Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EARL REESE WALTER CHRUBY STEPHEN OROSZ, JR. MICHAEL VEON LARRY BAGEANT LUANN BOUVIER WESLEY HARPER ROBERT HOLMES STEPHEN AND EMILY OROSZ CARL PETERKIN STEPHANIE VEON LEWIS BROOKS
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No._______________ ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this

class action under the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 206, 207 and 276, et seq.,

(the “FCA”), the common law of unjust enrichment and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices

and Consumer Protection Law, (UTPCPL) 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. seeking damages, costs of suit,

and other relief, against Defendant Global Tel*Link Corporation (“GTL”) for its unjust,

unreasonable, unfair and deceptive conduct from January 1, 2000, through the present (the

“Class Period”). During the Class Period, Defendant has charged, and in many cases continues to

charge, exorbitant rates and fees-up to 100 times normal market rates for intrastate telephone

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 20
calls to and from inmates pursuant to exclusive contracts with correctional facilities throughout the United States (including Pennsylvania).1
2. The following allegations are based on personal knowledge as to Plaintiffs’ own conduct and are made on information and belief as to all other matters based on an investigation by counsel.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Earl Reese is a citizen of Pennsylvania and is incarcerated at Philadelphia House of Corrections. He has been incarcerated since 2000, serving time at the Philadelphia House of Corrections, SCI-Camp Hill and SCI- Hackville. He has been and is being forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable and unfair amounts for intrastate phone calls. Plaintiff Reese is willing and able to serve as a class representative. 4. Plaintiff Walter Chruby is a citizen of Pennsylvania and is incarcerated at SCI Laurel Highlands. Plaintiff Chruby has been incarcerated since 1995, serving his time at various facilities including SCI-Camp Hill, SCI – Coal Township, SCI-Pittsburgh, and SCI – Laurel Highlands. He has been and is being forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable and unfair amounts for intrastate phone calls. Plaintiff Chruby is willing and able to serve as a class representative. 5. Plaintiff Stephen Orosz, Jr. is a citizen of Pennsylvania and is incarcerated at SCI Laurel Highlands. Plaintiff Orosz, Jr. has been incarcerated since 1985. He has been and is being forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable and unfair amounts for intrastate phone calls. Plaintiff Orosz is willing and able to serve as a class representative. 1 At the outset, Plaintiffs note that this complaint is limited to charges and fees for intrastate telephone calls, and does not include the charges and fees charged for interstate telephone calls.
2

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 20
6. Plaintiff Michael Veon is a citizen of Pennsylvania and is incarcerated at SCI Laurel Highlands. Plaintiff Michael Veon has been incarcerated since 2010. He has been and is being forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable and unfair amounts for intrastate phone calls. Plaintiff Veon is willing and able to serve as a class representative.
7. Plaintiff Larry Bageant is a citizen of Pennsylvania and is incarcerated at SCI Laurel Highlands. Plaintiff Bageant has been incarcerated for eleven years. He has been and is being forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable and unfair amounts for intrastate phone calls. Plaintiff Bageant is willing and able to serve as a class representative.
8. Plaintiff Luann Bouvier resides at 101 Highland Avenue, East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania PA 15112. Plaintiff Bouvier has an incarcerated family member, and has been and is forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable and unfair amounts for intrastate phone calls. Plaintiff Bouvier is willing and able to serve as a class representative.
9. Plaintiff Wesley Harper is a resident of Pennsylvania and is incarcerated at SCI Laurel Highlands. Plaintiff Harper has been incarcerated since 1969. He has served his time at Smithville as well as SCI-Laurel Highlands. He has been and is being forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable and unfair amounts for intrastate phone calls. Plaintiff Harper is willing and able to serve as a class representative.
10. Plaintiff Robert Holmes is a resident of Pennsylvania and is incarcerated at SCI Laurel Highlands. Plaintiff Holmes has been incarcerated since 1995. He has served his time at Crescent as well as SCI-Laurel Highlands. He has been and is being forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable and unfair amounts for intrastate phone calls. Plaintiff Holmes is willing and able to serve as a class representative.
3

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 4 of 20
11. Plaintiffs Stephen and Emily Orosz reside at 243 Highland Avenue, East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, PA 15112. The Orosz Plaintiffs have a family member incarcerated at SCI Laurel Highlands, and have been and are being forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable and unfair amounts for intrastate phone calls. They are willing and able to serve as class representatives.
12. Plaintiff Carl Peterkin is a resident of Pennsylvania and is incarcerated at SCI Laurel Highlands. Plaintiff Peterkin has been incarcerated since 2005, and has served his time at Rockville as well as SCI-Laurel Highlands. He has been and is being forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable, unfair and deceptive amounts for intrastate phone calls. Plaintiff Peterkin is willing and able to serve as a class representative.
13. Plaintiff Stefanie Veon resides at 1617 Concordia Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15210. She has a family member incarcerated at SCI Laurel Highlands, and has been and is being forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable, unfair and deceptive amounts for intrastate phone calls. Plaintiff Veon is willing and able to serve as a class representative.
14. Plaintiff Lewis Brooks is a citizen of Pennsylvania and is incarcerated at SCI Fayette. He has been incarcerated since 2012, serving time at CFCF Prison in Philadelphia, SCIGraterford, SCI-Camp Hill and SCI-Fayette. He has been and is being forced to pay Defendant GTL unjust, unreasonable and unfair amounts for intrastate phone calls. Plaintiff Brooks is willing and able to serve as a class representative.
15. Defendant GTL is owned, in part, by the private equity firm American Securities LLC and operates through wholly owned subsidiaries to provide inmate telephone services throughout the United States. GTL’s corporate headquarters is located at 12021 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 100, Reston, Virginia 20190. Operating subsidiaries of GTL during the Class
4

