/or otherwise caused all of the wrongful acts, defects,
`
`and omissions which are the subject matter of this complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`18. At all relevant times Plaintiffs were citizens and residents of Los Angeles
`
`County, California.
`
`19. Defendant is a for-profit corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Delaware with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut.
`
`20. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this class action,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`which is properly filed in Los Angeles County, because Defendant’s obligations and
`
`11
`
`liability arose from business activities conducted, in large part, in Los Angeles County.
`
`12
`
`Those business activities include purposefully availing itself of California’s markets,
`
`13
`
`including the Los Angeles County market, making false statements to consumers in
`
`14
`
`Los Angeles County, and entering into fraudulent contracts with consumers in Los
`
`15
`
`Angeles County.
`
`16
`
`21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is
`
`17
`
`authorized to do business in California, which is a sufficient bases to render the
`
`18
`
`exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible under notions of fair play and
`
`19
`
`substantial justice.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`22. Plaintiff Lance Baird purchased internet service from Defendant on
`
`22
`
`October 10, 2019, in the state of California.
`
`23
`
`23. Plaintiff Koyaana Redstar purchased internet service from Defendant on
`
`24
`
`August 29, 2019.
`
`25
`
`24. Plaintiff Fabian Huerta purchased internet service from Defendant on
`
`26
`
`August 16, 2019.
`
`27
`
`25. Plaintiffs each made their decision to purchase internet service from
`
`28
`
`Defendant based on Defendant’s advertised rate for its service, including that there
`
`
`
`-4-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:796
`
`
`
`
`
`would be no additional fee for his use of Defendant’s internet modem with the internet
`
`service.
`
`26. Plaintiffs initially understood that the $9.99 fee for self-installation was
`
`being paid in exchange for something of value. Only upon ordering the service,
`
`traveling to the store to pick up the modem or having it delivered, and having to set up
`
`their service did they understand that they had paid a fee in exchange for nothing of
`
`value.
`
`27. Defendant uniformly misrepresented to Plaintiffs and the putative class
`
`that use of its modems is “free,” and that the $9.99 fee was required to be paid in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`exchange for something of value from Defendant. If Defendant decided to charge
`
`11
`
`$9.99 as a one-time rental fee for its modems, then it made a material misrepresentation
`
`12
`
`by simultaneously claiming it was providing its modems for “free” and hiding the true
`
`13
`
`nature of the $9.99 fee. If Defendant was simply charging $9.99 for providing no
`
`14
`
`service at all, it was charging a fee not authorized by law and making a material
`
`15
`
`misrepresentation by deceiving Plaintiffs and the putative class that they would receive
`
`16
`
`something of value in exchange for that fee.
`
`17
`
`28. Plaintiffs and the putative class materially relied on Defendant’s
`
`18
`
`misrepresentations and were uniformly harmed by Defendant’s conduct. This is
`
`19
`
`evident because many of Defendant’s competitors did not provide “free” modems to
`
`20
`
`their customers. Thus, making such an offer was an additional value intended to and
`
`21
`
`resulting in attracting additional customers to Defendant’s service. Further, the $9.99
`
`22
`
`fee was – depending on the internet package a customer purchased – as much as 22%
`
`23
`
`of the monthly cost of the service being provided. Thus, the fee was a significant
`
`24
`
`expenditure when compared against the cost of the service itself making it, necessarily,
`
`25
`
`a non-trivial expenditure.
`
`26
`
`29. Defendant intended that customers would rely on its misrepresentations
`
`27
`
`in deciding to purchase internet service for the price paid from Defendant by making
`
`28
`
`misrepresentations at the point of sale. Defendant’s intent is manifested by its
`
`
`
`-5-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:797
`
`
`
`
`
`ubiquitous promulgation of “free” modems in its advertising and its $9.99 presentation
`
`of its fee without any explanation of what the fee would actually be exchanged for.
`
`Defendant manifested its intent to hide the true nature of its fee by making it mandatory
`
`and by providing no explanation of what customers received in exchange for the fee –
`
`thereby preventing customers from realizing that they were getting nothing in exchange
`
`for the fee.
`
`30. Defendant’s illegal conduct was the proximate and direct cause of
`
`Plaintiffs and the putative class’s injuries.
`
`31. Plaintiffs will continue to have a desire and need for internet service
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`throughout the foreseeable future as internet is a necessity of modern society.
`
`11
`
`32. Defendant is still sending advertisements, via e-mail and/or mailers to
`
`12
`
`their physical home addresses, to Plaintiffs, advertising their various products, from
`
`13
`
`internet service deals to packages that include cable and cellular plans.
