Thomas v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al

Filing 65

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 60 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. Case management conference is continued to 10/04/10 at 1:30 PM. Joint case management statement due by 09/27/10. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDOLPH THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, NO. C08-5119 TEH ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

On March 30, 2010, this Court clarified "that the stay imposed on September 2, 2009,

12 encompasses all claims that would require a determination of whether the late and reconnect 13 fees charged by [Defendant] Sprint [Solutions, Inc.] are reasonable or lawful." Mar. 30, 14 2010 Order at 13. The Court dismissed the non-stayed Consumers Legal Remedies Act 15 ("CLRA") claim under paragraph 52 of the First Amended Complaint after finding that 16 Plaintiffs' allegations did not rise to the required level of substantive unconscionability. The 17 Court dismissed Plaintiffs' non-stayed Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claims for failure to 18 allege standing. 19 Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their non-stayed UCL claims and filed a timely

20 second amended complaint ("SAC") on April 26, 2010. Sprint's motion to dismiss the SAC 21 is now before the Court. After reviewing the parties' written arguments, the Court finds this 22 motion suitable for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the motion hearing 23 scheduled for June 14, 2010. 24 As Plaintiffs admitted in their one-page opposition, "[t]he standing allegations in the

25 SAC are substantially similar to those in the First Amended Complaint." Opp'n at 1. 26 Plaintiffs explained that they "continue to believe that their standing allegations are 27 sufficient" but "recognize[] that this Court has previously ruled that standing allegations in 28 substantially the same form do not suffice under California's Unfair Competition Law.

1 Plaintiffs respectively seek to preserve their right to appeal the sufficiency of these 2 allegations." Id. In light of Plaintiffs' acknowledgment that they did not amend their 3 standing allegations to comply with this Court's March 30, 2010 order and have no intention 4 of doing so, Plaintiffs' non-stayed UCL claims are now dismissed with prejudice. 5 Sprint also asks that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' non-stayed CLRA claim with

6 prejudice, but the Court has already done so. Presumably, Plaintiffs did not delete the 7 challenged paragraph from the SAC because the paragraph contains both stayed and non8 stayed claims: "To the extent that the paragraph alleges that the CLRA is violated by failure 9 to disclose the amounts of the late and reconnect fees, the allegations are not covered by the 10 stay. However, to the extent that the paragraph alleges that the CLRA is violated because the

United States District Court

11 charged fees are excessive, the allegations are included in the stay." Mar. 30, 2010 Order
For the Northern District of California

12 at 5. The Court dismissed the non-stayed CLRA claim with prejudice, but the stayed claim 13 remains in this case. Thus, it is proper for paragraph 53 to remain in the SAC. 14 In accord with all of the above, Sprint's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED. All

15 non-stayed claims in the SAC are dismissed with prejudice. 16 Pursuant to the parties' joint request in their June 7, 2010 case management

17 conference statement, all future dates in this action are hereby VACATED until the action 18 before the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") is resolved. For control purposes, 19 the Court will schedule a case management conference on October 4, 2010, at 1:30 PM. 20 The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint case management conference statement on 21 or before September 27, 2010. If the FCC matter has yet to be resolved by that date, the 22 parties shall so advise the Court in a stipulated request to continue the case management 23 conference for not more than 120 days. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: 06/09/10 28 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2