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 5 of 20
Period include, among others: Inmate Telephone Services ("ITS"), a Delaware corporation headquartered in Mobile, Alabama; DSI-ITI, LLC (“DSI-ITI”), a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Altoona, Pennsylvania and the successor-in-interest to ITS' contracts as of June 20, 2010; Value-Added Communications, Inc. (“VAC”), a Delaware corporation headquartered in Plano, Texas; and Public Communications Services, Inc. (“PCS”), a California corporation headquartered in Los Angeles, California.
16. GTL and its subsidiaries serve over 2,200 correctional facilities and 1.1 million inmates in forty-eight states. GTL and its subsidiaries provide inmate telephone services pursuant to contracts with twenty-nine states (including Pennsylvania) and contracts with over 800 counties (including in Pennsylvania). GTL also provides inmate telephone services to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1331 because this matter involves a federal question, i.e., whether GTL violated 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 and 276, et seq. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims because they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts and are such that Plaintiffs ordinarily would expect to try both them and the claim involving a federal question in one judicial proceeding. 18. Jurisdiction is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and at least one Class Member is a citizen of a state other than that of Defendant. 19. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that Defendant transacts substantial business within, and is subject to personal jurisdiction in, this District and thus "resides" in this District. Venue is also proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
5

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 6 of 20
1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein took place in this District.
DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT 20. Inmates are literally a captive market for GTL, which provides intrastate pay telephone services in prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities. As noted by the FCC, there are no competitive market forces to constrain the prices set by GTL.2 21. Defendant GTL has secured for itself the right to provide intrastate telephone services to hundreds of thousands of inmates through exclusive contracts with thousands of correctional facilities. As a result of the monopolies created by these exclusive contracts, GTL faces little or no market competition to challenge increasing intrastate telephone rates.3 22. In return for this monopoly power, GTL provided kickbacks, masqueraded as “site commissions,” to the contracting correctional facilities, including those in Pennsylvania. As a result of the absence of competition, “[f]amilies of incarcerated individuals often pay significantly more to receive a single 15-minute call from prison than for their basic monthly phone service.”4 23. The market rates for competitively priced prepaid calling cards are approximately $0.01 to $0.02 per minute for calls within the United States. Similarly, prepaid calling card rates
2 See In re Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Servs., 28 FCC Rcd. 14107, 14129 (F.C.C. Sept. 26, 2013) (“Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I”). 3 See Securus Techs., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 13-1280, Dkt. No. 1470786, p.3 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 16, 2013) (the “FCC Opp.”) (stating that “each provider is a monopoly in a given facility”). 4 Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I, 28 FCC Rcd. at 14130.
6

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 7 of 20
for international calls can be as low as $0.01 per minute, depending upon the country being called.
24. GTL, however, charges inmates vastly more – ten times (or in some instances) more per minute5 – for intrastate calls within the United States, not including unjust, unreasonable, unfair and deceptive per call connection fees.
25. Illustrating the unreasonableness of the intrastate rates it charges, GTL purchases minutes for calls terminating within the United States from connection carriers for less than a penny per minute. Yet GTL resells these minutes at more than 100 times their cost to Plaintiffs and the Class.
26. Further demonstrating how it takes advantage of these exclusive dealing contracts to overcharge inmates, GTL “charge[s] widely varying rates in the different facilities they serve, notwithstanding their ability to share the costs of serving multiple facilities using centralized call routing and management and security platforms.”6
27. Payment of kickbacks by inmate telephone service providers is substantial, with reports estimating that kickbacks paid to correctional facilities exceed $124 million per year.7
28. In addition, Defendant GTL imposed (and imposes) unnecessary and unconscionable fees and charges on accounts used for inmate telephone calls. Reasonable
5 See John E. Dannenberg and Alex Friedmann, FCC Order Heralds Hope For Reform of Prison Phone Industry, Chart B- Intrastate ICS Rates, InterLATA Rates (2012-2013), Prison Legal News, Vol. 24, No 12 (December 2013) available at www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/issues/12pln13.pdf (visited Apr. 23, 2015). 6 Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I, 28 FCC Rcd. at 14126. 7 FCC Order Heralds Hope for Reform of Prison Phone Industry, supra. note 4, at Chart D.
7

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 8 of 20
discovery will show that Defendant GTL refused to refund amounts not expended on telephone calls, and imposed myriad fees and charges that lacked any relationship to GTL’s costs.
29. During rulemaking proceedings, the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) looked at whether interstate charges were “unreasonably high, unfair, and far in excess of the cost of providing service.”8 The FCC concluded that they were, and that GTL and similar companies “exploited [their] economic position by charging rates for interstate calls greatly exceeding the cost of providing service, in direct violation of the requirements of Sections 201 and 276 of the [FCA] that those rates be just, reasonable, and fair.”9 Likewise the FCC has concluded that “[they] believe the same legal and policy concerns identified in the Order apply equally with regard to high intrastate rates.”10
30. More particularly, during rulemaking proceedings regarding the rates and fees charged to inmates, the FCC concluded that:
• Under existing law, commission payments to correctional facilities are profitsharing kickback arrangements and “are not a . . . category of . . . costs” recoverable from end-users in the rates charged for interstate telephone calls. Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I, 28 FCC Rcd. at 14135-37.
• Because correctional facilities grant the monopoly franchise partly on the basis of the commission payment offered, “competition” among providers produces increased commission payments and higher end-user charges. See Id. at 14129.
• As a result, inmate telephone rates have “inflict[ed] substantial and clear harm on the general public (and not merely on private interests)” and must be rejected under existing legal precedent. Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. II, 28 FCC Rcd. at 15938.
8 In re Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Servs., 40, 15929 (F.C.C. Nov. 21, 2013) (“Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. II”). 9 FCC Opp., at p. 1. 10 Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I, 28 FCC Rcd. at 14174.
8