`
`14
`
`33. Spectrum Internet is one of the only few internet service providers in
`
`15
`
`Southern California. “For most of Los Angeles, choosing an internet provider means
`
`16
`
`17
`
`choosing between two companies: Spectrum and AT&T.”1
`
`34. Due to Defendant continued misrepresentation of its $9.99 fee for self-
`
`18
`
`installation of Defendant’s internet services in its advertising, Plaintiffs cannot confirm
`
`19
`
`whether Defendant’s future statements about its Spectrum internet service would in
`
`20
`
`fact be true.
`
`21
`
`35. Despite competitive pricing, Plaintiff Redstar, who is not a current
`
`22
`
`Spectrum customer, cannot rely on the truth of Spectrum’s current or future
`
`23
`
`advertisements about its internet service when considering whether to switch internet
`
`24
`
`service providers.
`
`25
`
`36. Plaintiff Huerta is still currently using Spectrum’s internet services.
`
`26
`
`However, despite a desire to take advantage of competitive prices for bundling his
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`1 Internet Service Provider Options in Los Angeles, Connect California, 2022,
`https://www.connectcalifornia.com/internet-service/los-angeles.
`
`-6-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:798
`
`
`
`
`
`home internet with other services from Spectrum, like cable or cellular plans, Plaintiff
`
`Huerta is unable to trust the veracity of Spectrum’s statements about its other services
`
`when it is still misrepresenting the nature of its fees in advertising in relation to the
`
`$9.99 fee for self-installation.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`37. This action is brought on behalf of the following classes:
`
`a. Store Pickup Class: All persons in California who purchased internet
`
`service from Defendant, and to whom Defendant promised “free” use
`
`of Defendant’s internet modems, but were charged $9.99 to self-install
`
`Defendant’s internet service.
`
`b. Own Modem Class: All persons in California who purchased internet
`
`service from Defendant, and were charged $9.99 to self-install
`
`Defendant’s internet service.
`
`38. Excluded from the Classes are Defendant, its legal representatives,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`assigns, and successors, and any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling
`
`16
`
`interest. Also, excluded from the Classes is the judge to whom this case is assigned,
`
`17
`
`the Judge’s immediate family, and Plaintiffs’ counsel and their employees. Plaintiffs
`
`18
`
`reserve the right to amend the above-stated class definitions based on facts learned in
`
`19
`
`discovery, as well as adding subclasses as the Court sees fit.
`
`20
`
`39. Defendant is one of the largest internet service providers the united states.
`
`21
`
`https://ir.charter.com/static-files/c6af1cf1-7a43-4c40-a6e4-86bf1dc31de3 (at p.17).
`
`22
`
`In 2018, Defendant added 1,300,000 internet customers. (Id. at p.7). Considering
`
`23
`
`Defendant’s sizeable footprint in California (id. at p. 9) the putative Class is so
`
`24
`
`numerous that joinder of all members of the Class would be impractical.
`
`25
`
`40. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class
`
`26
`
`and predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members. These
`
`27
`
`common legal and factual questions include but are not limited to the following:
`
`28
`
`
`
`a. Whether Defendant’s advertising of its modems as “free” amounted to
`
`-7-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:799
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`a material misrepresentation;
`
`b. Whether Defendant’s $9.99 fee for self-installation amounted to a
`
`material representation when no goods or services were provided in
`
`exchange;
`
`c. Whether Defendant’s conduct damaged Plaintiffs and the putative
`
`class and in what amount;
`
`d. Whether Defendant intended Plaintiffs and the putative class would
`
`rely on its misrepresentations in deciding to purchase its internet
`
`service;
`
`e. Whether Defendant negligently, willfully, and/or knowingly
`
`misrepresented the sale of its internet service to Plaintiffs and the
`
`putative class;
`
`f. Whether Defendant’s conduct violated California’s consumer
`
`protection laws;
`
`g. Whether a reasonable consumer would have relied on Defendant’s
`
`advertising in deciding to purchase Defendant’s internet service;
`
`h. Whether Defendant should be required to change its advertising
`
`practice and/or eliminate its $9.99 fee for self-installation of its internet
`
`service.
`
`41. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Class and within each subclass and are
`
`21
`
`based on the same facts, legal theories and/or primary rights of all Class members,
`
`22
`
`because Plaintiffs and each Class member were identically injured in paying $9.99 in
`
`23
`
`exchange for nothing of value. The class action procedure is also superior to individual
`
`24
`
`lawsuits due to the massive volume of potential individual lawsuits and the similarities
`
`25
`
`that persist in each Class member’s claims when compared against the predicted
`
`26
`
`amount of recovery per Class member.
