Lozano v. At & T Wireless Services, Inc., 05-56466.
| Decision Date | 20 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-56466.,No. 05-56511.,05-56466.,05-56511. |
| Citation | 504 F.3d 718 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
| Parties | Paul LOZANO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and as a private attorney general on behalf of the members of the general public residing within the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, v. AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee. |
J. Paul Gignac (argued) and Katherine Donoven, Arias, Ozzello & Gignac, LLP, Santa Barbara, CA, and Peter Bezek and Robert A. Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP, Santa Barbara, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee-cross appellant.
James C. Grant (argued) and Kelly Twiss Noonan, Stokes Lawrence, P.S., Seattle, WA, and Mark E. Weber and Gabriel J. Pasette, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellant-cross appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; William J. Rea, District Judge, Presiding*. D.C. No. CV-02-00090-AHS.
Before: CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and JAMES L. ROBART,** District Judge.
This opinion addresses cross-appeals of the district court's order denying in part, and granting in part, Paul Lozano's class certification motion. Lozano appeals the district court's denial of a nationwide class for his Federal Communications Act ("FCA") and declaratory relief claims. Lozano also appeals the court's denial of a California subclass on these claims, as well as his breach of contract claim. AT & T Wireless Services, Inc. ("AWS") appeals the district court's certification of a California subclass for Lozano's state law claims. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e). For the reasons stated, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Lozano is a customer of AWS and brought this putative class action based on AWS's disclosures relating to its billing practices for cellular services.1 On October 4, 2004, Lozano filed a Second Amended Complaint in the district court. In his complaint, Lozano asserts claims under the FCA, the Declaratory Judgment Act ("DJA"), California contract law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Lozano bases these claims on allegations that AWS billed its customers for cellular telephone calls during a billing period other than the billing period in which the calls were made, a practice termed "out-of-cycle billing." Lozano contends that by doing this, AWS assessed charges for cellular telephone calls that would not have been assessed if the calls had been billed during the billing period in which the calls were made. AWS, according to Lozano, did not fully and adequately disclose its billing practice to its customers at the time they entered into contracts with AWS.
Out-of-cycle billing occurs when the local calling area for a customer's plan includes areas that are not covered by AWS's cellular network. When a customer places or receives a call in an area not covered by AWS's network, the call is routed through another wireless carrier, and the call is termed a "roaming call." Due to the nature of the routing process, AWS does not immediately learn of the roaming call, and consequently, does not immediately charge the call against the customer's allotted minutes. Occasionally, AWS will learn of the roaming call only after the customer's monthly billing cycle has ended. When this occurs, AWS bills the customer for the roaming call in the next billing cycle, which may put the customer over the allotted minutes for that cycle. For example, a roaming call made in the August billing cycle may be billed in the September invoice because of the late receipt of information from the other carrier. Assuming the customer had already reached his or her allowable minutes for September, and had not for August, the August roaming call could result in an overage fee on the September invoice. According to AWS, out-of-cycle billing occurs infrequently, and when it does occur, it is just as likely to result in a reduction in fees as opposed to an increase. That is, under the above scenario, the customer could benefit from out-of-cycle billing by avoiding an overage fee in August if she used all her minutes in August, but not September.
In or about May 2001, Lozano contracted with AWS to receive cellular telephone service for one year. Lozano's cellular plan with AWS provided him with a minimum of 400 "free anytime minutes" and 1,000 "night and weekend minutes" per month. As part of a promotional offer, AWS gave Lozano an additional 200 free anytime minutes. Based on the information AWS provided, Lozano believed that he would not be charged for cellular calls unless he exceeded 600 anytime minutes or 1,000 night and weekend minutes in one billing cycle.
When Lozano received his September 18, 2001 invoice from AWS, however, he was surprised to discover that his September invoice included calls that were made during the previous billing cycle. The addition of these extra minutes caused his September usage to exceed the "free" minutes set forth in his contract with AWS. Because he exceeded his allotted usage, AWS charged Lozano an overage fee for the calls that it billed from the previous cycle.
Lozano called AWS to inquire as to why there were calls from the previous billing cycle on his current invoice. An AWS representative explained to him that roaming cellular telephone calls are billed to its customers based on the date that AWS receives the information regarding the call, not on the date the call was actually made. The AWS representative offered to reimburse Lozano for the overage charges, but would not do so unless he agreed to sign-up for another year of service with AWS. Lozano declined the offer. On October 25, 2001, after Lozano lodged additional complaints with AWS, it issued him a credit for the charges he incurred as a result of out-of-cycle billing. The AWS representative who issued the credit wrote in the customer notes that it "was a ONE TIME COURTESY CR[EDIT] for delayed billing . . . ." The representative informed Lozano that out-of-cycle billing could happen again. Lozano filed the instant suit a few weeks later, and the credit appeared on Lozano's November invoice from AWS.2
AWS contends it fully discloses the implications of out-of-cycle billing in its Welcome Guide, which customers receive when they sign-up for service. Lozano does not dispute that he received a copy of the Welcome Guide when he purchased his service from AWS. Indeed, Lozano admits that the AWS salesperson "paged through" the Welcome Guide with Lozano, and gave him the opportunity to ask any questions. Lozano instead contends that these disclosures are not adequate to inform the consumer of AWS's out-of-cycle billing practices.