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 9 of 20

•

With regard to certain per call charges, “[t]he record indicates that these per call

charges are often extremely high and therefore, unjust, unreasonable and unfair

for a number of reasons.” Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I, 28 FCC Rcd. at

14154- 55.

• Thus, “for many years, interstate [inmate telephone service] rates have been unreasonably high, unfair, and far in excess of the cost of providing service.” Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. II, 28 FCC Rcd. at 15929-30 (emphasis added).

31. As more specifically relates to intrastate rates, the FCC has stated that:

• “[W]e conclude that competition and market forces have failed to ensure just, reasonable, and fair interstate ICS rates, and, for the same reasons, we tentatively conclude that the same failure has occurred for intrastate ICS rates as well.” Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I, 28 FCC Rcd. at 14174- 75.

• “For the same reasons we found that site commission payments are not part of the cost of providing interstate ICS, we tentatively conclude that site commissions should not be recoverable through intrastate rates[.]” Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I, 28 FCC Rcd. at 14175.

32. As demonstrated above, the FCC has unequivocally determined that interstate ICS

providers have, for many years, violated the FCA by incorporating commission payments and

other unjust and unreasonable fees and costs into its charges for interstate calls. As the ICS

Orders expressly reflects, the same analysis applies to the cost structure utilized for intrastate calls.11

33. Although the FCC has not yet issued final rulemaking governing intrastate calls,

as made clear by the FCC, the same reasoning and expertise as was applied by the FCC to

interstate calls applies to intrastate calls as Defendant incorporated the kickbacks into their cost structures for intrastate charges in the same fashion as the interstate calls.12

11 Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I, 28 FCC Rcd. at 14173-78. 12 FCC Order Heralds Hope for Reform of Prison Phone Industry, supra. note 4
9

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 10 of 20
34. Beginning by at least 1998, GTL has known that it was unlawful to charge intrastate rates that violated Sections 201 and 276 of the FCA. In 1998, the FCC determined that inmate telephone service rates “must conform to the just and reasonable requirements of Section 201.”13
35. Accordingly, the FCC's September 2013 and November 2013 orders do not create a new obligation on GTL; rather, they simply confirm Defendant's longstanding legal obligations – obligations they violated throughout the Class Period.
36. As a result of GTL’s imposition of exorbitant, unfair, unjust and unreasonable intrastate charges for inmate telephone services during the Class Period and Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been damaged.
TOLLING 37. In 2000, a class action complaint was brought against several inmate telephone service providers alleging violations of the FCA based on some of the conduct alleged herein.14 Additionally, current and former inmates petitioned the FCC as early as 2003 to address inmate telephone rates. 38. As a result of the ongoing FCC review of the rates, some courts have dismissed complaints alleging violations of the FCA, including the one filed in 2000, on the basis of
13 See Billed Party Preference For Interlata 0+ Calls, 13 FCC Rcd. 6122, 6156 (FCC Jan. 29, 1998) (finding that inmate telephone rates “must conform to the just and reasonable requirements of Section 201”). 14 See Wright v. Corrections Corporation of America, et al., No. 00-cv-0293-GK (D.D.C.).
10

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 11 of 20
“primary jurisdiction” and deferred judgment to the FCC, effectively staying the cases pending the FCC’s final determination.15
39. As noted by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in 2001, “the Court expects the [FCC] to move with dispatch to conclude its ongoing proceedings so as to provide both courts and parties with meaningful analysis and guidance on these issues.”16
40. As alleged herein, the FCC has finally and conclusively determined that charges for ICS incorporating commissions and other unjustified amounts unrelated to costs were unjust and unreasonable in violation of the FCA – the “analysis and guidance” referenced by Judge Kessler.
41. As noted above, a finding of liability in this action would not be a “retroactive application” of a new law or regulation because the FCC has merely clarified existing law in its recent findings that ICS providers have violated the FCA.
42. GTL has thus been on notice since as early as 2000 that its conduct likely violated the FCA. There is no longer a risk of conflicting adjudications in private litigation given that the FCC has exercised its technical expertise and determined that the kickbacks cannot be included as reasonable costs. As a result, the claims alleged herein are ripe for disposition.
15 See, e.g., Wright, No. 00-cv-0293-GK, Dkt. No. 94 (D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2001) (dismissing class action complaint and concluding “the FCC is clearly in the best position to resolve the core issues in this case, namely the reasonableness of the rates charged” and noting that “[a]fter the FCC does so ... the Court will have the benefit of the agency’s expert findings in addressing them”). 16 Id.
11

