Filing If [(1463 I‘i'82 E-Filed OSIIfli’ZflZO Ulrl‘i'fll PM
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
`
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT IN AND FUR
`
`MIAMI I—DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`GENERAL JURISDICTIDN DIVISION
`
`CASE HUI.
`
`CLASS REFRESEN'I‘A'I'IUN
`
`INDIVIDUALLY
`STEPHANIE ARMAS,
`AND ON BEHALF DI“ ALL O'I'HEIIS
`
`SIMILARLY SITUATED,
`
`Plaintiffis}.
`
`'0'.
`
`AMAZDNEUM, INC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFPS CLASS ACTION CDMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`f
`
`Plaintiff Stephanie Annas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated [the
`
`“Class"jt, brings this action against the Defendant, Amazoncont, Inc,, a foreign corporation, and
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES 3: JURISDICTIDN
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff Stephanie Armas is an individual over eighteen years of age, is a resident
`
`of Miami—Dade County, Florida. and is otherwise sm‘jurt's.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Amazoneotn, Iota, is a foreign corporation headquartered in Seattle,
`
`Washington, and which regularly conducts and transaets business in Miami—Bade County, Florida.
`
`3.
`
`This is an action in which the amount in controversy, in the aggregate, exceeds the
`
`sum ofthirty thousand dollars {SEQUIN}, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
`
`
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
`
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT IN AND FUR
`
`MIAMI I—DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`GENERAL JURISDICTIDN DIVISION
`
`CASE HUI.
`
`CLASS REFRESEN'I‘A'I'IUN
`
`INDIVIDUALLY
`STEPHANIE ARMAS,
`AND ON BEHALF DI“ ALL O'I'HEIIS
`
`SIMILARLY SITUATED,
`
`Plaintiffis}.
`
`'0'.
`
`AMAZDNEUM, INC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFPS CLASS ACTION CDMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`f
`
`Plaintiff Stephanie Annas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated [the
`
`“Class"jt, brings this action against the Defendant, Amazoncont, Inc,, a foreign corporation, and
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES 3: JURISDICTIDN
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff Stephanie Armas is an individual over eighteen years of age, is a resident
`
`of Miami—Dade County, Florida. and is otherwise sm‘jurt's.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Amazoneotn, Iota, is a foreign corporation headquartered in Seattle,
`
`Washington, and which regularly conducts and transaets business in Miami—Bade County, Florida.
`
`3.
`
`This is an action in which the amount in controversy, in the aggregate, exceeds the
`
`sum ofthirty thousand dollars {SEQUIN}, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper pursuant to Section 41051. Fla. Stat, because the wrongful acts
`
`underlying the Plaintiff‘s cause of action took place and Plaintiff‘s cause of action accrued in
`
`Miami-Dado County, Florida.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIDNS
`
`5.
`
`CDVlD-l9 is a novel form of coronavirus which, in earl}.r EUEU, emerged from
`
`Wuhan, China and spread easily and sustainany across geographic areas.
`
`6.
`
`As of the filing of this Complaint, the virus has spread to 194 countries (other than
`
`China], resulting in more than 109,999 confirmed cases and more than 3,399 deaths.
`
`7“.
`
`On February 23, 2929, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC")
`
`confirmed the first case ofCCl‘v'ID-IQ of “unknown origin" in the United States.
`
`3.
`
`In the two [2) weeks since that confirmation, LLS. public health officials have
`
`confirmed more than 4912] cases of CDVlD—l 9 across 35 states [including the State of Florida},
`
`resulting in at least 19 deaths.
`
`9.
`
`On March 9, 2929, Governor Ron DeSantis declared a state of emergency in
`
`Florida. That declaration allows the State of Florida "to create a unified command structure .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`and allows, if need be, out of state medical personnel to operate in Florida“ in order to address and
`
`work to contain the disease. Between March T and 3, 2929, the Florida Legislature agreed to
`
`allocate $25 million to fight the continued spread of coronavirus in the state.
`
`It].
`
`CDVID-l 9 ’s rapid spread and the very real threat of a widespread quarantine, have
`
`caused a run on various personal hygiene products, such as disinfectant wipes, hand sanitizer, and
`
`toilet paper.
`
`
`
`l l.
`
`Unfortunately retailers such as the Defendant here, are preying upon the puhlic's
`
`fear of a surging epidemic and using CIDF'I..ll[]I—lElI as an opportunity to pad profits by way of
`
`unlawful price increases.
`
`l2.
`
`Under Florida law, it is illegal to charge unco nscionablc prices for goods or services
`
`following a declared state of emergency. That is precisely,r what Amazon has done and continues
`
`to do.
`
`l3.
`
`Plaintiff Stephanie Armas is a mother of 5.
`
`[in March 9, 2020. she purchased a
`
`package of thirty-six rolls of toilet paper and a pack of 2,
`
`1 liter bottles of Purcll hand sanitizer
`
`from the Defendant.
`
`l4.
`
`The Defendant charged and the Plaintiff paid $99.00 for the toilet paper, and
`
`El sacs for the hand sanitizer.
`
`IS.
`
`The prices charged by the Defendant are grosst unconscionable. To be clear, hand
`
`sanitizer regularly retails for EST-3 per liter. Toilct paper customarily.r retails for around $| per roll.
`
`l6.
