Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
August 8, 2017, Decided; August 8, 2017, Filed
CIVIL ACTION No. 16-5672
AND NOW, this 8th day of August, 2017, upon consideration of "Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Disclosure Pursuant to 18 Pa. C. S. §§ 5742, 5746" (Doc. No. 42 and 43) and the response thereto, I find as follows:
1. Plaintiff Christopher Kelly filed this putative class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. He alleges that Defendants, Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC, Verizon Online Pennsylvania Partnership, and Verizon Pennsylvania, misled consumers to believe that [*2] they had to lease multiple "set-top boxes" in order to access Verizon services on multiple televisions despite the existence of "third party equipment alternatives" - i.e. smart televisions, Rokus, etc. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of this conduct, Defendants were able to extract millions of dollars in fees charged to consumers to rent multiple "set-top boxes." Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 201-1, et seq., and the Pennsylvania Declaratory Judgment Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 7531, et seq. The proposed class consists of "All Pennsylvania residents who are current or former customers of Defendant Verizon, who purchased FiOS with Quantum, and who have paid rental charges for the use of more than one so-called "set-top" box to Defendant Verizon at any time from September 2011 to present." (Compl. ¶ 58.)
2. On October 31, 2016, Defendants removed this case to federal court arguing that jurisdiction was present under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, 1711-1715, ("CAFA"). Plaintiff then filed a motion to remand arguing that federal jurisdiction was not present pursuant to the "local controversy" exception to CAFA jurisdiction. The "local controversy" exception [*3] instructs that district courts shall decline to exercise jurisdiction where:
(1) greater than two-thirds of the putative class are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed;
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232549 *; 2017 WL 11549625
CHRISTOPHER KELLY, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, et al., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Later proceeding at Kelly v. Verizon Pa., LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232550 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 8, 2017)
Motion denied by, Motion denied by, As moot Kelly v. Verizon Pa., LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22382, 2019 WL 558100 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 11, 2019)
customers, notice, discovery, disclosure, parties, putative class member