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 12 of 20
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 43. Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as a class action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class, defined as follows:
all persons in the United States who, at any time since 2000, have paid to use the telephone systems provided by GTL or its subsidiaries in order to make or receive intrastate telephone calls involving a person incarcerated in any state in the United States (the “Class”). 44. Additionally Plaintiffs seek to represent a subclass defined as follows: all citizens of Pennsylvania who, at any time since 2000, have paid to use the telephone systems provided by GTL or its subsidiaries in order to make or receive intrastate telephone calls involving a person incarcerated in Pennsylvania (the “Pennsylvania SubClass”). 45. Excluded from the Classes are any persons who paid to use the telephone systems provided by GTL or its subsidiaries in order to make or receive intrastate telephone calls in the State of New Jersey.17 46. This action is brought and properly may be maintained as a class action pursuant to the provisions of FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(l)-(4) and 23(b)(l), (b)(2), or (b)(3) and satisfies the requirements thereof. 47. The members of the Class are so numerous that individual joinder of all the members is impracticable. On information and belief, there are not fewer than tens of thousands of persons who have been affected by Defendant's conduct. The precise number of Class
17 Claims on behalf of a class of individuals making calls to or receiving calls from inmates in the State of New Jersey are currently pending against GTL and certain of its subsidiaries in existing litigation in the District of New Jersey. See James v. Global Tel* Link, et al., No. 13-cv4989 (D.N.J.).
12

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 13 of 20
Members and their addresses are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, but may be ascertained from
Defendant’s books and records. Class Members may be notified of the pendency of this action by
recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. Mail,
electronic mail, Internet postings, and/or published notice.
48. Common questions of law and fact exist as to the Class, as required by FED. R.
CIV. P. 23(a)(2), and predominate over any questions that affect only individual Class Members
within the meaning of FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3). The common questions of law and fact include,
but are not limited to, the following:
(a) whether Defendant has charged unreasonable and unjust intrastate telephone rates and fees;
(b) whether Defendant has charged telephone rates and fees that greatly exceed costs of providing intrastate service;
(c) whether Defendant has failed to fully and adequately disclose to Plaintiffs and the Class telephone rates and fees that they will be, and have been, charged when Plaintiffs and the Class make or receive intrastate telephone calls involving an incarcerated person;
(d) whether, through the acts and practices complained of herein, Defendant violated §201(b) and §276 of the FCA and regulations thereunder;
(e) whether, through the acts and practices complained of herein, Defendant was unjustly enriched;
(f) whether, through the acts and practices complained of herein, Defendant violated the UTPCPL, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq., by engaging in deception and charging Plaintiffs unreasonable, unjust and unfair amounts for intrastate telephone calls;
(g) whether, through the acts and practices complained of herein, Defendant violated the UTPCPL, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq., by charging Plaintiffs deceptive or fraudulent fees (apart from the per minute rates); and
(h) whether Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged by Defendant’s acts and practices complained of herein, and if so, the measure of those damages and the nature and extent of any other relief that should be granted.
13

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 14 of 20
49. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class they seek to represent under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(3) because Plaintiffs and the Class have been subjected to the same wrongful practices and have been damaged thereby in the same manner.
50. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs are adequate representative of the Class because they have no interests that are adverse to the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs are committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and, to that end, Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in handling class action litigation on behalf of consumers.
51. A class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. The damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiffs and each Class Member are relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to individually litigate their claims against Defendant, so it would be impracticable for each Class Member to individually seek redress for Defendant's wrongful conduct. Even if Class Members could afford individual litigation, individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
52. In the alternative, this action is certifiable under the provisions of FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b )(1) and/or 23(b )(2) because:
(a) the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
14

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 15 of 20
individual Class Members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant; and (b) the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of adjudications as to them that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other Class Members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. 53. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole and necessitating that any such relief be extended to Class Members on a mandatory, class wide basis. 54. Plaintiffs are aware of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this litigation that will preclude its maintenance as a class action.
COUNT I VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT,
47 U.S.C. § 201 AND § 276, ET SEQ. (ON BEHALF OF NATIONWIDE CLASS) 55. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 56. Under§ 201(a) and § 276 of the FCA, Defendant is a common carrier engaged in interstate and intrastate wire communications for the purpose of furnishing such communication services. 57. The telephone rates and fees charged by Defendant, as alleged above, are unjust, unreasonable, and unfair, in violation of § 201 (b) and/or § 276 of the FCA. 58. Defendant’s failure to make full and adequate disclosures to their customers of these charges violates 47 CFR § 64.2401 and, therefore, violates§ 201(b) and § 276 of the FCA. 59. Defendant has not filed its rates with the FCC.
15

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 16 of 20
60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations of the FCA, Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged in amounts to be determined at trial.
COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT (ON BEHALF OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUB-CLASS) 61. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts and practices alleged herein, Defendant has been unjustly enriched and has obtained money, earnings, profits, and benefits directly from Plaintiff and the Class to which Defendant is not otherwise entitled and which it would not have obtained but for their charging of rates, fees, and penalties that are unjust, unreasonable, and greatly exceed market rates and costs of providing services. 63. Defendant’s practices were intentional, knowing, malicious, or done with the intent to reap significant benefits at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class. 64. Defendant is not entitled to this enrichment, was prohibited from engaging in the acts and practices that generated this enrichment by § 201(b) and/or § 276 of the FCA, and obtained this enrichment to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the Class. 65. Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably expected that they would only have to pay market rates for intrastate calls and would not have to incur other charges that provide no commensurate benefit to them. 66. Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered, and will continue to suffer, actual damages and injury-in the form of telephone rates and fees that exceed market rates and costs of providing services-as a result of Defendant’s unjust retention of proceeds from their acts and practices alleged herein.
16