`
`27
`
`42. Plaintiffs will adequately and fairly protect the interests of the Class and
`
`28
`
`each subclass. They have retained counsel experienced in class action litigation.
`
`
`
`-8-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:800
`
`
`
`
`
`Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any interest that might cause them to not
`
`vigorously pursue this action in the Class’ and subclass’ best interests.
`
`43. Certification of the Class and each subclass is proper under California’s
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Court.
`
`44. Plaintiffs and their counsel anticipate that notice to the proposed Class
`
`will be effectuated by mailing notice to Defendant’s internet service customers, whose
`
`addresses Defendant maintains in the normal course.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Negligent/Intentional Misrepresentation – By Plaintiffs on behalf of the Class,
`
`against Defendant and Does 1-100)
`
`45. Plaintiffs and the Class repeat and reallege each and every allegation
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`above as if set forth in full herein.
`
`13
`
`46. Defendant made multiple, uniform, and material misrepresentations to
`
`14
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class; specifically, that use of its modems with its internet service
`
`15
`
`would be “free” when in fact it was not, and that the $9.99 fee was being paid in
`
`16
`
`exchange for something of value when in fact it was not.
`
`17
`
`47. Defendant’s misrepresentations were material in multiple respects. First,
`
`18
`
`many of Defendant’s competitors did not provide “free” modems to their customers.
`
`19
`
`Thus, making such an offer was an additional value intended to and resulting in
`
`20
`
`attracting additional customers to Defendant’s service. Second, the $9.99 fee was –
`
`21
`
`depending on the internet package a customer purchased – as much as 22% of the
`
`22
`
`monthly cost of the service being provided. Thus, the fee was a significant expenditure
`
`23
`
`when compared against the cost of the service itself.
`
`24
`
`48.
`
` Defendant intended that Plaintiffs and the Class would rely on its
`
`25
`
`multiple, uniform, and material misrepresentations manifested by its ubiquitous
`
`26
`
`promulgation of “free” modems in advertising and its $9.99 presentation of its fee
`
`27
`
`without any explanation of what the fee would actually be exchanged for. Defendant
`
`28
`
`manifested its intent to hide the true nature of its fee by making it mandatory and by
`
`
`
`-9-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:801
`
`
`
`
`
`providing no explanation of what customers received in exchange for the fee – thereby
`
`preventing customers from realizing that they were getting nothing in exchange for the
`
`fee.
`
`49. Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably relied on Defendant’s multiple,
`
`uniform, and material misrepresentations in purchasing Defendant’s internet service as
`
`evidenced by the misrepresentations being present at the point of sale.
`
`50. Plaintiffs and the Class were and currently remain damaged as a
`
`proximate and direct result of Defendant’s multiple, uniform, and material
`
`misrepresentations.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`51. Plaintiffs’ and the Class’ reasonable reliance on Defendant’s multiple,
`
`11
`
`uniform, and material misrepresentations were a substantial factor in causing their
`
`12
`
`damages.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§
`
`1750, et seq. – By Plaintiffs on behalf of California Subclass, against Defendant
`
`52. Plaintiffs and the Class repeat and reallege each and every allegation
`
`and Does 1-100)
`
`18
`
`above as if set forth in full herein.
`
`19
`
`53. Defendant made multiple, uniform, and material misrepresentations to
`
`20
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class; specifically, that use of its modems with its internet service
`
`21
`
`would be “free” when in fact it was not, and that the $9.99 fee was being paid in
`
`22
`
`exchange for something of value when in fact it was not.
`
`23
`
`54. Defendant’s misrepresentations were material in multiple respects. First,
`
`24
`
`many of Defendant’s competitors did not provide “free” modems to their customers.
`
`25
`
`Thus, making such an offer was an additional value intended to and resulting in
`
`26
`
`attracting additional customers to Defendant’s service. Second, the $9.99 fee was –
`
`27
`
`depending on the internet package a customer purchased – as much as 22% of the
`
`28
`
`monthly cost of the service being provided. Thus, the fee was a significant expenditure
`
`
`
`-10-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:802
`
`
`
`
`
`when compared against the cost of the service itself.
`
`55. Defendant intended that Plaintiffs and the Class would rely on its
`
`multiple, uniform, and material misrepresentations manifested by its ubiquitous
`
`promulgation of “free” modems in advertising and its $9.99 presentation of its fee
`
`without any explanation of what the fee would actually be exchanged for. Defendant
`
`manifested its intent to hide the true nature of its fee by making it mandatory and by
`
`providing no explanation of what customers received in exchange for the fee – thereby
`
`preventing customers from realizing that they were getting nothing in exchange for the
`
`fee.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`56. Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably relied on Defendant’s multiple,
`
`11
`
`uniform, and material misrepresentations in purchasing Defendant’s internet service as
`
`12
`
`evidenced by the misrepresentations being present at the point of sale.
