Trujillo v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al

Filing 6

FIRST AMENDED complaint by Jose Trujillo against AT&T Mobility, LLC, Apple Computer, Inc. and terminating AT&T, Inc. (Drury, Larry)

Download PDF
Trujillo v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al Doc. 6 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 21 I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS E A S T E R N DIVISION J O S E TRUJILLO, individually a n d on behalf of all others s i m i l a r l y situated, Plaintiff, v. A P P L E COMPUTER, INC., a California C o r p o r a t i o n , and AT&T MOBILITY LLC, a Georgia Corporation, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 0 7 CV 04946 J u d g e Kennelly M a g . Judge Ashman F I R S T AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT P l a i n t i f f , JOSE TRUJILLO ("Plaintiff" or "Trujillo"), for h i s Class Action Complaint on behalf of himself and all others s i m i l a r l y situated, by and through his attorneys, LARRY D. DRURY, L T D . , upon personal knowledge as to facts pertaining to himself a n d upon information and belief as to all other matters, based on t h e investigation of his counsel, against Defendants APPLE C O M P U T E R , INC. ("Apple"), and AT&T MOBILITY, LLC ("AT&T") ( c o l l e c t i v e l y hereinafter "Defendants") states as follows: INTRODUCTION T h i s case arises out of Defendants' purposeful and fraudulent c o n c e a l m e n t to purchasers of its iPhone cellular telephone that t h e y will be required to incur an annual fee of $85.95 as part of D e f e n d a n t s ' battery replacement program. PARTIES 1. P l a i n t i f f , Trujillo, at all times relevant hereto resided i n village of Melrose Park, county of Cook, Illinois. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 2 of 21 2. A t all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Apple, was a C a l i f o r n i a corporation with facilities located throughout I l l i n o i s and the United States, whose headquarters are l o c a t e d in Cupertino, California and who is doing b u s i n e s s in Cook County, Illinois. 3. A t all times relevant hereto, Defendant, AT&T Mobility, L L C , was a Georgia corporation with facilities located t h r o u g h o u t Illinois and the United States, whose h e a d q u a r t e r s are located in Atlanta, Georgia and who is d o i n g business in Cook County, Illinois. J U R I S D I C T I O N & VENUE 4. T h i s Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. 1331 and/or 1332, as amended by the Class A c t i o n Fairness Act of 2005, because the matter in c o n t r o v e r s y exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest a n d costs, and is a class action in which some members of t h e class are citizens of states different than D e f e n d a n t s . See 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2)(A). in that the D e f e n d a n t has transacted business and committed acts r e l a t i n g to the matters complained of herein in this s t a t e , and the Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of s e p a r a t e states. 5. V e n u e is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1 3 9 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) because a substantial part of the acts giving r i s e to Plaintiff's claims occurred in this District. 2 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 3 of 21 6. T h i s Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state l a w claims herein under 28 U.S.C. 1367. S U B S T A N T I V E ALLEGATIONS 7. O n or about June 29, 2007 Apple launched, to much f a n f a r e , its iPhone, a hybrid cell phone, iPod media p l a y e r , and wireless web-browsing device. 8. P l a i n t i f f purchased his iPhone from an Apple retail store l o c a t e d in OakBrook, Illinois, for $533.93. 9. I t is estimated that Apple sold over 500,000 iPhones w i t h i n the first week following its launch. These d e v i c e s were sold in Apple and AT&T retail stores and o n l i n e through Apple's website. 10. A T & T is the iPhone's exclusive carrier, and along with A p p l e retails the iPhone in their retail stores. 11. A p p l e marketed its iPhone as a "revolutionary new mobile p h o n e " that incorporates "high technology". 12. U n k n o w n to the Plaintiff, and undisclosed to the public, p r i o r to purchase, the iPhone is a sealed unit with its b a t t e r y soldered on the inside of the device so that it c a n n o t be changed by the owner. 13. T h e battery enclosed in the iPhone can only be charged a p p r o x i m a t e l y 300 times before it will be in need of r e p l a c e m e n t , necessitating a new battery annually for o w n e r s of the iPhone. 