Postpichal

INTRODUCTION

17 In this RICO action with a tortured history, defendant moves for summary judgment. 18 Defendant has also moved to exclude the opinions and reports of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. 19 For the reasons that follow, defendant’s motions are GRANTED.

STATEMENT

21 Plaintiffs Jamie Postpichal and Ursula Freitas claim that from 2012 to 2014, defendant 22 Cricket Wireless, LLC, advertised 4G wireless service and sold 4G-capable phones in markets 23 where defendant did not actually provide 4G coverage. The claim is packaged as a RICO 24 violation, based on the theory that Cricket and its retailers formed an enterprise which 25 perpetuated this fraudulent scheme. 26 The factual allegations underlying the scheme have been explained in prior orders (Dkt. 27 Nos. 261, 277, 298). More relevant here is the roller coaster history. The original complaint in November 2019 presented over a dozen claims and many different plaintiffs. By the time the third amended complaint was filed in March 2021, thirteen potential class representatives had been dismissed, leaving three plaintiffs asserting two claims: a RICO claim and a California Consumers Legal Remedies…