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 17 of 20
67. Under principles of equity and justice, Defendant should be required to restore the above-described unjust enrichment to Plaintiffs and the Class in amounts to be determined at trial.
COUNT III VIOLATIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW, 73 P.S. § 201-2(XXI) (ON BEHALF OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUB-CLASS)
68. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full. 69. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each member of the Pennsylvania Class against Defendant GTL. 70. This is a claim for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. § 201-2(xxi). 71. At all relevant times material hereto, Defendant conducted trade and commerce within the meaning of the UTPCPL. Plaintiffs and the Class are “persons” as defined and construed under the UTPCPL. 72. Defendant GTL’s conduct as set forth herein constitutes an unconscionable, and illegal commercial practice comprised of deceptive acts or practices in violation of the UTPCPL, 73 P.S. § 201-2(xxi). 73. Defendant has acted deceptively by unconscionably and illegally imposing unjust, unreasonable, and unfair charges for intrastate calls. 74. Defendant has acted deceptively by unconscionably and illegally imposing unjust, unreasonable, and unfair fees and penalties (apart from the per minute rates) for intrastate calls. 75. Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably expected (and relied on Defendants) to ensure that they would only have to pay the legal rates for intrastate calls and would not have to incur other illicit charges that provide no commensurate benefit to them.
17

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 18 of 20

76. Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein has been unfair and in violation of the

UTPCPL because the acts or practices violate established public policy, and because the harm

they cause to consumers in Pennsylvania greatly outweighs any benefits associated with those

practices. Plaintiffs and the Pennsylvania Class suffered actual and ascertainable losses of money

or property as a result of Defendant’s unconscionable, deceptive and/or unfair trade practices.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter a judgment against Defendant and

in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class and award the following relief:

(a) Certification of this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(l), (b)(2), or (b)(3) on behalf of the Class and Pennsylvania Subclass as defined above;

(b) Declaration, judgment, and decree that the conduct alleged herein:

 Constitutes an unreasonable and unlawful act in violation of the FCA;

 Violates the UTPCPL, and



Unjustly enriched Defendant;

(c) Damages to Plaintiffs and the Class to the maximum extent allowed under state and federal law;

(d) Costs and disbursements of the action;

(e) Restitution and/or disgorgement of Defendant’s ill-gotten gains;

(f) Pre- and post-judgment interest;

(g) Reasonable attorneys' fees; and

(h) Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all issues so triable.

18

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 19 of 20

Date: April 23, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, P.C.

Peter A. Muhic (PA 73501) Edward W. Ciolko Donna Siegel Moffa Amanda R. Trask Monique Myatt Galloway 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: pmuhic@ktmc.com Email: eciolko@ktmc.com Email: dmoffa@ktmc.com Email: atrask@ktmc.com Email: mgalloway@ktmc.com
LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN L. BURKE
/s/Susan L. Burke Susan L. Burke 1611 Park Avenue Baltimore, MD 21217 Telephone: (410) 733-5444 Facsimile: (410) 733-5444 Email: sburke@burkepllc.com
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
/s/ Peter R. Kahana Daniel Berger Peter R. Kahana Michael Y. Twersky 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email:danberger@bm.net Email:pkahana@bm.net Email:mitwersky@bm.net
19

Case 2:15-cv-02197-MAM Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 20 of 20
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. /s/ Patrick Howard Patrick Howard Simon B. Paris 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 Email: sparis@smbb.com Email: phoward@smbb.com Counsel for Plaintiffs and The Proposed Classes
20

 
 JURY,CLOSED,LEADTR
U. S. District Court Western District of Arkansas (Fayetteville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:15−cv−05136−TLB

Chruby et al v. Global Tel*Link Corporation Assigned to: Honorable Timothy L. Brooks Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff Jacqueline Mills Jacobs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Date Filed: 06/12/2015 Date Terminated: 08/27/2018 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Amy C. Martin Attorney at Law P.O. Box 765 Fayetteville, AR 72702 (479) 422−4611 Email: theamymartin@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin D. Brown Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408−4600 Email: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667−7706 Email: dmoffa@ktmc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667−7706 TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett Bendesky P.C. 1650 Market Street 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 575−3895 Email: phoward@smbb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087

Plaintiff
Gregory William Jacobs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/28/2016

(610) 667−7706 Fax: (610) 667−7056 Email: pmuhic@ktmc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert A. Braun Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC 1100 New York Ave. Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408−4600 Email: rbraun@cohenmilstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667−7706 Fax: (610) 667−7056 Email: atrask@ktmc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Ciolko Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667−7706 Fax: (610) 667−7056 Email: eciolko@ktmc.com TERMINATED: 11/17/2017
Peter R. Kahana Berger Montague P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 875−4629 Email: pkahana@bm.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 875−3052 Email: mitwersky@bm.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
Arron Jacobs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/28/2016

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert A. Braun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Ciolko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/17/2017
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Ciolko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/17/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address)

Plaintiff Shondra Caldwell

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert A. Braun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Ciolko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/17/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert A. Braun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Larry Foster TERMINATED: 02/13/2017

Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert A. Braun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Ciolko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/17/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Earl Reese Added from 16−5165
Plaintiff Walter Chruby Added from 16−5165

Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP 280 KING OF PRUSSIA RD RADNOR, PA 19087 610−667−7706 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
Stephen Orosz, Jr. Added from 16−5165