14. A p p l e maintains a "battery replacement program" for the i P h o n e which requires users to submit their phone to 3 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 4 of 21 A p p l e for service. For the battery replacement and/or s e r v i c e , Apple charges $79.00 plus $6.95 for shipping and h a n d l i n g , totaling $85.95 per service. 15. T h e battery replacement takes three days, and while the i P h o n e is under repair, Apple provides a `loaner iPhone' f o r $29.00. 16. D u r i n g the repair and/or service to the iPhone under the b a t t e r y replacement program, all data is erased from the i P h o n e , including contact phone numbers, etc. 17. A l t h o u g h Apple and AT&T outlined its cellular service r a t e s and many other features of the iPhone in advance of i t s launch, Apple and AT&T waited to disclose the d u r a b i l i t y of its battery, the terms and conditions of i t s battery replacement program and `loaner' program, and t h e cost of same, until after the iPhone went on sale. 18. T h e iPhone packaging and its enclosed manuals and/or p a p e r s failed to inform the Plaintiff and the class of t h e durability of the iPhone battery, the terms and c o n d i t i o n s of its battery replacement program and ` l o a n e r ' program, and the cost of same. 19. T h e Defendants' marketing and promotion of the iPhone f a i l e d to inform the Plaintiff and the class of the d u r a b i l i t y of its battery, the terms and conditions of i t s battery replacement program and `loaner' program, and t h e cost of same. 4 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 5 of 21 20. O n or about Thursday, July 5, 2007 Apple spokesperson, J e n n i f e r Hakes, said Apple posted the battery replacement p r o g r a m details on its website after the iPhone went on sale. 21. T h e battery replacement program information on Apple's w e b s i t e was located under several layers of links on the s u p p o r t page of Apple's website. 22. T h e battery replacement program will cost iPhone c o n s u m e r s nearly 20% of the purchase price of their phone a n n u a l l y , amounting to a de facto annual maintenance a n d / o r service charge. 23. T h e terms and costs of the battery replacement program, a n d the durability and life of the battery, were not d i s c l o s e d to Plaintiff and the class prior to their p u r c h a s e , and could not have been discovered by Plaintiff a n d the class where Apple and AT&T failed to disclose s a m e in advance of the iPhone launch date. 24. T h e Plaintiff and the class were required to sign a m i n i m u m two-year service plan with AT&T at the time of p u r c h a s e of the iPhone. C L A S S ALLEGATIONS 25. P u r s u a n t to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil P r o c e d u r e , Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of h i m s e l f and a class of similarly situated individuals. The class consists of all consumers, from 2007 to the 5 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 6 of 21 d a t e of judgment, throughout the United States, who p u r c h a s e d Defendants' iPhone. 26. U p o n information and belief, the Plaintiff class numbers i n at least the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, s u c h that joinder of all members is impracticable. 27. C o m m o n questions predominate over questions affecting i n d i v i d u a l members of the class. include: i. W h e t h e r Defendants committed a breach of Common questions t h e Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive B u s i n e s s Practices Act, and all like and similar s t a t u t e s throughout the United States; ii. W h e t h e r Defendants purposefully omitted, misrepresented, and/or fraudulently concealed the d u r a b i l i t y of the iPhone battery, the terms and c o n d i t i o n s of its battery replacement program and " l o a n e r " program, and the cost of same, prior to p u r c h a s e by Plaintiff and the class. iii. W h e t h e r Defendants committed a breach of c o n t r a c t and/or breach of warranty to Plaintiff a n d the class. iv. W h e t h e r Defendants were unjustly enriched t o the detriment of Plaintiff and the Class. 28. P l a i n t i f f will fairly and adequately protect the interest o f the class; Plaintiff has retained counsel competent a n d experienced in class action litigation; and Plaintiff 6 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 7 of 21 h a s no interests antagonistic to those of the Plaintiff c l a s s members. 