On May 29, 2012, the lead plaintiffs in the putative class action suit against Verizon Wireless for charging allegedly unlawful $5 late fees and $15 “reconnection fees” filed an unopposed motion seeking approval of a settlement agreement that would resolve the case. Under the settlement agreement, Verizon would pay $10 million, up to 30% of which would go to plaintiffs’ counsel. The suit was stayed in 2009 when the court offered the FCC a chance to resolve the preemption issue that Verizon raised as a defense to the state law claims. After the FCC did nothing in response to the referral, the parties reached settlement, explaining that, “Given the certainty of indefinite delay while awaiting action by the Federal Communications Commission, and the uncertainties associated with continuing litigation, this settlement is a significant victory for the class and merits preliminary approval by the court.” The settlement class would cover Verizon Wireless customers who paid the challenged late fees between June 12, 2003, and April 26, 2012, and the reconnect fees between December 1, 2004, and April 26, 2012. Ruwe v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 07-cv-03679 (N.D. Cal.).
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact email@example.com or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
In the courts
- Arent Fox LLP
- Ross A. Buntrock , Jonathan E. Canis , Michael B. Hazzard , Stephanie A. Joyce and Joseph P. Bowser
- June 4 2012
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at firstname.lastname@example.org.
“I enjoy the CLANZ newsstand and find it highly relevant to my job. I definitely have forwarded various articles to my colleagues on occasion where there is a point of general interest, particularly employment or IT law. I...
“I enjoy the CLANZ newsstand and find it highly relevant to my job. I definitely have forwarded various articles to my colleagues on occasion where there is a point of general interest, particularly employment or IT law. I really appreciate the service, it's a quick way for me to keep up to date in a way I wouldn't otherwise have time to.”