The Welcome Guide Lozano received also contains an arbitration agreement that prohibits class actions:
Any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or to any product or service provided in connection with this Agreement (whether based in contract, tort, statute, fraud, misrepresentation or any other legal theory) will be resolved by binding arbitration . . . . [Y]ou and we both waive any claims for punitive damages and any right to pursue claims on a class or representative basis.
Shortly after Lozano filed this putative class action lawsuit, AWS moved to compel arbitration.
The district court initially granted AWS's motion to compel arbitration. AWS then filed for a writ of mandamus with this court. We denied the writ, but instructed the district court to reconsider its ruling in light of Ting v. AT & T, decided after the district court's order compelling arbitration. 319 F.3d 1126, 1150 (9th Cir.2003) (). On August 18, 2003, after reconsidering its order in light of Ting, the district court vacated the order compelling arbitration. In so doing, the district court relied both on Ting, and the subsequent case of Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 328 F.3d 1165, 1176 n. 15 (9th Cir.2003) (). The district court held that the limitation on class action relief contained in AWS's Welcome Guide was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under California law.3
The district court considered AWS's motion for summary judgment before Lozano sought class certification. In its summary judgment order, the district court addressed whether Lozano had any legally cognizable injuries, in order to determine whether he had standing to bring his claims. AWS argued that because it had reimbursed Lozano for the out-of-cycle overage fees in October 2001, and he did not bring suit until November 2001, he could not show injury. The district court disagreed. While recognizing that AWS's reimbursement to Lozano before suit raised concerns regarding Lozano's ability to meet an essential element of his claims, i.e., damages, the district court nevertheless concluded that (1) AWS could not avoid a class action by reimbursing the potential representative prior to filing suit; and (2) Lozano suffered damages based on a so-called "reservation" injury, and that AWS's use of out-of-cycle billing continued to injure Lozano. The "reservation" injury, as described by the district court, relates to those AWS customers who are aware of out-of-cycle billing, and in turn, reserve a certain percentage of minutes each month to compensate for any late-charged roaming calls from the previous billing cycle. The customer is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of S.F. v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
...test, which weighs "the harm to the consumer" against "the utility of the defendant's practice." Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 736 (9th Cir. 2007). "An unfair business practice occurs when it offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethic......
-
Missud v. Oakland Coliseum Joint Venture
......OCJV cut services to maximize profits at the Concert. Id. at 3:3-6. ...N. Cal. v. AG Indus. Mfg., Inc., 375 F.3d 913, 916 (9th Cir. 2004)). (2) ... Id. at 17-18 (citing Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 735 (9th Cir. ......
-
Stewart v. Kodiak Cakes, LLC
...... See Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. , 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018) ("Both of these ... or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer." Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a) ; see also id. ... Drum , 106 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 53 ; see also Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc. , 504 F.3d 718, 736 (9th ......
-
Rovai v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
...... theory of liability" and "an independent basis for relief." Lozano v . AT&T Wireless Servs ., Inc ., 504 F.3d 718, 731 (9th Cir. 2007) ...SPS purchased Rovai's loan from a different servicer, services Page 46 her loan, undertook an investigation into her complaint, and, ......
-
Table of Cases
...Cal. 2012), 273, 274, 275 Loy v. Armstrong World Indus., 838 F. Supp. 991 (E.D. Pa. 1993), 1214 Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007), 111 Lozano v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Ill. 2010), 293 LSI Data Corp. v. Comcast Phone, LLC,......
-
Deceptive and Unfair Practices
...not appropriate where the violation alleged is injurious to consumers, rather than competitors. See Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007). 597. See Packer v. SN Servicing Corp., 2008 WL 359411, at *8-9 (D. Conn. 2008) (holding the FTC’s Unfairness Policy Stateme......
-
What's in the Package: Food, Beverage, and Dietary Supplement Law and Litigation—part Ii
...law, a U.S. District Court would have jurisdiction under 18 USC § 1331. [83] FRCP 23; CRCP 23; Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 724 (9th Cir. 2007); Jackson v. Unocal Corp., 262 P.3d 874, 881 (Colo. 2011). [84] Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2550 (2011). ......
-
Epic v. Apple: Amicus Brief of the State of California in Support of Neither Party
...apply the FTC test with respect to anti-consumer conduct when analyzing the UCL's unfairness prong. Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 736 (9th Cir. 2007).c. A UCL PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ESTABLISH A CONCURRENT VIOLATION OF ANTITRUST LAWi. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT RECO......