`
`All conditions prcccdcnt to the filing of this action have been satisfied, waived, or
`
`otherwise occurred.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`IT.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the following classes1
`
`pursuant to the provisions of 1.2mm}.
`
`l.22[l(b]{ | ], and l.22fl(b)[3} of the Florida Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure:
`
`W A
`
`ll consumers in the State of Florida who purchased hygeinic
`products from the Defendant following the declaration of a state of
`emergency1 on March 9, Edit].
`Ecluded from the Class are
`consumers that are not citizens of the State of Florida all persons
`who made a timelyr election to be excluded from the Class; thcjudgc
`to whom this case is assigned and hise'her immediate family1 and the
`
`
`
`attorneys of record.
`
`IS.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the Class definition based upon information
`
`learned through discovery.
`
`19.
`
`Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because
`
`Plaintiff can prove the elements of her claims on a class—wide basis using the same evidence as
`
`would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims.
`
`2t].
`
`This action has been brought and may be properly maintained on behalf of the Class
`
`proposed herein under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure l.22flta], lflifltbfll}, and |.22t}{b](3).
`
`2|.
`
`Numerositv. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l.22fl{a}{l}: The members of the
`
`Class are so numerous that individual joinder is impracticable. While Plaintiff is informed and
`
`believes that there are no Ic ss than thousands of members of the Class, the precise number of Class
`
`members is unknown to Plaintiff but may be ascertained from Defendant’s sales records. Class
`
`members may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, court-approved notice
`
`dissemination methods, which may be disseminated via LLS. Mail, email, Internet postings, radio
`
`and television commercials, and print notice.
`
`22.
`
`Cummtlnality. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure lllflfafll): This action involves
`
`common questions of law and fact. Plaintiff and the Class possess the same rights arising under
`
`the laws of the State of Florida. The claims are predicated on the Defendant‘s permitting and
`
`charging unconscionable prices on hygienic products in the midst of a declared state of emergency
`
`on the basis of a public health crisis. The damages suffered by Plaintiff and the Class were caused
`
`by the same common course of conduct on the part of the Defendant.
`
`23.
`
`The common questions of law and fact, which predominate over any questions
`
`affecting individual Class members, include, without limitation:
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Whether Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged herein;
`
`W‘l‘tether Defendant charged unconscionable prices for hygienic products;
`
`and
`
`e.
`
`Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to consequential damages and,
`
`if so, in what amounL
`
`24.
`
`Typicality. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l_22fl{a)[3): Plaintiff‘s claims are
`
`typical of ether Class members“ claims as Plaintiff possesses the same interests and suffered the
`
`same injuries as the Class, such that there is a sufficient nexus between Plaintiff‘s claims and these
`
`of the Class.
`
`25.
`
`Adeguate Rgpresentatinn. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Lllfltajtrl): Plaintiff
`
`is an adequate Class representative because her interests do not conflict with the interests of the
`
`ether members of the Classes. Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiff has
`
`retained competent and experienced counsel
`
`in complex class action litigation. Plaintiff has
`
`retained f. Alfredo Armas. The Class‘ interests 1will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff
`
`and her counsel.
`
`2E.
`
`Prederninancc and Superiority. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.22D{h}{l} and
`
`l.22fl[b}(3): a class actien is superior to any ether available means fer the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this controversy. The consequential damages suffered by Plaintiff and the ether
`
`Class members are relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to
`
`individually litigate their claims against Defendant, so it would he impracticable for Class
`
`members to individually seek redress for Defendant’s unfair and deceptive trade practices. Evert
`
`if Class members could afford individual litigation, the court system could not. Individualized
`
`litigation creates a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and increases the delay
`
`
`
`and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the class action device presents far
`
`fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits such as single adjudication, the economy
`
`of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
`
`CUUNT I
`VIDLATIDNS [IF THE FLDRIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
`ACT “I-"IIIUTPA” Fla. Stat. 501.10]
`
`
`
`2?.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates and tealleges the allegations of paragraphs I—ZS as though
`
`Fully set Forth here.
`
`28.
`
`This is an action for damages pursuant to ti SDI .21 1, Florida Statutes.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant
`
`is engaged in the business of selling products and consumer goods.
`
`including personal hygiene products, to consumers in the State of Florida.
`
`3D.
`
`Defendant has engaged in unconscionable and unfair acts and practices by, inter
`
`atria, charging unconscionable rates for personal hygiene products during a public health crisis.
`
`WHEREFDRE Plaintiff and the similarlyr situated |Class Members respectfully demand
`
`Judgment against Defendant in the amount equal to their actual damages, plus attomejr‘s fees and
`
`costs, together with an}.r and all statutory damages to which Plaintiff and the Class Members are
`
`entitled.
`
`J UR‘Er DEMAND
`
`Plaintitfhcreby demands a jury trial on all issues so triablc.
`
`Dated: March it], 2fl2fl.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
`
`496i} SW T2“ Avenue, Suite Eflfi
`Miami, Florida 33 | 55
`
`Phone: {see} 451 —5 tan
`E-M ail :
`alfredgntarmaslawcom
`fzincon eEdJarmaslawcom
`
`
`
`ebertrangfi} arm aslaw. cum
`
`By: rid Franc'excu Zim‘mre
`J. Alfiedn Armas FL Bar No. 300T03
`
`Francesco A. Zincanc, FL Bar N0. 100096
`
`Eduardu E. Bertram FL Bar N0. 9408?
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