29. A class action is an appropriate method for fairly and e f f i c i e n t l y adjudicating this controversy because, among o t h e r things, joinder of all members of the class is i m p r a c t i c a b l e , and employing the class action device h e r e , in lieu of entertaining individual suits on the s a m e issue, would greatly serve judicial economy. C O U N T I: FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 1-29 P l a i n t i f f incorporates the allegations of 1-29 above o f this Complaint as if fully stated herein in this Count I. 30. D e f e n d a n t s concealed the following material facts from P l a i n t i f f and the class prior to their purchase of the iPhone: a. T h a t the iPhone battery is enclosed and soldered i n s i d e the iPhone, and cannot be changed by the owner b u t instead must be returned to Apple for service a n d / o r repair; b. T h a t the iPhone battery has a durability and/or l i f e t i m e of approximately 300 charges, necessitating f r e q u e n t and more than annual maintenance, repair, a n d / o r replacement if charged regularly on a daily basis; c. T h a t replacement, repair, and/or maintenance of the i P h o n e battery will cost Plaintiff and the class 7 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 8 of 21 a p p r o x i m a t e l y $85.95 under the Defendants' battery r e p l a c e m e n t program; d. T h a t the battery replacement program requires P l a i n t i f f and the class to be without their iPhone for a p p r o x i m a t e l y three days, and results in complete loss o f all stored data; e. T h a t Defendants will charge Plaintiff and the class $ 2 9 . 0 0 for use of an iPhone while their phone is being s e r v i c e d under the battery replacement program. f. T h a t annually, Plaintiff and the class will incur c o s t s of approximately 20% of the purchase price of t h e iPhone simply for maintenance, repair, and/or r e p l a c e m e n t of the iPhone battery. 31. T h e facts as alleged in 30(a)-(f) above, and the ninthi n n i n g disclosure by Defendants of same, were material in t h a t had Plaintiff and the class known the true nature of t h e iPhone and its actual expense they would not have p u r c h a s e d the iPhone from Defendants or conducted b u s i n e s s with Defendants. 32. D e f e n d a n t s require that Plaintiff and the class sign a t w o - y e a r service contract, all but ensuring that P l a i n t i f f and the class will be forced to pay for the i P h o n e battery replacement program at least once during t h e initial two year contract. 33. D e f e n d a n t had a duty to disclose the material facts, as a l l e g e d in 30(a)-(f) above, to Plaintiff and the Class 8 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 9 of 21 b e c a u s e Defendant was in a position of superior knowledge t o Plaintiff, in that Defendants knew of, and Plaintiff c o u l d never have known of, the fraudulent nature of D e f e n d a n t s ' misrepresentations, omissions, and statements. 34. A s a result of Defendants' fraudulent concealment of m a t e r i a l facts, such as those alleged in 30(a)-(f) a b o v e , Plaintiff and the class have and will suffer damages. C O U N T II: ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT 1-29 Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of 1-29 above o f this Complaint as if fully stated herein in this C o u n t II. 30. B y and through its advertisements, marketing, promotions, p a c k a g i n g , and manual, Defendants fraudulently m i s r e p r e s e n t e d , concealed, and or omitted material facts t o and from Plaintiff and the class, such as: a . T h a t the iPhone battery is enclosed and soldered i n s i d e the iPhone, and cannot be changed by the owner b u t instead must be returned to Apple for service a n d / o r repair; b . T h a t the iPhone battery has a durability and/or l i f e t i m e of approximately 300 charges, necessitating f r e q u e n t and more than annual maintenance, repair, 9 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 10 of 21 a n d / o r replacement if charged regularly on a daily basis; c . T h a t replacement, repair, and/or maintenance of the i P h o n e battery will cost Plaintiff and the class a p p r o x i m a t e l y $85.95 under the Defendants' battery r e p l a c e m e n t program; d . T h a t the battery replacement program requires P l a i n t i f f and the class to be without their iPhone for a p p r o x i m a t e l y three days, and results in complete loss o f all stored data; e . T h a t Defendants will charge Plaintiff and the class $ 2 9 . 0 0 for use of an iPhone while their phone is being s e r v i c e d under the battery replacement program. f . T h a t annually, Plaintiff and the class will incur c o s t s of approximately 20% of the purchase price of t h e iPhone simply for maintenance, repair, and/or r e p l a c e m e n t of the iPhone battery. 31. S u c h fraud was committed by Defendants in the course o f trade and commerce, as Plaintiff and the class were c o n s u m e r s of Defendants' product. 