Postpichal

Postpichal v. Cricket Wireless, LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 17, 20213:19-cv-07270California1,806 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

17 Plaintiffs move for clarification of an order granting class certification. First, plaintiffs 18 request us to clarify that plaintiffs’ counsel, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP and Gupta Wessler 19 PLLC, is appointed counsel for the class. Second, plaintiffs request us to clarify that, if 20 defendant seeks to exclude any class members based on arbitration agreements, defendant must 21 move to compel arbitration as to those class members. 22 To the extent stated herein, plaintiffs’ motion for clarification is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

24 In this RICO action, plaintiffs claim that defendant, a cellular service provider, advertised 25 4G service and sold 4G-capable phones in markets where defendant did not provide 4G 26 coverage. Thus, plaintiffs allege that they and the class members were harmed because they 27 paid for 4G phones and coverage, but they received only 3G coverage, which was slower and cheaper than 4G coverage. Yet defendant claims that certain customers are subject to arbitration agreements that prevent them from participating in the class. Defendant provides four means by which class members could be bound to arbitrate:

…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.