Doe v. Avid Life Media, Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT Class Action Complaint against defendant All Defendants with receipt number 0865-4965541, in the amount of $400 Jury Demand,, filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Original Filing Form)(Driscoll, John) (Attachment 2 replaced on 7/23/2015) (AXT). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/23/2015: # 3 Summons) (AXT).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JANE DOE (a pseudonym)
On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
AVID LIFE MEDIA, INC.
a corporation,
Defendant.

Case Number:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Plaintiff Jane Doe (a pseudonym), on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and for her class action complaint states as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

Plaintiffs bring this class action as a result of a breach of the security system of

Defendant AVID LIFE MEDIA INC. (ALM) governing electronic transactions, resulting in
compromised security of Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ personal financial information. Upon
information and belief such personal information included, but upon information and belief was
not limited to, the putative Class Members’ (hereafter “Class Members”) names, addresses,
credit or debit card number, the card’s expiration date, and/or the card’s CVV (a three-digit
security code) (“Personal Information”).
2.

On or about July 15 of this year, and at times prior, ALM’s databases were

compromised, with the result that Personal Information of Plaintiff and Class Members’ Personal
Information was used or is at risk of use in fraudulent transactions around the world, as well as
other invidious exposure. Upon information and belief, Defendant maintains or maintained
1

information, including Personal Information, regarding nearly 37 million subscribers, and
Defendant’s security failures affected the credit and debit card of hundreds of thousands if not
millions of customers, including Plaintiff and Class Members.
3.

Upon information and belief, the security breach and theft of Personal

Information was caused by Defendant’s violations of its obligations to abide by the best practices
and industry standards concerning the security of its payment processing systems and the
computers associated therewith as set forth, for example, in Payment Card Industry Security
Standards Council Data Security Standards (“PCI DSS”) and the decisions of the Federal Trade
Commission (“FTC”) concerning protection of consumer financial information.
4.

After learning of the security breach, Defendant failed to notify Plaintiff and the

putative Classes in a timely manner and failed to take other reasonable steps to inform them of
the nature and extent of the breach. As a result, Defendant prevented Plaintiffs and the putative
Class Members from protecting themselves from the breach and caused Plaintiffs and Class
Members to suffer financial loss.
5.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, asserts the

following claims: Violations of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2702;
negligence; breach of implied contract; violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
(“MMPA”), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020, and the substantially similar statutes of the other states in
which Defendant conducts business.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which

confers upon the Court original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the laws of the

2

United States, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2707. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
7.

In addition, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1332(d)(2)(A) because this case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all Members of
the putative Classes are in excess of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and many of
the Members of the putative Classes are citizens of different states than Defendant. This Court
has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
8.

Venue is properly set in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) since

Defendant transacts business within this judicial district. Likewise, a substantial part of the
events giving rise to the claim occurred within this judicial district.
PARTIES
9.

Plaintiff Jane Doe (a pseudonym) is an adult female domiciled in Maryland

Heights, Missouri and is a citizen of Missouri. Jane Doe provided her Personal Information to
Defendant in order to effectuate a “paid-delete” of any of her personal information in
Defendant’s possession, including her Personal Information, as promised by Defendant. On
information and belief Doe’s Personal Information was compromised as a result of Defendant’s
security failures. As a result of such compromise, Doe suffered losses and damages in an
amount yet to be completely determinable as such losses and damages are ongoing.
10.

On information and belief Defendant is a corporation organized under Canadian

law with its headquarters and principal place of business in Toronto, Canada.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11.

Defendant is a merchant that owns, operates, and controls social networking

services, including a site on the Internet branded as “Ashley Madison”.

3

12.

Upon information and belief, Defendant’s data breach has impacted hundreds of

thousands, or millions of its customers nationwide within the United States.
13.

Hackers accessed a database owned, operated, or controlled by ALM that

processes, stores, or utilizes information regarding ALM transactions, with account numbers,
expiration dates, card holder names and/or other information, on information and belief.
14.

Plaintiff Jane Doe herein contacted Defendant to accept Defendant’s offer to

“paid-delete” any personal information, including Personal Information, in Defendant’s
possession; in other words, Defendant promised to delete such information for a fee ($19, on
information and belief).
15.

Defendant broke such promise to Plaintiff and the Class Members, who also

sought a “paid-delete.”
16.

Upon information and belief, the Defendant accepts customer payments for

services through credit and debit cards issued by members of the payment card industry (“PCI”)
such as Visa or MasterCard.
17.

