CELLPHONE FEE TERMINATION CASES
Filed 3/3/11
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| CELLPHONE FEE TERMINATION CASES. | A124077 A124095 A125311 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG03121510, JCCP No. 4332) |
| | |
STORY CONTINUE FROM PART I….
a. Factual Issues
As we have discussed, Sprint's position is that this court should review the trial court's rejection of the preemption defense de novo.[1] It is clear that the trial court considered the question of federal preemption here as a mixed issue of law and fact. So do we.
We first observe that while the FCC has still to address the ETF question, it has suggested that the issue of rate preemption under section 332(c)(3)(A) is, at least to some degree, fact intensive. (Wireless Consumers, supra, 15 F.C.C.R. at ¶ 39.) While concluding that there is â€
| Description | These consolidated appeals are from a judgment after trial in a consumer class action against wireless telephone carrier Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (Sprint), challenging its policy of charging early termination fees (ETF's) to customers terminating service prior to expiration of defined contract periods.[1] The trial court found the ETF's to be unlawful penalties under Civil Code section 1671, subdivision (d),[2] enjoined enforcement, and granted restitution/damages to the plaintiff class in the amount of ETF's collected by Sprint during the class period, $73,775,975. A jury found that class members who had been charged ETF's had violated the terms of their contracts with Sprint, and that Sprint's actual damages exceeded the ETF charges Sprint had collected. The resulting setoff negated any monetary recovery to the class. The trial court, reasoning that the jury had failed to follow its instructions on Sprint's actual damages, granted the plaintiffs'[3] motion for a partial new trial new on that issue. Sprint appeals the decision invalidating the ETF's and enjoining their enforcement, and the court's grant of the motion for partial new trial on damages. Plaintiffs cross-appeal, alleging that the trial court erred in permitting Sprint to assert damage claims as setoffs to class claims for recovery of ETF's paid. In the published portions of this opinion we address the issues of federal preemption and the application of section 1671, subdivision (d). We affirm in all respects. |
| Rating |