`
`13
`
`57. Plaintiffs and the Class were and currently remain damaged as a result of
`
`14
`
`Defendant’s multiple, uniform, and material misrepresentations.
`
`15
`
`58. That material misrepresentation to Plaintiffs and the Class was that a good
`
`16
`
`(the modem) had characteristics and benefits (being “free”) which it did not have in
`
`17
`
`violation of California Civil Code § 1770(a)(5).
`
`18
`
`59. The material misrepresentation to Plaintiffs and the Class was that a
`
`19
`
`service (the one purportedly being offered in exchange for $9.99) had characteristics,
`
`20
`
`uses and benefits that it did not have (it had no value whatsoever) in violation of
`
`21
`
`California Civil Code § 1770(a)(5).
`
`22
`
`60. Defendant violated California Civil Code § 1770(a)(9) by advertising its
`
`23
`
`modems as “free” when it intended to and did charge customers for their use of the
`
`24
`
`modems.
`
`25
`
`61. Defendant violated California Civil Code § 1770(a)(9) by advertising its
`
`26
`
`self-installation service as conveying something of value to customers when in fact it
`
`27
`
`did not.
`
`62. Defendant violated California Civil Code § 1770(a)(14) by advertising its
`
`28
`
`
`
`-11-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:803
`
`
`
`
`
`modems as “free” when it intended to and did charge customers for their use of the
`
`modems.
`
`63. Defendant violated California Civil Code § 1770(a)(14) by advertising its
`
`self-installation service as conveying something of value to customers when in fact it
`
`did not.
`
`64.
`
` Defendant violated California Civil Code § 1770(a)(19) by advertising
`
`its modems as “free” when it intended to and did charge customers for their use of the
`
`modems.
`
`65. Defendant violated California Civil Code § 1770(a)(19) by advertising its
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`self-installation service as conveying something of value to customers when in fact it
`
`11
`
`did not.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`66. Defendant’s deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.
`
`67. Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an
`
`14
`
`ascertainable economic injury to Plaintiffs and the Class.
`
`15
`
`68. Plaintiffs sent notice to Defendant as required by California Civil Code §
`
`16
`
`1782, requesting Defendant cease its illegal actions. Despite Plaintiffs’ requests that
`
`17
`
`Defendant stop its false advertising, stop charging customers $9.99 for self-installation,
`
`18
`
`and refund all illegally gotten gains Defendant has refused to do so.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Violation of California Business and Professions Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
`
`§§ 17200, et seq. – By Plaintiffs on behalf of the Class, against Defendant and
`
`69. Plaintiffs and the Class repeat and reallege each and every allegation
`
`Does 1-100)
`
`24
`
`above as if set forth in full herein.
`
`25
`
`70. California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., (hereinafter
`
`26
`
`referred at the “UCL”) prohibits unfair competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair
`
`27
`
`or fraudulent business acts or practices.
`
`71. UCL section 17204 allows a person injured by the unfair business acts or
`
`28
`
`
`
`-12-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:804
`
`
`
`
`
`practices to prosecute a civil action for violation of the UCL.
`
`72. Defendant made multiple, uniform, and material misrepresentations to
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class; specifically, that use of its modems with its internet service
`
`would be “free” when in fact it was not, and that the $9.99 fee was being paid in
`
`exchange for something of value when in fact it was not.
`
`73. The acts and practices described above constitute unfair, unlawful and
`
`fraudulent business practices, and unfair competition, within the meaning of the UCL.
`
`Among other
`
`things, Defendant
`
`intentionally defrauded –
`
`through material
`
`misrepresentations – customers into selecting its service over the service of its
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`competitors in order to gain a competitive advantage resulting in unfair competition in
`
`11
`
`its industry.
`
`12
`
`74. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and practices,
`
`13
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered a loss of money and property.
`
`14
`
`75. UCL § 17203 provides a court may restore to any person in interest money
`
`15
`
`or property which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.
`
`16
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class are each entitled to restitution pursuant to UCL § 17203 for all
`
`17
`
`monies improperly overpaid to Defendant in connection with their purchase of internet
`
`18
`
`service during the four-year period prior to filing this Complaint.
