Postpichal

INTRODUCTION

18 Plaintiffs move to certify a class of customers who paid premium prices for 4G phones and 19 plans in markets that had no 4G service despite advertisements that suggested otherwise. 20 Defendant wireless cellular service provider moves to exclude and disqualify plaintiffs’ experts 21 and opposes class certification. To the extent stated herein, the motions to exclude and 22 disqualify plaintiffs’ experts are DENIED and the motion to certify a class is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

24 1. CRICKET’S 4G SALES STRATEGY 25 In the early 2010’s, 4G ranked as the newest development in the cellular services industry. 26 Cellular service providers other than Cricket Wireless, LLC, quickly developed their 4G 27 capabilities to meet the rising demand for faster cellular and data services. Cricket, however, lagged behind (Dickson Decl., Exhs. C at 2, F at 1–2). In 2011, Cricket attempted to build out its 4G capabilities by partnering with LightSquared, “but the FCC rejected LightSquared’s plans to launch its network over concerns that it would interfere with GPS technology” (Donckels Decl. ¶ 5). Cricket attempted a similar third-party 4G network…