32. D e f e n d a n t s had knowledge of the following: a . T h a t the iPhone battery is enclosed and soldered i n s i d e the iPhone, and cannot be changed by the owner b u t instead must be returned to Apple for service a n d / o r repair; 10 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 11 of 21 b . T h a t the iPhone battery has a durability and/or l i f e t i m e of approximately 300 charges, necessitating f r e q u e n t and more than annual maintenance, repair, a n d / o r replacement if charged regularly on a daily basis; c . T h a t replacement, repair, and/or maintenance of the i P h o n e battery will cost Plaintiff and the class a p p r o x i m a t e l y $85.95 under the Defendants' battery r e p l a c e m e n t program; d . T h a t the battery replacement program requires P l a i n t i f f and the class to be without their iPhone for a p p r o x i m a t e l y three days, and results in complete loss o f all stored data; e . T h a t Defendants will charge Plaintiff and the class $ 2 9 . 0 0 for use of an iPhone while their phone is being s e r v i c e d under the battery replacement program. f . T h a t annually, Plaintiff and the class will incur c o s t s of approximately 20% of the purchase price of t h e iPhone simply for maintenance, repair, and/or r e p l a c e m e n t of the iPhone battery. 33. D e f e n d a n t s intended that its fraudulent statements, o m i s s i o n s , and/or concealments induce Plaintiff and t h e class to act so that Plaintiff and the class would p u r c h a s e Defendants' iPhone. 34. D e f e n d a n t s intended that their fraudulent statements, o m i s s i o n s , and/or concealments induce Plaintiff and 11 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 12 of 21 t h e class to act so that Plaintiff and the class would t h e n be forced to pay to Defendants approximately $ 8 5 . 9 5 for the battery replacement program, and $29.00 f o r use of a loaner iPhone, annually. 35. D e f e n d a n t s require Plaintiff and the class to sign a t w o - y e a r service contract, all but ensuring that P l a i n t i f f and the class will be forced to pay for the i P h o n e battery replacement program at least once d u r i n g the initial two year contract. 36. P l a i n t i f f and the class relied upon the truth of D e f e n d a n t s ' statements, believing all costs associated w i t h the iPhone to have been fully disclosed prior to p u r c h a s e of same. 37. D e f e n d a n t s ' aforementioned conduct is unfair, immoral, u n e t h i c a l , oppressive, and unscrupulous, in that D e f e n d a n t s concealed from Plaintiff and the class m e m b e r s those allegations in 30(a-f) and 32(a-f) a b o v e , as alleged herein. 38. A s a proximate result of Defendants' fraudulent s t a t e m e n t s , concealments, misrepresentations and/or o m i s s i o n s Plaintiff and the class have and will suffer d a m a g e s , because absent Defendants' fraud, the P l a i n t i f f and the class would have never purchased the i P h o n e from Defendants or transacted business with Defendants. C O U N T III: BREACH OF CONTRACT 12 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 13 of 21 1-29 Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of 1-29 above o f this Complaint as if fully stated herein in this Count III. 30. D e f e n d a n t s made an offer to sell to Plaintiff and the c l a s s a functional and complete iPhone with a battery i n exchange for its relative purchase price, which v a r i e s by model, store, etc. 31. P l a i n t i f f and the class accepted Defendants' offer by g o i n g to Defendants' stores and purchasing the iPhone. 32. D e f e n d a n t s breached their offer to sell to Plaintiff a n d the class a functional and complete iPhone with a b a t t e r y when Defendants failed to disclose to P l a i n t i f f and the class prior to their purchase that: a . T h a t the iPhone battery is enclosed and soldered i n s i d e the iPhone, and cannot be changed by the owner b u t instead must be returned to Apple for service a n d / o r repair; b . T h a t the iPhone battery has a durability and/or l i f e t i m e of approximately 300 charges, necessitating f r e q u e n t and more than annual maintenance, repair, a n d / o r replacement if charged regularly on a daily basis; c . T h a t replacement, repair, and/or maintenance of the i P h o n e battery will cost Plaintiff and the class a p p r o x i m a t e l y $85.95 under the Defendants' battery r e p l a c e m e n t program; 13 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 14 of 21 d . T h a t the battery replacement program requires P l a i n t i f f and the class to be without their iPhone for a p p r o x i m a t e l y three days, and results in complete loss o f all stored data; e . T h a t Defendants will charge Plaintiff and the class $ 2 9 . 