This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection
Consumer Legal Remedies Act

Kenneth Blain v. Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless; SJA Mobile, LLC dba Go Live! Mobile

Published: Nov. 20, 2010 | Result Date: May 12, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:09-cv-04474-PSG-MLG Settlement –  $36,197

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert W. Thompson
(Thompson Law Offices PC)

Kathleen M. Hartman
(Callahan, Thompson, Sherman & Caudill LLP)


Defendant

Eric Dobberteen

Tiffany Cheung
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)

Penelope A. Preovolos
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)


Facts

On April 1, 2009, Kenneth Blain's wife was charged 20 cents after she received an unwanted text message on her cell phone, which advertised a phone plan. Within the next two months, she received two similar text messages. She did not respond to any of these messages.

Nonetheless, Blain's subsequent phone bill stated a $9.99 charge in relation to "Premium TXT Messaging" and "unbilled usage from previous months." It also stated a charge for $9.99 for "current data usage" and had a 20 cent charge as to one text. Blain did not know how these charges appeared on the bill, so he visited the Verizon Store to investigate the charges.

Verizon informed him that GoLive! Mobile had originated the charges, and that Verizon could not reimburse him because GoLive! was a third party. Blain then filed an action against Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless and SJA Mobile, LLC dba GoLive! Mobile.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, Federal Truth-in-Billing Act violations, Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations, California Public Utilities Act violations, Consumer Legal Remedies Act violations, false advertising, and unfair business practices. Plaintiff argued that he did not order the product.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendant SJA argued that defendant requested the product himself. Defendant Cellco claimed that it was in compliance with requirements to disclose information on the phone bill and argued that defendant SJA and the aggregators should be held responsible.

Damages

Plaintiff requested an injunction and relief in relation to the charges on the bills.

Result

The parties reached a settlement whereby defendant SJA agreed to pay $10,000 and Cellco agreed to pay $26,197.


#104067

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390