Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Fink v. Time Warner Cable

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

October 26, 2012, Argued; May 6, 2013, Decided

Docket No. 12-0299-cv

Opinion

 [*740]  Per Curiam:

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jessica Fink and Brett Noia ("Plaintiffs") appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Laura Taylor Swain, Judge) dismissing  [**2] their Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We conclude that the allegations stated in the Complaint — which raise claims related to deceptive advertising by Defendant-Appellee Time Warner Cable ("Time Warner") — lack facial plausibility sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs challenge the veracity of certain advertisements in which Time Warner allegedly described its Road Runner Internet service ("Road Runner") as providing (1) an "always-on connection" (2) at a "blazing speed" (3) that is "up to 3 times the speed of most standard DSL packages and up to 100x faster than dial-up" and (4) the "fastest, easiest way to get online." Plaintiffs, who sue on behalf of a putative nationwide class consisting of Road Runner subscribers, allege that these advertisements were false and misleading because Time Warner engages in network management techniques that decrease the speed at which Road Runner subscribers access certain high-bandwidth Internet applications. Plaintiffs assert that Time Warner's allegedly deceptive advertisements  [**3] violate New York General Business Law § 349 and various California consumer protection statutes, and give rise to claims for common law fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.1

DISCUSSION

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

714 F.3d 739 *; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9146 **; 2013 WL 1859141

JESSICA FINK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, BRETT NOIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, —v.— TIME WARNER CABLE, Defendant-Appellee, TIME WARNER, INC., Defendant.

Prior History:  [**1] The issue raised in this appeal is whether the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Laura Taylor Swain, Judge) erred in dismissing the putative class-action complaint of Plaintiffs-Appellants Jessica Fink and Brett Noia pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon review, we conclude that the allegations stated in the putative class-action complaint — which raise claims related to deceptive advertising by Defendant-Appellee Time Warner Cable — lack facial plausibility. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint.

Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 837 F. Supp. 2d 279, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148082 (S.D.N.Y., 2011)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

advertisement, deceptive, motion to dismiss, consumer, speed, district court, misstatements, Supplemental, allegations, misleading, survive, facial, reasonable inference, easiest way, circumstances, subscribers, always-on, pleadings, purported, blazing, fastest, mailer, misled, online, win

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Evidence, Inferences & Presumptions, Inferences, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, False Advertising, State Regulation, Trials, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, General Overview