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michael Veon Added from 16−5165

Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Larry Bageant Added from 16−5165
Plaintiff Luann Bouvier Added from 16−5165

represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway

Plaintiff
Wesley Harper Added from 16−5165 TERMINATED: 11/30/2016

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Robert Holmes Added from 16−5165 TERMINATED: 02/13/2017
Plaintiff Stephen Orosz Added from 16−5165

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin

Plaintiff
Emily Orosz Added from 16−5165 TERMINATED: 11/28/2016

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
Carl Peterkin Added from 16−5165 TERMINATED: 11/28/2016

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky

Plaintiff Stephanie Veon Added from 16−5165
Plaintiff Lewis Brooks All Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Trask (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

V. Defendant Global Tel*Link Corporation

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/01/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Patrick Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Derek Ho Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel Frederick P.L.L.C. 1615 M St. N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 326−7931 Email: dho@kellogghansen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marshall S. Ney Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP 3350 S Pinnacle Hills Pkwy Ste 301 Rogers, AR 72758 (479) 695−6049 Fax: 5012445389 Email: mney@fridayfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J. Herrington Greenberg Traurig LLP 1840 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 586−7700 Fax: (310) 586−7800 Email: herringtonr@gtlaw.com

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael R. Sklaire Greenberg Traurig LLP 1750 Tysons Blvd Suite 1000 McLean, VA 22102 (703) 749−1308 Fax: (703) 714−8308 Email: sklairem@gtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/12/2015 06/12/2015 06/12/2015
06/12/2015 06/12/2015
06/18/2015 06/18/2015 06/18/2015 06/18/2015 06/18/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Global TelLink Corporation ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 5004920), filed by Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs.(tg) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET for case initiated by Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (tg) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
3 THE DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO COURT USERS.
Summons Issued as to Global TelLink Corporation and returned to attorney or plaintiff for service. (tg) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
4 Magistrate Notice/Consent Furnished. (tg) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
CLERK'S NOTICE re Multiple Attorneys Listed on Pleading directed to Plaintiffs Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. Complaint 1 lists multiple attorneys appearing for the filer. The following attorney(s), who did not sign the pleading, must enter a separate Notice of Appearance in order to receive electronic notification of future activity in the case: Peter Muhic, Edward Ciolko, Donna Moffa and Monique Galloway. TEXT ONLY ENTRY, NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED. (tg) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
5 MOTION for Attorney Monique Myatt Galloway to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 5004922) by Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (tg) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
6 MOTION for Attorney Edward W. Ciolko to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 5004922) by Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (tg) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
7 MOTION for Attorney Peter A. Muhic to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 5004922) by Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (tg) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
8 MOTION for Attorney Donna Siegel Moffa to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 5004922) by Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (tg) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 5 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Monique Myatt Galloway is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if she has not already done so and enter her appearance in this matter; AND granting 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Edward W. Ciolko is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if he has not already done so and enter his appearance in this matter; AND granting 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Peter A. Muhic is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if he has not already done so and enter his appearance in this matter; AND granting 8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Donna Siegle Moffa is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if she has not already done so and enter her appearance in this matter. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on June 18, 2015. (slc) (Entered: 06/18/2015)

06/23/2015 06/23/2015 06/23/2015 06/23/2015 06/23/2015 07/01/2015 07/01/2015 07/02/2015
07/02/2015 07/02/2015 07/02/2015 07/02/2015 07/02/2015
07/06/2015 07/06/2015 08/17/2015 08/17/2015
08/28/2015

9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs. Global TelLink Corporation was sent waiver on 6/17/2015, answer due 8/17/2015. (Martin, Amy) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter A. Muhic on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Edward W. Ciolko on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Ciolko, Edward) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Donna Siegel Moffa on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Siegel Moffa, Donna) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Monique Myatt Galloway on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Galloway, Monique) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
14 MOTION for Attorney Yechiel Michael Twersky to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 5004940) by Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (tg) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
15 MOTION for Attorney Peter R. Kahana to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 5004940) by Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (tg) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 14 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Yechiel Michael Twersky is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if he has not already done so and enter his appearance in this matter; AND granting 15 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Peter R. Kahana is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if he has not already done so and enter his appearance in this matter. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on July 2, 2015. (slc) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Yechiel Michael Twersky on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Twersky, Yechiel) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter R. Kahana on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Kahana, Peter) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
18 MOTION for Attorney Robert Braun to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 5004951) by Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (src) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
19 MOTION for Attorney Benjamin Brown to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 5004951) by Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (src) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 18 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Robert Braunis directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if he has not already done so and enter his appearance in this matter; AND granting 19 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Benjamin Brown is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if he has not already done so and enter his appearance in this matter. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on July 2, 2015. (slc) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Benjamin D. Brown on behalf of Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (Brown, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert A. Braun on behalf of Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (Braun, Robert) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
22 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Global TelLink Corporation. (Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
23 MEMORANDUM BRIEF in Support of 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Global TelLink Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
24 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Hearing set for 10/8/2015 09:30 AM in Fayetteville −− 5th flr (Rm 509) before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 9/28/2015. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on August 28, 2015. (slc) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/28/2015 09/11/2015 09/22/2015 09/25/2015 09/28/2015 09/28/2015
10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/23/2015 11/06/2015 11/06/2015

25 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand as to 1 Complaint against Global TelLink Corporation, filed by Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Shondra Caldwell, Larry Foster. Related document: 1 Complaint filed by Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(tg) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
26 STIPULATION re 25 Amended Complaint, by Global TelLink Corporation. (Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER. The briefing schedule to which the parties stipulated in Doc. 26 is approved and adopted by the Court. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on September 22, 2015. (jch) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
27 AMENDED INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Hearing reset for 12/2/2015 01:30 PM in Fayetteville −− 5th flr (Rm 509) before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 11/13/2015. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on September 25, 2015. (slc) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Global TelLink Corporation. (Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
29 MEMORANDUM BRIEF in Support of 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Global TelLink Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 01 − GTL Arkansas July 20, 1994 Tariff, # 2 Exhibit 02 − Order No. 2 approving initial tariff July 1994, # 3 Exhibit 03 − Tariff No. 2 (2005), # 4 Exhibit 04 − Tariff No. 2 last updated Sept. 18, 2014, # 5 Exhibit 05 − 2011/12 AR GTL Term Contract Award, # 6 Exhibit 06 − Contract Extension Feb. to May 2014, # 7 Exhibit 07 − Contract Extension May to Aug. 2014, # 8 Exhibit 08 − Contract Extension Aug. to Nov. 2014, # 9 Exhibit 09 − CA Price List, # 10 Exhibit 10 − CA Los Angeles County ITSA, # 11 Exhibit 11 − CA Yuba County Assignment Agreement, # 12 Exhibit 12 − CA Yuba County Amendment, # 13 Exhibit 13 − CA Yuba County Rate Sheet, # 14 Exhibit 14 − CA DOC Contract)(Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
30 Letter MOTION (with exhibits) for modification of existing briefing schedule re 27 Initial Scheduling Order, by Shondra Caldwell, Larry Foster, Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (gg) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 30 Letter MOTION (with exhibits) for modification of existing briefing schedule re 27 Initial Scheduling Order, filed by Larry Foster, Shondra Caldwell, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs. Counsel for defendant is to file a response no later than October 21, 2015. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on October 15, 2015. (gg) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
31 RESPONSE in Opposition re 30 MOTION modification of existing briefing schedule re 27 Initial Scheduling Order, filed by Global TelLink Corporation. (Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER. Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 28) is suspended pending the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' Letter Motion (Doc. 30), which will be accomplished with all deliberate speed. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on October 21, 2015. (jch) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
32 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion for extension of time. Plaintiffs shall file and serve their opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 28 no later than November 6, 2015. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on October 23, 2015. (tg) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER. By agreement of the parties, Plaintiffs shall file and serve their opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 28) by no later than November 13, 2015, and Defendant shall file and serve its reply brief by no later than December 4, 2015. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on November 6, 2015. (jch) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
***Case Management Hearing terminated. NOTE: All deadlines set forth in the Court's Initial Scheduling Order remain. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on November 6, 2015. (slc) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/13/2015 11/13/2015
12/04/2015 12/04/2015 12/04/2015 12/07/2015 12/07/2015 12/08/2015 12/10/2015 12/22/2015
01/25/2016 03/09/2016 03/10/2016 04/05/2016 04/12/2016 05/17/2016

33 JOINT REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Shondra Caldwell, Larry Foster, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
34 RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Shondra Caldwell, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − November 5, 2015 FCC Order, # 2 Exhibit B − 2007 California PUC Order, # 3 Exhibit C − October 15, 2015 Joint Providers Letter, # 4 Exhibit D − Excerpted Comments of Martha Wright)(Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
35 REPLY to Response to Motion re 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Global TelLink Corporation. (Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
36 STIPULATION [Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order by Shondra Caldwell, Larry Foster, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
37 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding ESI Protocol by Shondra Caldwell, Larry Foster, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
38 STIPULATION AND ORDER. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on December 7, 2015. (src) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
39 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on December 7, 2015. (rg) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
40 MOTION for Leave to File a Sur−Reply by Shondra Caldwell, Larry Foster, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 40 Motion for Leave. Plaintiffs may file their Sur−Reply by no later than December 22, 2015. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on December 10, 2015. (jch) Modified on 12/11/2015 to add text (rg). (Entered: 12/10/2015)
41 RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Plaintiffs' Sur−Reply to Defendant's Reply In Support of Its Motion to Dismiss filed by Shondra Caldwell, Larry Foster, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − GTL Advice Letter No. 44, # 2 Exhibit B − Arkansas PSC Report)(Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The parties have informed the Court that they agree this Motion is moot and can be terminated. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on January 25, 2016. (jch) Modified on 1/26/2016 to add text (rg). (Entered: 01/25/2016)
42 NOTICE by Global TelLink Corporation (Notice of Supplemental Authority) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Global Tel*Link v. FCC, Case No. 15−1461 (March 7, 2016))(Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
43 RESPONSE by Shondra Caldwell, Larry Foster, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs re 42 Notice (Other) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − March 7, 2016 Statement of FCC Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner Clyburn)(Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
44 NOTICE by Global TelLink Corporation (Notice of Supplemental Authority) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Global Tel*Link v. FCC, Case No. 15−1461 (March 23, 2016), # 2 Exhibit B − Order (March 28, 2016))(Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
45 RESPONSE by Shondra Caldwell, Larry Foster, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs re 44 Notice (Other) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Lenz v. Global Tel Link Corporation − Stipulation, # 2 Exhibit B − Lenz v. Global Tel Link Corporation − Declaration)(Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
46 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Count 1 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 25 is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on May 17, 2016. (tg) (Entered: 05/17/2016)