0 0 for use of an iPhone while their phone is being s e r v i c e d under the battery replacement program. f . T h a t annually, Plaintiff and the class will incur c o s t s of approximately 20% of the purchase price of t h e iPhone simply for maintenance, repair, and/or r e p l a c e m e n t of the iPhone battery. g . D e f e n d a n t s require that Plaintiff and the class sign a t w o - y e a r service contract, all but ensuring that P l a i n t i f f and the class will be forced to pay for the i P h o n e battery replacement program at least once d u r i n g the initial two year contract. 33. P l a i n t i f f and the class have and will suffer damages a s a proximate result of Defendants' breach of contract. C O U N T IV: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES 1-29 Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of 1-29 above o f this Complaint as if fully stated herein in this Count IV. 30. D e f e n d a n t s have committed a breach of implied warranty o f merchantability pursuant to 810 ILCS 5/2-314 and/or 14 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 15 of 21 i m p l i e d warranty of fitness for a particular purpose p u r s u a n t to 810 ILCS 5/2-315. 31. D e f e n d a n t s ' iPhone is a consumer good and Defendants a r e merchants within the meaning of 810 ILCS 5/2-314. 32. D e f e n d a n t s ' iPhone has been sold with the implied w a r r a n t y that they are fit for ordinary use and/or p a r t i c u l a r purposes for which cellular phones are u s e d , and that all costs associated with the use of s a m e are disclosed in advance of the purchase. 33. D e f e n d a n t s ' affirmations of fact as alleged herein f o r m e d the basis of the bargain between the parties. 34. D e f e n d a n t s ' iPhone is not reasonably fit for its o r d i n a r y use and/or particular purpose in that when P l a i n t i f f and the class purchased their iPhones they n e v e r contemplated the following: a . T h a t the iPhone battery is enclosed and soldered i n s i d e the iPhone, and cannot be changed by the owner b u t instead must be returned to Apple for service a n d / o r repair; b . T h a t the iPhone battery has a durability and/or l i f e t i m e of approximately 300 charges, necessitating f r e q u e n t and more than annual maintenance, repair, a n d / o r replacement if charged regularly on a daily basis; c . T h a t replacement, repair, and/or maintenance of the i P h o n e battery will cost Plaintiff and the class 15 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 16 of 21 a p p r o x i m a t e l y $85.95 under the Defendants' battery r e p l a c e m e n t program; d . T h a t the battery replacement program requires P l a i n t i f f and the class to be without their iPhone for a p p r o x i m a t e l y three days, and results in complete loss o f all stored data; e . T h a t Defendants will charge Plaintiff and the class $29.00 for use of an iPhone while their phone is b e i n g serviced under the battery replacement program. f . T h a t annually, Plaintiff and the class will incur c o s t s of approximately 20% of the purchase price of t h e iPhone simply for maintenance, repair, and/or r e p l a c e m e n t of the iPhone battery. 35. A consumer advocacy group, the Foundation for Consumer a n d Taxpayer Rights, said of consumers who purchased t h e iPhone from Defendants that "[s]ome of them might b e waking up now wondering who they got in bed with", c a l l i n g the "hidden disclosure that's going to cost t h e user as much as 20 percent of the purchase price [ a n n u a l l y ] ... a colossal mistake." 36. D e f e n d a n t s require that Plaintiff and the class sign a t w o - y e a r service contract, all but ensuring that P l a i n t i f f and the class will be forced to pay for the i P h o n e battery replacement program at least once d u r i n g the initial two year contract. 16 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 17 of 21 37. A s a proximate result of Defendants' breach of implied w a r r a n t y , Plaintiff and the class have and will suffer damages. C O U N T V: UNJUST ENRICHMENT 1-29 Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of 1-29 above o f this Complaint as if fully stated herein in this Count V. 30. T h i s Count V for unjust enrichment is plead in the a l t e r n a t i v e to Plaintiff's and the class' claim for b r e a c h of contract. 