`
`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?
`
`