In 2006, the PCI members established a Security Standards Counsel (“PCI SSC”)

as a forum to develop PCI Data Security Standards (“PCI DSS”) for increased security of
payment processing systems.
18.

The PCI DSS provides, “If you are a merchant that accepts payment cards, you

are required to be compliant with the PCI Data Security Standard.” Defendant, or course, is a
merchant that accepts payment cards.
19.

The PCI DSS requires a merchant to:

4

a.

Assess—identify cardholder data, take inventory of IT assets and business

processes for payment card processing, and analyze them for vulnerabilities that could expose
cardholder data.
b.

Remediate—fix vulnerabilities and do not store cardholder data unless

c.

Report—compile and submit required remediation validation records (if

needed.

applicable) and submit compliance reports to the acquiring bank and card brands with which a
merchant does business.
20.

Additionally, since 1995, the FTC has been studying the manner in which online

entities collect and use personal information and safeguards to assure that online data collection
practice is fair and provides adequate information privacy protection. The result of this study is
the FTC Fair Information Practice Principles. The core principles are:
a.

Notice/Awareness--Consumers should be given notice of an entity’s

information practices before any personal information is collected from them. This requires that
companies explicitly notify of some or all of the following:
•

Identification of the entity collecting the data;

•

Identification of the uses to which the data will be put;

•

Identification of any potential recipients of the data;

•

The nature of the data collected and the means by which it is
collected;
•

Whether the provision of the requested data is voluntary or
required; and
•

The steps taken by the data collector to ensure the confidentiality,
integrity and quality of the data.

5

b.

Choice/Consent--Choice and consent in an online information-gathering

sense means giving consumers options to control how their data is used with respect to
secondary uses of information beyond the immediate needs of the information collector to
complete the consumer’s transaction.
c.

Access/Participation--Access as defined in the Fair Information Practice

Principles includes not only a consumer’s ability to view the data collected, but also to verify and
contest its accuracy. This access must be inexpensive and timely in order to be useful to the
consumer.
d.

Integrity/Security--Information collectors should ensure that the data

they collect is accurate and secure.

They should improve the integrity of data by cross-

referencing it with only reputable databases and by providing access for the consumer to verify
it. Information collectors should keep their data secure by protecting against both internal and
external security threats. They should limit access within their company to only necessary
employees to protect against internal threats, and they should use encryption and other computerbased security systems to stop outside threats.
e.

Enforcement/Redress--In order to ensure that companies follow the Fair

Information Practice Principles, there must be enforcement measures. The FTC identifies three
types of enforcement measures: self-regulation by the information collectors or an appointed
regulatory body; private remedies that give civil causes of action for individuals whose
information has been misused to sue violators; and government enforcement, which can include
civil and criminal penalties levied by the government.
21.

On information and belief, Defendant failed to adequately analyze its computer

systems for vulnerabilities that could expose cardholder data. Defendant further failed to fix the

6

vulnerabilities in its computer systems which allowed Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Personal
Information to become compromised.
22.

Additionally, on information and belief, Defendant unlawfully collected consumer

financial data for marketing purposes beyond the needs of specific transactions, in order to
accrue financial benefit at the risk and likelihood of compromising consumers’ Personal
Information.
23.

As a result, Defendant allowed Personal Information connected with thousands of

consumers’ credit cards and debit cards, including credit cards and debit cards of Plaintiff and
Class Members, to become compromised for a period prior to July 15 of this year.
24.

Plaintiff and Class Members are subject to continuing damage from having their

Personal Information comprised as a result of Defendant’s inadequate systems and failures.
Such damages include, among other things, the amount paid to Defendant to perform a “paiddelete” which Defendant did not perform or performed inadequately; out-of-pocket expenses
incurred to mitigate the increased risk of identity theft and or fraud; credit, debit, and financial
monitoring to prevent and/or mitigate theft, identity theft, and/or fraud incurred or likely to occur
as a result of Defendant’s security failures; the value of their time and resources spent mitigating
the identity theft and/or fraud; the cost of and time spent replacing credit cards and debit cards
and reconfiguring automatic payment programs with other merchants related to the compromised
cards; and irrecoverable financial losses due to unauthorized charges on the credit/debit cards of
Defendant’s customers by identity thieves who wrongfully gained access to the Personal
Information of Plaintiffs and the Classes.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

7

25.

Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following three (3) multi-state classes:
All persons in the United States who paid Defendant for “paid-delete” services
which were improperly performed.
All persons in the United States whose Personal Information was subject to Defendant’s
security failures and who suffered damages in the amount of fraudulent charges /

unauthorized withdrawals made to their credit and/or debit cards or suffered
damages in the amount of overdraft charges made to their credit and/or debit
cards.
All persons in the United States whose Personal Information was subject to
Defendant’s security failures and who have suffered or anticipate suffering
damages, loss, and/or expenses accruing due to Defendant’s security failures.
Excluded from the Classes are Defendant and its affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, employees,
officers, agents, and directors.
26.

The Members of the Classes are so numerous that joinder of all Members is

impracticable. On information and belief, thousands, hundreds of thousands, or more credit
and/or debit cards may have been compromised, and the Members of the Classes are
geographically dispersed. Disposition of the claims of the proposed Classes in a class action will
provide substantial benefits to both the parties and the Court.
27.

The rights of each member of the proposed Classes were violated in a similar

fashion based upon Defendant’s uniform wrongful actions and/or inaction.
28.

The following questions of law and fact are common to each proposed Class

Member and predominate over questions that may affect individual Class Members:
a.

Whether Defendant failed to use reasonable care and commercially

reasonable methods to secure and safeguard its customers’ private financial information;

8

b.

Whether Defendant properly implemented its purported security measures

to protect consumers’ private financial information from unauthorized capture, dissemination
and misuse;
c.

Whether Defendant took reasonable measures to determine the extent of

the security breach after it first learned of the same;
d.

Whether Defendant’s delay in informing consumers of the security breach

was unreasonable;
e.

Whether Defendant’s method of informing consumers of the security

breach and its description of the breach and potential exposure to damages as a result of the same
was unreasonable;
f.

Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the Stored Communications Act,

18 U.S.C. § 2702;
g.

Whether Defendant breached an implied contract with Class Members;

h.

Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the Missouri Merchandising

Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020, and the substantively similar statutes of the other states
where Defendant conducts business; and
i.

Whether Plaintiffs and others Members of the Classes are entitled to

compensation, monetary damages, equitable relief and injunctive relief, and, if so, the nature and
amount of such relief.
29.

Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claim of absent Class Members. If brought

individually, the claim of each Class Member would necessarily require proof of the same
material and substantive facts, and seek the same remedies.

9

30.

The Plaintiffs are willing and prepared to serve the Court and the proposed

Classes in a representative capacity. The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interest
of the Classes and have no interests adverse to, or which directly and irrevocably conflicts with,
the interests of other Members of the Classes.

Further, Plaintiffs have retained counsel

experienced in prosecuting complex class action litigation.
31.

Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the

proposed Classes, thereby making appropriate equitable relief with respect to the Classes.
32.

A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy because individual claims by the Class Members are impractical,
as the costs of prosecution may exceed what any Class Member has at stake.
33.

Members of the Classes are readily ascertainable through Defendant’s records of

the transactions it undertook.
34.

Prosecuting separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of

inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish incomparable standards of conduct for
Defendant. Moreover, adjudications with respect to individual Class Members would, as a
practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class Members.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL STORED
COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 2702
35.

Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate paragraphs 1-40 in this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein.
36.

The Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) contains provisions that provide

consumers with redress if a company mishandles their electronically stored information. The
SCA was designed, in relevant part, “to protect individuals’ privacy interests in personal and
10

proprietary information.” S. Rep. No. 99-541, at 3 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3555
at 3557.
37.

Section 2702(a)(1) of the SCA provides that “a person or entity providing an

electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or
entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service.” 18 U.S.C. §
2702(a)(1).
38.

The SCA defines “electronic communication service” as “any service which

provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications.” Id. at
§ 2510(15).
39.

Through its payment processing equipment, Defendant provides an “electronic

communication service to the public” within the meaning of the SCA because it provides
consumers at large with credit and debit card payment processing capability that enables them to
send or receive wire or electronic communications concerning their private financial information
to transaction managers, card companies, or banks.
40.

By failing to take commercially reasonable steps to safeguard sensitive private

financial information, even after Defendant was aware that customers’ Personal Information had
been compromised, Defendant has knowingly divulged customers’ private financial information
that was communicated to financial institutions solely for customers’ payment verification
purposes, while in electronic storage in Defendant’s payment system.
41.