`
`19
`
`76. UCL § 17202 provides “notwithstanding section 3369 of the Civil Code,
`
`20
`
`specific or preventative relief may be granted to enforce a penalty, forfeiture, or penal
`
`21
`
`law in a case of unfair competition.” Plaintiffs and the putative class are entitled to all
`
`22
`
`applicable penalty provisions of the Labor Code pursuant to Business and Professions
`
`23
`
`Code § 17202.
`
`24
`
`77. Plaintiffs’ success in this action will enforce the important rights affecting
`
`25
`
`the public interest, and in that regard Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves as well as
`
`26
`
`others similarly situated and, accordingly, pursuant to the UCL, this Court should make
`
`27
`
`such orders or judgments as may be necessary to prevent continued fraud by Defendant
`
`28
`
`of any unlawful or deceptive practices prohibited by the UCL, including but not limited
`
`
`
`-13-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:805
`
`
`
`
`
`to disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, which may be necessary to restore Plaintiffs and
`
`the Class the money Defendant has unlawfully obtained.
`
`78. Plaintiffs herein takes it upon themselves to enforce these lawful claims.
`
`There is a financial burden involved in pursuing this action, an action seeking to
`
`vindicate a public right, and it would be against the interest of justice to penalize
`
`Plaintiffs by forcing them and/or their class to pay other parties’ attorney fees from the
`
`recovery in this action pursuant to California’s Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5 and
`
`otherwise.
`
`79. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq. – By
`
`Plaintiffs on behalf of the Class, against Defendant and Does 1-100)
`
`80. Plaintiffs and the Class repeat and reallege each and every allegation
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`above as if set forth in full herein.
`
`15
`
`81. Defendant made multiple, uniform, and material misrepresentations to
`
`16
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class; specifically, that use of its modems with its internet service
`
`17
`
`would be “free” when in fact it was not, and that the $9.99 fee was being paid in
`
`18
`
`exchange for something of value when in fact it was not.
`
`19
`
`82. Defendant’s misrepresentations were material in multiple respects. First,
`
`20
`
`many of Defendant’s competitors did not provide “free” modems to their customers.
`
`21
`
`Thus, making such an offer was an additional value intended to and resulting in
`
`22
`
`attracting additional customers to Defendant’s service. Second, the $9.99 fee was –
`
`23
`
`depending on the internet package a customer purchased – as much as 22% of the
`
`24
`
`monthly cost of the service being provided. Thus, the fee was a significant expenditure
`
`25
`
`when compared against the cost of the service itself.
`
`26
`
`83. Defendant intended that Plaintiffs and the Class would rely on its
`
`27
`
`multiple, uniform, and material misrepresentations manifested by its ubiquitous
`
`28
`
`promulgation of “free” modems in advertising and its $9.99 presentation of its fee
`
`
`
`-14-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:806
`
`
`
`
`
`without any explanation of what the fee would actually be exchanged for. Defendant
`
`manifested its intent to hide the true nature of its fee by making it mandatory and by
`
`providing no explanation of what customers received in exchange for the fee – thereby
`
`preventing customers from realizing that they were getting nothing in exchange for the
`
`fee.
`
`84. Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably relied on Defendant’s multiple,
`
`uniform, and material misrepresentations in purchasing Defendant’s internet service as
`
`evidenced by the misrepresentations being present at the point of sale.
`
`85. Plaintiffs and the Class were and currently remain damaged as a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`proximate and direct result of Defendant’s multiple, uniform, and material
`
`11
`
`misrepresentations.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`86. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Unjust Enrichment – By Plaintiffs on behalf of the Class, against Defendant
`
`87. Plaintiffs and the Class repeat and reallege each and every allegation
`
`and Does 1-100)
`
`17
`
`above as if set forth in full herein.
`
`18
`
`88. Defendant uniformly misrepresented that use of its modems with its
`
`19
`
`internet service would be “free” when in fact it was not, and that the $9.99 fee was
`
`20
`
`being paid in exchange for something of value when in fact it was not.
`
`21
`
`89. Defendant received such monies from Plaintiffs and the Class based, at
`
`22
`
`least in part, on its misrepresentations. Had Plaintiffs and the Class known or had
`
`23
`
`reason to know that the misrepresentations were in fact false, they would have, at least,
`
`24
`
`paid less monies to Defendant for the internet service.
`
`25
`
`90. Defendant retained, and continues to retain, such monies that it received
`
`26
`
`from Plaintiffs and the Class and as a result, has been unjustly enriched to the detriment
`
`27
`
`of Plaintiffs and the Class.
`
`28
`
`///
`
`
`
`-15-
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS Document 69 Filed 04/18/22 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:807
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket