Arliss v. Groupon, Inc.

Filing 1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL from King County Superior Court, case number 11-2-10524-5; (Receipt # 0981-2408489), filed by Groupon, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Keehnel, Stellman)

EXHIBIT A

09

FILED
11 MAR 23 AM 9:06
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 11-2-10524-5 SEA

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
BARRIE ARLISS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
No.
Plaintiff,
vs.

Class Action Complaint

GROUPON, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
d/b/a Groupon,

Defendant

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Barrie Arliss (“Plaintiff”), for her Class Action Complaint, alleges as follows upon
personal knowledge as to herself and her own acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon
information and belief based upon, inter alia, investigation conducted by her attorneys:
I. Introduction
1.

Plaintiff’s claims herein are based upon Defendant Groupon, Inc.’s (d/b/a Groupon)

(“Defendant”) illegal practices related to its business selling online gift certificates.
2.

Defendant is a company that sells gift certificates to consumers, as defined by RCW

19.240.010(4), (5). Defendant refers to its gift certificates as “Groupons.” Defendant sells these

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 1 of 13

10

gift certificates online throughout the State of Washington, and targets specific cities in the State for
the sale of certificates.
3.

Defendant violates Washington law by inducing consumers to buy gift certificates

intended for use in the State of Washington, while knowing that its certificates contain expiration
dates, which are forbidden under RCW 19.240.020. In fact, Defendant prints the illegal expiration
dates in bold print on the face of its certificates. Defendant imposes other illegal restrictions on the
use of its certificates as well. For example, Defendant states: “Must use gift certificate in one
visit” or similar language in bold print on the face of its certificates. Defendant also states: “Not
valid for cash back (unless required by law)” on the face of its certificates. These limitations are
also clearly forbidden under RCW 19.240.020.
4.

Defendant’s deceptive business practices violate the Washington Consumer Protection

Act (RCW 19.86 et seq.)(“CPA”) by unlawfully printing expiration dates and other limitations on
the face of the certificates that its customers have purchased, and by falsely informing customers
that they are not entitled to retain surplus value or use the certificates in multiple transactions.
Customers are never informed that these restrictions are in direct violation of Washington law. On
information and belief, many customers choose to forego using their “Groupons” when the
“Groupon” shows on its face that it has already expired.

On information and belief, many

customers forego asking for a refund of any unused value of their “Groupon,” based upon the
bolded statement on the “Groupon”: “Must use gift certificate in one visit.” On information and
belief, many customers forgo asking for a refund of any unused value of their “Groupon,” based on
the statement on the “Groupon”: “not valid for cash back (unless required by applicable law).” The

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 2 of 13

11

result of these unfair and deceptive practices is that consumers are often deceived out of redeeming
their certificates, or deceived to believe that they must redeem them at a reduced rate.
5.

During the process of purchasing a “Groupon,” Defendant does not disclose all of these

stated restrictions to consumers. These stated restrictions in some cases contradict statements
within Defendant’s “terms of use” that a consumer is required to “acknowledge,” but not actually
review, before purchasing a “Groupon.” This is a misleading marketing practice that violates RCW
19.86 et seq.
6.

On information and belief, Defendant engages in these unfair and deceptive practices in

an effort to maximize the number of customers who either never redeem their “Groupon” because
of the perceived expiration date (therefore losing the entire value of the “Groupon”), and to
maximize the number of customers who never redeem their “Groupon” for its full value. It is well
known in the gift certificate industry that a significant source of the benefit for a business selling
gift certificates is that a substantial number of customer never redeem them. Defendant is seeking
to maximize this “margin” in the gift certificate business by misleadingly encouraging consumers to
never redeem their gift certificates, or to redeem them for less than the full value to which they are
entitled under law.
7.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a Class and Subclasses of individuals

seeking injunctive relief, damages, and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees for Defendant’s
violations of the CPA, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and such other and further relief as the
Court deems equitable and just.
II. Facts of the Claim
1.

Defendant offers its services to consumers throughout the State of Washington.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 3 of 13

12

2.
merchants.

Defendant offers daily deals on certificates redeemable to a variety of different
If a specified number of consumers agree to purchase the certificate, then the

consumers’ credit card is charged and the certificate is e-mailed to the consumer.
3.

The consumer agrees to purchase the certificate for a specified price. The certificate is

then issued to the consumer, invariably containing an unlawful expiration date and the restriction
that the entire value of the certificate must be used in one transaction.
4.

The unlawful expiration dates and redemption conditions Defendant imposes on its

consumers resulting in unjust gains for Defendant to the detriment of the consumer. Furthermore,
on information and belief, Defendant has knowledge of the illegality of their actions, through, inter
alia, its customer service interactions, which reveal complaints about Defendant’s inclusion of
illegal expiration dates.
III. Parties
1.

Plaintiff Barrie Arliss:

Plaintiff is a resident of Seattle, Washington.

Plaintiff

purchased gift certificates from Defendant in 2010 and 2011.
2.

Defendant Groupon, Inc. d/b/a Groupon: Defendant is an internet seller of gift

certificates. Defendant is a Delaware corporation registered at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington,
Delaware 19801. Defendant does business throughout the State of Washington and the nation and
is headquartered at 600 West Chicago Avenue, Suite 620, Chicago, IL 60654.
IV. Jurisdiction and Venue
1.

The Court has jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to RCW 4.12.020.

2.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to RCW 4.12.020.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 4 of 13

13

V.
1.

Plaintiff Barrie Arliss:

Facts Regarding Plaintiff
Plaintiff is a resident of Seattle, Washington.

Plaintiff

purchased “Groupons” from Defendant on May 8, 2010, July 9, 2010, August 20, 2010, and
September 19, 2010.

In clear violation of Washington State law, the gift certificates have

expiration dates of one year or less and other terms that violate Washington State as described in
this Complaint.
VI. Class Allegations
1.

Plaintiff seeks certification of a class and subclasses as defined below.
(a)

The Expiration Class: All citizens of the State of Washington who at any time

for three years from the date of this action purchased a “Groupon” in the State of Washington and
were deceived into the belief that the certificate validly expired before use.
(b)

The Unused Certificate Subclass: All members of the Class who, for three

years from the date of this action purchased a gift certificate that contained an expiration date and
have not yet redeemed the certificate for goods or services.
(c)

The Surplus Value Subclass: All members of the class who, for three years

from the date of this action purchased a gift certificate and were unlawfully required to either
surrender surplus value after their purchase using the certificate or who were induced to accept
goods and/or services they did not want in order to exhaust the full value of the certificate, thereby
depriving them of the full face value of the certificate.
Excluded from the Class and Subclasses are (i) any judge presiding over this action and
members of their families; (ii) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 5 of 13

14

current or former employees, officers and directors; (iii) persons who properly execute and file a
timely request for exclusion from the Class; and (iv) the legal representatives, successors or assigns
of any such excluded persons.
2.

Numerosity: The exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time,

but on information and belief, Defendant has contracted with thousands of Class members
throughout the State of Washington, making joinder of each individual member impracticable.
Ultimately, the Class and members will be easily identified through Defendant’s records.
3.

Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all

members of the Class and Subclasses and predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members.
These common questions include but are not limited to:
(a)

Whether Defendant sold gift certificates to members of the Class and Subclasses

containing an expiration date and other restrictions in violation of Washington law;
(b)

Whether Defendant’s practices violate the CPA;

(c)

Whether Defendant’s practices violate the public policy of the State of

Washington;
(d)

Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched as a result of receiving payments from

Plaintiffs, the Class and Subclasses; and
(e)

Whether Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses are entitled to relief, and the nature

of such relief.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 6 of 13

15

4.

Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class

and Subclasses. Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses sustained damages as a result of Defendant’s
uniform wrongful conduct during transactions with Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses.
5.

Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the

interests of the Class and Subclasses, and has retained counsel competent to litigate this action.
Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class or Subclasses, and Defendant has no
defenses unique to Plaintiff.
6.

Appropriateness: This class action is appropriate for certification because class

proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy and joinder of all members of the Class and Subclasses is impracticable. The damages
suffered by the individual members of the Class and Subclasses will likely be small relative to the
burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s
wrongful conduct. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Class
and Subclasses to obtain effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct. Even if members of the
Class and Subclasses could sustain such individual litigation, it would not be preferable to a class
action because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the
complex legal and factual controversies presented in this Complaint. By contrast, a class action
presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication,
economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Economies of time, effort, and
expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions will be ensured.
7.

Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is also appropriate for

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 7 of 13

16

Class and Subclasses, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure
compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Class and Subclasses, and making final
injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class and Subclasses as a whole. Defendant’s
policies challenged herein apply and affect members of the Class and Subclasses uniformly and
Plaintiff’s challenge of these policies hinges on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class and
Subclasses as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.
8.

Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the Class and Subclasses definitions based upon

information learned through discovery.
VII. Amount in Controversy
Plaintiff makes no specific allegations that the amount in controversy (including requests for
attorneys’ fees, injunctive and other relief) exceeds any specific dollar amount, let alone
$5,000,000.
VIII. Claims
Count 1: Declaratory Relief pursuant to RCW 7.24 et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses)
1.

Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

2.

There exists an actual controversy between Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses on the one

hand, and Defendant on the other, to the extent Defendant’s Sales and Issuance of gift certificates
are contrary to Washington law and public policy.
3.

As explained infra, Defendant’s agreements with Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses

violate the Washington Consumer Protection Act by, inter alia, selling gift certificates that purport
to have expiration dates and unlawfully restricting redemption to a single transaction.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 8 of 13

17

4.

Defendant’s sales of gift certificates with expiration dates and redemption restrictions to

Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses are contrary to applicable Washington law and are therefore void
under RCW 19.240.110.
5.

Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses have tangible legal interests in the instant

controversy, including but not limited to:
(a)

Their interest in receiving full value of the certificates they purchased from

Defendant without regard to unlawful expiration dates and single-transaction redemption
restrictions; and
(b)

Their interest in obtaining injunctive relief so that Defendant does not in the

future employ deceptive practices in its business dealings with consumers.
6.

Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses seek injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from

refusing to honor certificates in accordance in Washington, and to prevent Defendant from
continuing its unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices as described in this Complaint.
Count II: Violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act
(On behalf of Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses)
1.

Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as fully set forth herein.

2.

The CPA provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or

practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.” RCW 19.86.020.
3.

Defendant engages in numerous unfair or deceptive practices in violation of the

Consumer Protection Act, including but not limited to: (1) marketing and selling “Groupons” that
are subject to purported expiration dates which violate state law, (2) marketing and selling
“Groupons” with purported explicit restrictions on the “Groupon,” such as those stating: "Must use

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 9 of 13

18

gift certificate in one visit” and “not valid for cash back (unless required by applicable law),”
which restrictions violate state law, (3) marketing and selling “Groupons” with terms on the face of
the “Groupon” that contradict terms contained in Groupon’s own terms of use, thereby misleadingly
obfuscating the contents and meaning of the terms of use.
4.

The result of these unfair and deceptive practices is that members of the Class and

Subclasses have been deprived of the full value of the certificate to which they are legally entitled
under Washington law, and have either discarded certificates that they were deceived into believing
had “expired,” or have been deceived into either giving up some portion of the value of the
certificate or accepting delivery of goods and/or services that they did not want for the sole purpose
of receiving some approximation of full value of the certificate. Defendant’s unfair and deceptive
business practices have therefore caused economic harm to Plaintiff, the Class, and the Subclasses.
Count III: Violation of the RCW 19.240.020: Expiration, Surplus Value
(On behalf of Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses)
1.

Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as fully set forth herein.

2.

RCW 19.240.020 prohibits the sale or issuance of a gift certificate containing an

expiration date. It also requires that when a purchase is made with a gift certificate for an amount
that is less than the value of the gift certificate, the issuer must make the remaining value available
to the bearer in cash or as a gift certificate at the option of the issuer.
3.

Defendant sold gift certificates to Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses that are

represented by Defendant to have expiration dates, which is unlawful under Washington law (RCW
19.240.020(1)(a)). Similarly, the face of the certificates indicates that the consumer must use the
full value of the certificate during a single transaction and that no residual value will be returned to

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 10 of 13

19

the consumer. This violates RCW 19.240.020(3).
4.

The result of these unfair and deceptive practices is that members of the Class and

Subclasses have been deprived of the full value of the certificate to which they are legally entitled
under Washington law, and have either discarded certificates that they were deceived into believing
had “expired,” or have been deceived into either giving up some portion of the value of the
certificate or accepting delivery of goods and/or services that they did not want for the sole purpose
of receiving some approximation of full value of the certificate. Defendant’s unfair and deceptive
business practices have therefore caused economic harm to Plaintiffs, the Class, and the Subclasses.
Count IV: Restitution/Unjust Enrichment
(On behalf of Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses)
1.

Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

2.

Defendant has knowingly received and retained benefits from Plaintiff, the Class, and

Subclasses under circumstances that would render it unjust to allow Defendant to retain such
benefits.
3.

Under principles of equity and good conscience, Defendant should not be permitted to

retain the monies belonging to Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses that they were paid in the form of
payment for gift certificates and that Defendant unjustly received as a result of its misconduct
alleged herein.
IX. Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of the Class and
Subclasses, prays that the Court enter an order and judgment in her favor and against Defendant as
follows:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 11 of 13

20

(a)

Certifying this case as a class action, and designating Plaintiff as Class

Representative and her attorneys as Class Counsel;
(b)

Declaring Defendant’s conduct in the sale of gift certificates to Plaintiff, the

Class and Subclasses to be illegal under State law, and granting injunctive relief as necessary to
protect the Plaintiff, Class, and Subclasses and to prohibit the continuing conduct of Defendant’s
business in ways that violate State law;
(c)

Awarding actual and liquidated damages to Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses in

an amount to be proven at trial;
(d)

Granting equitable and injunctive relief to Plaintiff, the Class, including

restitution, disgorgement, and an accounting of all revenue gained by Defendant through its
unlawful conduct alleged herein;
(e)

Awarding Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses reasonable costs and attorneys’

(f)

Awarding Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclasses pre- and post-judgment interest;

(g)

Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

fees;

and

X.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff request trial by a jury of 12 members of all matters that can be so tried.

Dated this March 23, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 12 of 13

21

CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP

____________________________________
Christopher Carney, WSBA No. 30325
Sean Gillespie, WSBA No. 35365
Kenan Isitt, WSBA No. 35317
CARNEY GILLESPIE & ISITT PLLP
Jay Carlson, WSBA No. 30411
CARLSON LEGAL
Shaun Van Eyk, WSBA No. 41476
Jason Moore, WSBA No. 41324
VAN EYK & MOORE, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - Page 13 of 13

22

FILED
11 MAR 23 AM 9:06
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 11-2-10524-5 SEA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
NO. 11-2-10524-5

Barrie Arliss

SEA

Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS)

Plaintiff(s)

vs

ASSIGNED JUDGE Eadie

Groupon, Inc.

33

FILE DATE:
Defendant(s)

03/23/2011

TRIAL DATE:

09/10/2012

A civil case has been filed in the King County Superior Court and will be managed by the Case Schedule
on Page 3 as ordered by the King County Superior Court Presiding Judge.
I. NOTICES
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF: The Plaintiff may serve a copy of this Order Setting Case Schedule
(Schedule) on the Defendant(s) along with the Summons and Complaint/Petition. Otherwise, the
Plaintiff shall serve the Schedule on the Defendant(s) within 10 days after the later of: (1) the filing of the
Summons and Complaint/Petition or (2) service of the Defendant's first response to the
Complaint/Petition, whether that response is a Notice of Appearance, a response, or a Civil Rule 12
(CR 12) motion. The Schedule may be served by regular mail, with proof of mailing to be filed promptly in
the form required by Civil Rule 5 (CR 5).
"I understand that I am required to give a copy of these documents to all parties in this case."

Print Name

Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS)

23

Sign Name

REV. 12/08

1

I. NOTICES (continued)
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES:
All attorneys and parties should make themselves familiar with the King County Local Rules [KCLR] -especially those referred to in this Schedule. In order to comply with the Schedule, it will be necessary for
attorneys and parties to pursue their cases vigorously from the day the case is filed. For example,
discovery must be undertaken promptly in order to comply with the deadlines for joining additional parties,
claims, and defenses, for disclosing possible witnesses [See KCLCR 26], and for meeting the discovery
cutoff date [See KCLCR 37(g)].
CROSSCLAIMS, COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINTS:
A filing fee of $230 must be paid when any answer that includes additional claims is filed in an existing
case.
KCLCR 4.2(a)(2)
A Confirmation of Joinder, Claims and Defenses or a Statement of Arbitrability must be filed by the
deadline in the schedule. The court will review the confirmation of joinder document to determine if a
hearing is required. If a Show Cause order is issued, all parties cited in the order must appear before
their Chief Civil Judge.
PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVE THE CASE:
When a final decree, judgment, or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is filed with the Superior
Court Clerk's Office, and a courtesy copy delivered to the assigned judge, all pending due dates in this
Schedule are automatically canceled, including the scheduled Trial Date. It is the responsibility of the
parties to 1) file such dispositive documents within 45 days of the resolution of the case, and 2) strike any
pending motions by notifying the bailiff to the assigned judge.
Parties may also authorize the Superior Court to strike all pending due dates and the Trial Date by filing a
Notice of Settlement pursuant to KCLCR 41, and forwarding a courtesy copy to the assigned judge. If a
final decree, judgment or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is not filed by 45 days after a Notice
of Settlement, the case may be dismissed with notice.
If you miss your scheduled Trial Date, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by KCLCR 41(b)(2)(A) to
present an Order of Dismissal, without notice, for failure to appear at the scheduled Trial Date.
NOTICES OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL AND ADDRESS CHANGES:
All parties to this action must keep the court informed of their addresses. When a Notice of
Appearance/Withdrawal or Notice of Change of Address is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office,
parties must provide the assigned judge with a courtesy copy.
ARBITRATION FILING AND TRIAL DE NOVO POST ARBITRATION FEE:
A Statement of Arbitrability must be filed by the deadline on the schedule if the case is subject to
mandatory arbitration and service of the original complaint and all answers to claims, counterclaims and
cross-claims have been filed. If mandatory arbitration is required after the deadline, parties must obtain
an order from the assigned judge transferring the case to arbitration. Any party filing a Statement must
pay a $220 arbitration fee. If a party seeks a trial de novo when an arbitration award is appealed, a fee of
$250 and the request for trial de novo must be filed with the Clerk’s Office Cashiers.
NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE FEES:
All parties will be assessed a fee authorized by King County Code 4.71.050 whenever the Superior Court
Clerk must send notice of non-compliance of schedule requirements and/or Local Civil Rule 41.
King County Local Rules are available for viewing at www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk.

Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS)

24

REV. 12/08

2

II. CASE SCHEDULE

CASE EVENT
Case Filed and Schedule Issued.
Last Day for Filing Statement of Arbitrability without a Showing of Good
Cause for Late Filing [See KCLMAR 2.1(a) and Notices on Page 2].
$220 arbitration fee must be paid
DEADLINE to file Confirmation of Joinder if not subject to Arbitration.
[See KCLCR 4.2(a) and Notices on Page 2].
DEADLINE for Hearing Motions to Change Case Assignment Area.
[See KCLCR 82(e)]
DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Primary Witnesses
[See KCLCR 26(b)].
DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Additional Witnesses
[See KCLCR 26(b)].
DEADLINE for Jury Demand [See KCLCR 38(b)(2)].
DEADLINE for Setting Motion for a Change in Trial Date
[See KCLCR 40(d)(2)].
DEADLINE for Discovery Cutoff [See KCLCR 37(g)].
DEADLINE for Engaging in Alternative Dispute Resolution [See KCLCR
16(b)].
DEADLINE for Exchange Witness & Exhibit Lists & Documentary Exhibits
[See KCLCR 4(j)].
DEADLINE to file Joint Confirmation of Trial Readiness
[See KCLCR 16]
DEADLINE for Hearing Dispositive Pretrial Motions [See KCLCR 56; CR
56].
Joint Statement of Evidence [See KCLCR (4)(k)].
DEADLINE for filing Trial Briefs, Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and Jury Instructions (Do not file Proposed Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law with the Clerk)
Trial Date [See KCLCR 40].

DEADLINE
or
Filing
EVENT DATE Needed
Wed 03/23/2011
Wed 08/31/2011

*
*

Wed 08/31/2011

*

Wed 09/14/2011
Mon 04/09/2012
Mon 05/21/2012
Mon 06/04/2012
Mon 06/04/2012

*
*

Mon 07/23/2012
Mon 08/13/2012
Mon 08/20/2012
Mon 08/20/2012

*

Mon 08/27/2012
Tue 09/04/2012
Tue 09/04/2012

*
*

Mon 09/10/2012

III. ORDER
Pursuant to King County Local Civil Rule 4 [KCLCR 4], IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall comply with
the schedule listed above. Penalties, including but not limited to sanctions set forth in Local Civil Rule 4(g)
and Rule 37 of the Superior Court Civil Rules, may be imposed for non-compliance. It is FURTHER
ORDERED that the party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Civil Case Schedule and
attachment on all other parties.
DATED:

03/23/2011
PRESIDING JUDGE

Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS)

25

REV. 12/08

3

IV. ORDER ON CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE
READ THIS ORDER BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ASSIGNED JUDGE
This case is assigned to the Superior Court Judge whose name appears in the caption of this case
schedule. The assigned Superior Court Judge will preside over and manage this case for all pretrial
matters.
COMPLEX LITIGATION: If you anticipate an unusually complex or lengthy trial, please notify the
assigned court as soon as possible.
APPLICABLE RULES: Except as specifically modified below, all the provisions of King County Local
Civil Rules 4 through 26 shall apply to the processing of civil cases before Superior Court Judges. The
local civil rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx .
CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUIREMENTS
Deadlines are set by the case schedule, issued pursuant to Local Civil Rule 4.
THE PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL DEADLINES
IMPOSED BY THE COURT’S LOCAL CIVIL RULES.
A. Joint Confirmation regarding Trial Readiness Report:
No later than twenty one (21) days before the trial date, parties shall complete and file (with a copy to the
assigned judge) a joint confirmation report setting forth whether a jury demand has been filed, the
expected duration of the trial, whether a settlement conference has been held, and special problems and
needs (e.g. interpreters, equipment, etc.).
The form is available at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt.aspx . If parties wish to request
a CR 16 conference, they must contact the assigned court. Plaintiff’s/petitioner’s counsel is responsible
for contacting the other parties regarding said report.
B. Settlement/Mediation/ADR
a. Forty five (45) days before the trial date, counsel for plaintiff/petitioner shall submit a written settlement
demand. Ten (10) days after receiving plaintiff’s/petitioner’s written demand, counsel for
defendant/respondent shall respond (with a counter offer, if appropriate).
b. Twenty eight (28) days before the trial date, a Settlement/Mediation/ADR conference shall have been
held. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT MAY
RESULT IN SANCTIONS.
C. Trial: Trial is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on the date on the case schedule or as soon thereafter as
convened by the court. The Friday before trial, the parties should access the King County Superior Court
website http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt.aspx to confirm trial judge assignment.
Information can also be obtained by calling [phone].
MOTIONS PROCEDURES
A. Noting of Motions
Dispositive Motions: All summary judgment or other dispositive motions will be heard with oral
argument before the assigned judge. The moving party must arrange with the hearing judge a date and
time for the hearing, consistent with the court rules. Local Civil Rule 7 and Local Civil Rule 56 govern
procedures for summary judgment or other motions that dispose of the case in whole or in part. The
local civil rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.

26

Nondispositive Motions: These motions, which include discovery motions, will be ruled on by the
assigned judge without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered. All such motions must be noted for a
date by which the ruling is requested; this date must likewise conform to the applicable notice
requirements. Rather than noting a time of day, the Note for Motion should state “Without Oral
Argument.” Local Civil Rule 7 governs these motions, which include discovery motions. The local civil
rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.
Motions in Family Law Cases not involving children: Discovery motions to compel, motions in limine,
motions relating to trial dates and motions to vacate judgments/dismissals shall be brought before the
assigned judge. All other motions should be noted and heard on the Family Law Motions calendar.
Local Civil Rule 7 and King County Family Law Local Rules govern these procedures. The local rules
can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.
Emergency Motions: Under the court’s local civil rules, emergency motions will be allowed only upon
entry of an Order Shortening Time. However, emergency discovery disputes may be addressed by
telephone call and without written motion, if the judge approves.
B. Original Documents/Working Copies/ Filing of Documents

All original documents must be filed with the Clerk’s Office. Please see information on
the Clerk’s Office website at www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk regarding the new requirement
outlined in LGR 30 that attorneys must e-file documents in King County Superior Court. The
exceptions to the e-filing requirement are also available on the Clerk’s Office website.

The working copies of all documents in support or opposition must be marked on the upper
right corner of the first page with the date of consideration or hearing and the name of the
assigned judge. The assigned judge’s working copies must be delivered to his/her courtroom
or the Judges’ mailroom. Working copies of motions to be heard on the Family Law Motions
Calendar should be filed with the Family Law Motions Coordinator. On June 1, 2009 you will
be able to submit working copies through the Clerk’s office E-Filing application at
www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk.

Service of documents. E-filed documents may be electronically served on parties who opt in
to E-Service within the E-Filing application. The filer must still serve any others who are
entitled to service but who have not opted in. E-Service generates a record of service
document that can be e-filed. Please see information on the Clerk’s office website at
www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk regarding E-Service.
Original Proposed Order: Each of the parties must include an original proposed order granting
requested relief with the working copy materials submitted on any motion. Do not file the original of the
proposed order with the Clerk of the Court. Should any party desire a copy of the order as signed and
filed by the judge, a pre-addressed, stamped envelope shall accompany the proposed order.
Presentation of Orders: All orders, agreed or otherwise, must be presented to the assigned judge. If
that judge is absent, contact the assigned court for further instructions. If another judge enters an order
on the case, counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy.

27

Proposed orders finalizing settlement and/or dismissal by agreement of all parties shall be
presented to the assigned judge or in the Ex Parte Department. Formal proof in Family Law cases
must be scheduled before the assigned judge by contacting the bailiff, or formal proof may be entered in
the Ex Parte Department. If final order and/or formal proof are entered in the Ex Parte Department,
counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy.
C.

Form

Memoranda/briefs for matters heard by the assigned judge may not exceed twenty four (24) pages for
dispositive motions and twelve (12) pages for nondispositive motions, unless the assigned judge permits
over-length memoranda/briefs in advance of filing. Over-length memoranda/briefs and motions
supported by such memoranda/briefs may be stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY
RESULT IN DISMISSAL OR OTHER SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFF/PEITITONER SHALL FORWARD A
COPY OF THIS ORDER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE TO ANY PARTY WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED
THIS ORDER.

PRESIDING JUDGE

28

King County
Department of Judicial Administration
Superior Court Clerk’s Office

IMPORTANT NOTICE
KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT HEARING LOCATIONS
WILL CHANGE
IF THE MALENG REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER IN KENT IS
CLOSED
The Maleng Regional Justice Center (MRJC) in Kent lies within the former Green River floodplain and is
at risk of flooding if the Green River overtops its levies in a major flood event. The MRJC facility will
likely be evacuated and closed if an imminent flood is predicted and operations normally located there
will be forced to relocate.
If it becomes necessary to close the MRJC facility and relocate the courtrooms, some scheduled court
proceedings at the King County Courthouse in Seattle will also be affected, with a changed location.
PLEASE NOTE: If you have a court proceeding scheduled at either the King County Courthouse
in Seattle or the Maleng Regional Justice Center in Kent, please call [phone] x ‘0’ to learn if
there is a flood related change to the location of your court proceeding. Call within two days of
your scheduled court date for the current information.
Current MRJC flood status and proceeding location information will also be posted online here:
King County Superior Court’s website: http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt
King County Clerk’s Office website: http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/Clerk
The Clerk’s Office and Superior Court remain committed to providing good customer service throughout
the flood watch season and, if necessary, during a MRJC facility closure period. We thank you for your
patience during this time.
*Please include a copy of this notice when providing copies of court documents to other parties.

29

FILED
11 MAR 23 AM 9:06
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 11-2-10524-5 SEA

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING

Barrie Arliss
VS
Groupon, Inc.

(MSC) -

NO. 11-2-10524-5 SEA
CASE INFORMATION COVER SHEET
AND AREA DESIGNATION

CAUSE OF ACTION
OTHER COMPLAINTS/PETITIONS
AREA DESIGNATION

SEATTLE -

30

Defined as all King County north of Interstate 90 and including all
of Interstate 90 right of way, all of the cities of Seattle, Mercer
Island, Issaquah, and North Bend, and all of Vashon and Maury
Islands.

FILED
11 MAR 23 AM 9:15
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 11-2-10524-5 SEA

Hon. Eadie
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
BARRIE ARLISS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
No. 11-2-10524-5 SEA
Plaintiff,
vs.

Class Action Complaint

GROUPON, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
d/b/a Groupon,

Defendant

The State of Washington to Groupon, Inc., Defendant:
A lawsuit has been started against you in the above-entitled court by Barrie Arliss, plaintiff.
Plaintiff's claim is stated in the written complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with this
summons.
In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the complaint by stating your
defense in writing, and by serving a copy upon the person signing this summons within 60-days after
the service of this summons, excluding the day of service, or a default judgment may be entered
against you without notice. A default judgment is one in which plaintiff is entitled to what he asks

SUMMONS - Page 1 of 2

31

for because you have not responded. If you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned
attorney, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered.
You may demand that the plaintiff file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so, the demand
must be in writing and must be served upon the person signing this summons. Within 14 days after
you serve the demand, the plaintiff must file this lawsuit with the court, or the service on you of this
summons and complaint will be void.
If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so that
your written response, if any, may be served on time. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of
the Superior Court Civil Rules of the State of Washington.

Dated this March 23, 2011.

CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP

____________________________________
Christopher Carney, WSBA No. 30325
Sean Gillespie, WSBA No. 35365
Kenan Isitt, WSBA No. 35317
CARNEY GILLESPIE & ISITT PLLP
Jay Carlson, WSBA No. 30411
CARLSON LEGAL
Shaun Van Eyk, WSBA No. 41476
Jason Moore, WSBA No. 41324
VAN EYK & MOORE, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUMMONS - Page 2 of 2

32

FILED
11 MAR 23 AM 9:30
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 11-2-10524-5 SEA

Hon. Eadie
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
BARRIE ARLISS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
No. 11-2-10524-5 SEA
Plaintiff,
vs.

Summons

GROUPON, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
d/b/a Groupon,

Defendant

The State of Washington to Groupon, Inc., Defendant:
A lawsuit has been started against you in the above-entitled court by Barrie Arliss, plaintiff.
Plaintiff's claim is stated in the written complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with this
summons.
In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the complaint by stating your
defense in writing, and by serving a copy upon the person signing this summons within 60-days after
the service of this summons, excluding the day of service, or a default judgment may be entered
against you without notice. A default judgment is one in which plaintiff is entitled to what he asks

SUMMONS - Page 1 of 2

33

for because you have not responded. If you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned
attorney, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered.
You may demand that the plaintiff file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so, the demand
must be in writing and must be served upon the person signing this summons. Within 14 days after
you serve the demand, the plaintiff must file this lawsuit with the court, or the service on you of this
summons and complaint will be void.
If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so that
your written response, if any, may be served on time. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of
the Superior Court Civil Rules of the State of Washington.

Dated this March 23, 2011.

CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP

____________________________________
Christopher Carney, WSBA No. 30325
Sean Gillespie, WSBA No. 35365
Kenan Isitt, WSBA No. 35317
CARNEY GILLESPIE & ISITT PLLP
Jay Carlson, WSBA No. 30411
CARLSON LEGAL
Shaun Van Eyk, WSBA No. 41476
Jason Moore, WSBA No. 41324
VAN EYK & MOORE, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUMMONS - Page 2 of 2

34

FILED
11 MAR 28 PM 1:29
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 11-2-10524-5 SEA

35

36

37

38