Section 2702(a)(2)(A) of the SCA provides that “a person or entity providing

remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the
contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service on behalf of, and
received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing

11

of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer
of such service.” 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(2)(A).
42.

The SCA defines “remote computing service” as “the provision to the public of

computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communication system.” 18
U.S.C. § 2711(2).
43.

An “electronic communications systems” is defined by the SCA as “any wire,

radio, electromagnetic, photooptical or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of wire or
electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the
electronic storage of such communications.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4).
44.

Defendant provides remote computing services to the public by virtue of its

computer processing services for consumer credit and debit card payments, which are used by
customers and carried out by means of an electronic communications system, namely the use of
wire, electromagnetic, photooptical or photoelectric facilities for the transmission of wire or
electronic communications received from, and on behalf of, the customer concerning customer
private financial information.
45.

By failing to take commercially reasonable steps to safeguard sensitive private

financial information, Defendant has knowingly divulged customers’ private financial
information that was carried and maintained on Defendant’s remote computing service solely for
the customer’s payment verification purposes.
46.

As a result of Defendant’s conduct described herein and its violations of Section

2702(a)(1) and (2)(A), Plaintiff and putative Class Members have suffered injuries, including
lost money and the costs associated with the need for vigilant credit monitoring to protect against
additional identity theft. Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative Classes, seek

12

an order awarding themselves and the Classes the maximum statutory damages available under
18 U.S.C. § 2707 in addition to the cost for 3 years of credit monitoring services.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff and Class Members pray for Judgment in their favor and against
Defendant on this Count I of their Complaint; for actual and compensatory damages; for punitive
or exemplary damages; for punitive or exemplary damages; for punitive or exemplary damages;
for injunctive relief; for costs, expenses and attorney fees as allowed by law; and for such other
and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE
47.

Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
48.

Upon coming into possession of Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Personal

Information, i.e., private, non-public, sensitive financial information, Defendant had (and
continues to have) a duty to exercise reasonable care in safeguarding and protecting the
information from being compromised and/or stolen.
49.

Defendant also had a duty to timely disclose to Plaintiff and Class Members that a

breach of security had occurred and their Personal Information pertaining to their credit cards
and/or debit cards had been compromised, or was reasonably believed to be compromised.
50.

Defendant also had a duty to put into place internal policies and procedures

designed to detect and prevent the theft or dissemination of Plaintiff’s and Class Members’
Personal Information.
51.

Defendant, by and through its above negligent acts and/or omissions, breached its

duty to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to exercise reasonable care in protecting and

13

safeguarding their Personal Information which was in Defendant’s possession, custody, and
control.
52.

Defendant, by and through its above negligent acts and or omissions, further

breached its duty to Plaintiffs and Class Members by failing to put into place internal policies
and procedures designed to detect and prevent the unauthorized dissemination of Plaintiff and
Class Members’ Personal Information.
53.

Defendant, by and through its above negligent acts and or omissions, breached its

duty to timely disclose the fact that Plaintiff and Class Members’ Personal Information had been
or was reasonable believed to be have been compromised.
54.

Defendant’s negligent and wrongful breach of its duties owed to Plaintiff and

Class Members, their Personal Information would not have been compromised.
55.

Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Personal Information was compromised and/or

stolen as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of its duties as set forth herein.
56.

Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered actual damages including, but not

limited to, having their personal information compromised, incurring time and expenses in
cancelling their debit and/credit cards, activating new cards and re-establishing automatic
payment authorizations from their new cards, and other economic and non-economic damages,
including irrecoverable losses due to unauthorized charges on their credit/debit cards.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff and Class Members pray for Judgment in their favor and against
Defendant on this Count II of their Complaint; for actual and compensatory damages; for
punitive or exemplary damages; for punitive or exemplary damages; for punitive or exemplary
damages; for injunctive relief; for costs, expenses and attorney fees as allowed by law; and for
such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

14

COUNT III -- BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT
57.

Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
58.

Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their

Personal Information in order to facilitate their credit card and/or debit card transactions.
59.

Implicit in this requirement was a covenant requiring Defendant to take

reasonable efforts to safeguard this information and promptly notify Plaintiffs and Class
Members in the event their information was compromised.
60.

Similarly, it was implicit that Defendant would not disclose Plaintiff’s and Class

Members’ Personal Information.
61.

Notwithstanding its obligations, Defendant knowingly failed to safeguard and

protect Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Personal Information.

