Cruz v. Cingular Wireless

Cruz v. Cingular Wireless

This putative class action on behalf of Florida consumers alleges that Cingular violated the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act when it imposed monthly charges for a purportedly “optional” Roadside Assistance service that the plaintiffs had never requested or enrolled in.

 

The plaintiffs, in a putative class action on behalf of Florida consumers, allege that Cingular violated the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act when it imposed monthly charges for a purportedly “optional” Roadside Assistance service that the plaintiffs had never requested or enrolled in. Cingular moved to compel individual arbitration, and the plaintiff argued that Cingular’s class action ban violates Florida public policy because it would exculpate the corporation from liability for violations of Florida law. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida compelled arbitration.

Public Justice’s Paul Bland, Amy Radon and Leslie Bailey are lead counsel in the appeal.  Our co-counsel is Scott Weinstein of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., in Fort Myers, FL.

Case Documents

• Supplemental reply brief

  Supplemental reply brief arguing that AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion does not make all class action bans in arbitration automatically enforceable.
  
  Docket: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Supplemental brief

  Supplemental brief to Kentucky Supreme Court filed after defendants’ motion for reconsideration, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in ATT Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (Apr. 27, 2011), does not affect the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision in this case.
  
  

• Reply Brief

  
  
  

• Opening brief