31. D e f e n d a n t s , to the detriment of the Plaintiff and the C l a s s , have benefited and been unjustly enriched by t h e i r conduct where they have sold and continue to sell t h e i r iPhone while misrepresenting, omitting, and/or c o n c e a l i n g from Plaintiff and the class prior to purchase: a . T h a t the iPhone battery is enclosed and soldered i n s i d e the iPhone, and cannot be changed by the owner b u t instead must be returned to Apple for service a n d / o r repair; b . T h a t the iPhone battery has a durability and/or l i f e t i m e of approximately 300 charges, necessitating f r e q u e n t and more than annual maintenance, repair, a n d / o r replacement if charged regularly on a daily basis; c . T h a t replacement, repair, and/or maintenance of the i P h o n e battery will cost Plaintiff and the class 17 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 18 of 21 a p p r o x i m a t e l y $85.95 under the Defendants' battery r e p l a c e m e n t program; d . T h a t the battery replacement program requires P l a i n t i f f and the class to be without their iPhone for a p p r o x i m a t e l y three days, and results in complete loss o f all stored data; e . T h a t Defendants will charge Plaintiff and the class $ 2 9 . 0 0 for use of an iPhone while their phone is being s e r v i c e d under the battery replacement program. f . T h a t annually, Plaintiff and the class will incur c o s t s of approximately 20% of the purchase price of t h e iPhone simply for maintenance, repair, and/or r e p l a c e m e n t of the iPhone battery. g . T h a t it is all but guaranteed that Plaintiff and the c l a s s will be forced to pay for the iPhone battery r e p l a c e m e n t program at least once during the initial t w o year contract where Defendants require that P l a i n t i f f and the class sign a two-year service c o n t r a c t , and the battery is not manufactured to last t h a t long with regular and reasonable use. 32. D e f e n d a n t s had and have knowledge of these benefits, a n d have voluntarily accepted and retained these b e n e f i t s by intentionally and fraudulently concealing, o m i t t i n g , and/or misrepresenting the true capabilities a n d service fees associated with the iPhone battery p r i o r to purchase by Plaintiff and the class. 18 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 19 of 21 33. T h e circumstances described herein are such that it w o u l d be inequitable, unconscionable, unfair, u n l a w f u l , and unjust for Defendants to retain these i l l - g o t t e n benefits without paying the value thereof t o the Plaintiff and the class. 34. A s a result of Defendants' unjust enrichment, P l a i n t i f f and the class have and will suffer damages. C O U N T VI: ACCOUNTING 1-29 P l a i n t i f f incorporates the allegations of 1-29 above o f this Complaint as if fully stated herein in this C o u n t V. 30. P u r s u a n t to the above-described conduct and causes of a c t i o n , the circumstances or relationship between the p a r t i e s gives rise to a duty on the part of Defendants to a c c o u n t to Plaintiffs. 31. 32. N o other adequate remedy at law exists. T h e exact amount of income, revenue, and interest g e n e r a t e d and retained by Defendants from Plaintiff's and t h e class' purchase of the iPhone, and the income, r e v e n u e , and interest that has and will be generated by D e f e n d a n t s from Plaintiff's and the class' payment of f e e s under the Defendants' iPhone battery replacement p r o g r a m cannot be presently known because all books of a c c o u n t and records pertaining to same are in the p o s s e s s i o n of Defendants. 19 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 20 of 21 33. A c c o r d i n g l y , an accounting would permit Plaintiffs, the c l a s s , and the Court to ascertain the amounts due to P l a i n t i f f s and the class. 34. A n accounting should be conducted in equity under the s u p e r v i s i o n of this Court because it would involve i n t r i c a t e itemizations of income, prospective income, r e v e n u e and interest, prospective revenue and interest, a n d there is a need for discovery. P R A Y E R FOR RELIEF W H E R E F O R E , Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court: A . C e r t i f y the class and appoint Plaintiff and Plaintiff's c o u n s e l to represent the Class; B . F i n d that Defendants committed a violation of the Illinois C o n s u m e r Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, f r a u d u l e n t concealment, breach of contract, breach of i m p l i e d warranty, and were unjustly enriched; C . F i n d that Defendants should account for all revenues i m p r o p e r l y earned, as alleged herein; D . F i n d that Defendants pay actual, compensatory, and punitive d a m a g e s for their conduct as alleged herein; E . A w a r d reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and F . G r a n t such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. 20 Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 21 of 21 JOSE TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, By: LARRY D. DRURY J A M E S ROWE L A R R Y D. DRURY, LTD. 2 0 5 WEST RANDOLPH, #1430 C H I C A G O , IL 60603 312/346-7950 A t t y . No. 22873 /s/ James Rowe 21

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?