To the contrary, Defendant

allowed this information to be disseminated to unauthorized third parties.
62.

Defendant’s above wrongful actions and/or inaction breached its implied

contracts with Plaintiffs and Class Members, which in turn directly and/or proximately caused
Plaintiffs and Class Members to suffer substantial injuries.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff and Class Members pray for Judgment in their favor and against
Defendant on this Count III of their Complaint; for actual and compensatory damages; for
punitive or exemplary damages; for punitive or exemplary damages; for punitive or exemplary
damages; for injunctive relief; for costs, expenses and attorney fees as allowed by law; and for
such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

15

COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF THE MISSOURI MERCHANDISING
PRACTICES ACT AND SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR STATUTES OF
THE OTHER STATES WHERE DEFENDANT DOES BUSINESS
63.

Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
64.

Defendant violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. §

407.020, and the substantially similar statutes of the other states in which it conducts business by
failing to properly implement adequate, commercially reasonable security measures to protect
customers’ private financial information, and by failing to immediately notify affected customers
of the nature and extent of the security breach.
65.

Defendant’s fraudulent and deceptive omissions and misrepresentations regarding

the company’s security measures to protect customers’ private financial information and the
extent of the breach of those security measures were intended to deceive and induce Plaintiffs
and the putative Class Members’ reliance on Defendant’s misrepresentations that their financial
information was secure and protected when using debit and credit cards to shop at Defendant
stores.
66.

Defendant’s unlawful misrepresentations and omissions occurred in the course of

conduct involving trade or commerce.
67.

Defendant’s unlawful misrepresentations and omissions were material because

Plaintiffs and the other putative Class Members, if they had known the truth, would not have
risked compromising their private financial information by using their debit or credit cards at
Defendant stores. Plaintiffs and the other putative Class Members would consider the omitted
and misrepresented material facts important in making their purchasing decisions.

16

68.

Defendant’s unlawful misrepresentations and omissions damaged Plaintiffs and

the other putative Class Members because Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have chosen
to expose their private financial information to a security breach and subsequent exploitation by
the defrauders.
69.

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the putative Classes, seek an order

requiring Defendant to pay: monetary and punitive damages for the conduct described herein;
three years of credit card fraud monitoring services for Plaintiffs and Members of the putative
Classes; and the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit of Plaintiffs and Class Members;
together with all such other and further relief as may be just.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff and Class Members pray for Judgment in their favor and against
Defendant on this Count IV of their Complaint; for actual and compensatory damages; for
punitive or exemplary damages; for punitive or exemplary damages; for punitive or exemplary
damages; for injunctive relief; for costs, expenses and attorney fees as allowed by law; and for
such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT V – BREACH OF CONTRACT
70.

Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
71.

Defendant promised Plaintiff and the Class Members, for a fee of approximately

$19, to delete any of Plaintiff’s/Class Member’s personal information, including Personal
Information, in Defendant’s possession (the “paid-delete” service).
72.

On information and belief, Defendant broke such promise, and did not delete

some or all of Plaintiff’s/Class Member’s Personal Information in Defendant’s possession, even
after the payment of such fee.

17

73.

Plaintiffs have been damage thereby in the amount paid to the Defendant to

perform a “paid-delete,” and in the amount of other losses as previously stated.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff and Class Members pray for Judgment in their favor and against
Defendant on this Count V of their Complaint; for actual and compensatory damages; for
punitive or exemplary damages; for punitive or exemplary damages; for punitive or exemplary
damages; for injunctive relief; for costs, expenses and attorney fees as allowed by law; and for
such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs and class members demand a jury trial as to all claims and issues triable of right by a jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Members of the proposed Classes pray that this
Honorable Court do the following:
A.

Certify the matter as a class action pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and order that notice be provided to all Class Members;
B.

Designate Plaintiffs as representative of the Classes and the undersigned counsel

as Class Counsel;
C.

Award Plaintiffs and the Classes compensatory and punitive damages in an

amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
D.

Award Plaintiffs and the Classes statutory interest and penalties;

E.

Award Plaintiffs and the Classes appropriate injunctive and/or declaratory relief;

F.

Award Plaintiffs and the Classes their costs, prejudgment interest, and attorney

fees; and
G.

Grant such other relief as is just and proper.

18

Respectfully submitted,
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
By:

___/s/John J. Driscoll___________
John J. Driscoll, #6276464
211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
314-932-3232 telephone
314-932-3233 facsimile

19