05/31/2016 07/15/2016 07/15/2016 07/25/2016 07/25/2016 09/01/2016
11/14/2016
11/21/2016 11/23/2016 11/28/2016
11/30/2016 01/03/2017
01/26/2017
01/27/2017

47 ANSWER to 25 Amended Complaint, by Global TelLink Corporation.(Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
48 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Shondra Caldwell, Larry Foster, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
49 MEMORANDUM BRIEF in Support of 48 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Shondra Caldwell, Larry Foster, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
50 NOTICE by Global TelLink Corporation re 48 MOTION to Consolidate Cases Notice of Non−Opposition (Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
51 ORDER granting 48 Motion to Consolidate Case with 16−5165. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on July 25, 2016. (tg) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
52 INTERIM CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Setting CLASS CERTIFICATION HEARING for 4/11/2017 at 01:30 PM in Fayetteville −− 5th flr (Rm 509) before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks AND setting JURY TRIAL for February 20−28, 2018 at 09:00 AM in Fayetteville −− 5th flr (Rm 509) before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks. SEE ORDER FOR DEADLINES. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on September 1, 2016. (slc) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
53 SUGGESTION OF DEATH Upon the Record as to Wesley Harper by Larry Bageant, Luann Bouvier, Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Larry Foster, Wesley Harper, Robert Holmes, Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Emily Orosz, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Carl Peterkin, Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
54 STIPULATION by Larry Bageant, Luann Bouvier, Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Larry Foster, Robert Holmes, Gregory William Jacobs, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Emily Orosz, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Carl Peterkin, Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
55 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Larry Bageant, Luann Bouvier, Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Emily Orosz, and Carl Peterkin by Larry Bageant, Luann Bouvier, Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Emily Orosz, Carl Peterkin. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
56 CLERK'S ORDER Dismissing Parties: re 55 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Carl Peterkin, Larry Bageant, Emily Orosz, Arron Jacobs, Gregory William Jacobs, Luann Bouvier Party Emily Orosz (Added from 16−5165), Carl Peterkin (Added from 16−5165), Arron Jacobs (individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated) and Gregory William Jacobs (individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated) parties dismissed without prejudice. (rg) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
CLERK'S ORDER Dismissing Party: Per TLB Chambers instruction re 53 Suggestion of Death of Wesley Harper (Added from 16−5165). (jn) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
57 AMENDED INTERIM CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Resetting CLASS CERTIFICATION HEARING for 5/10/2017 09:00 AM in Fayetteville −− 5th flr (Rm 509) before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks. JURY TRIAL remains set for 2/20/2018 09:00 AM in Fayetteville −− 5th flr (Rm 509) before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks. SEE ORDER FOR DEADLINES. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on January 3, 2017. (slc) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
58 MOTION for Attorney Amanda R. Trask to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 5006049) by Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Larry Foster, Robert Holmes, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (tg) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 58 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Amanda R. Trask is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if she has not already done so and enter her appearance in this matter. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on January 27, 2017. (slc) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017 02/10/2017 02/10/2017 02/10/2017 02/13/2017 02/17/2017 02/17/2017 02/17/2017
02/17/2017 02/17/2017 03/01/2017 03/01/2017 03/02/2017 03/03/2017

59 NOTICE of Appearance by Amanda Trask on behalf of Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Larry Foster, Robert Holmes, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (Trask, Amanda) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
60 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Class Certification Briefing Under Seal by Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
61 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Larry Foster and Robert Holmes by Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 60 Motion for Leave to file under seal. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on February 10, 2017. (jch) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
62 CLERK'S ORDER Dismissing Parties: re 61 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Stephen Orosz, Michael Veon, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Earl Reese, Lewis Brooks, Walter Chruby, Stephen Orosz, Jr., Stephanie Veon, Shondra Caldwell Party Larry Foster and Robert Holmes (Added from 16−5165) Terminated. (rg) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
63 MOTION to Certify Class , Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel by Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. Responses due by 3/20/2017 (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
64 NOTICE of filing documents UNDER SEAL by Plaintiffs re 63 MOTION to Certify Class , Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel (jn) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
65 MEMORANDUM BRIEF in Support (UNDER SEAL) of 63 MOTION to Certify Class , Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel by Plaintiffs. (jn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/17/2017: # 1 Exh A, # 2 Exh B, # 3 Exh C, # 4 Exh D, # 5 Exh E, # 6 Exh F, # 7 Exh G, # 8 Exh H, # 9 Exh I, # 10 Exh J, # 11 Exh K, # 12 Exh L, # 13 Exh M, # 14 Exh N, # 15 Exh O, # 16 Exh P, # 17 Exh Q, # 18 Exh R, # 19 Exh S, # 20 Exh T, # 21 Exh U, # 22 Exh V, # 23 Exh W, # 24 Exh X, # 25 Exh Y, # 26 Exh Z, # 27 Exh AA, # 28 Exh BB, # 29 Exh CC, # 30 Exh DD, # 31 Exh EE, # 32 Exh FF, # 33 Exh GG, # 34 Exh HH, # 35 Exh II, # 36 Exh JJ, # 37 Exh KK, # 38 Exh LL, # 39 Exh MM, # 40 Exh NN, # 41 Exh OO, # 42 Exh PP, # 43 Exh QQ, # 44 Exh RR, # 45 Exh SS, # 46 Exh TT, # 47 Exh UU, # 48 Exh VV, # 49 Exh WW) (jn). (Entered: 02/17/2017)
66 AFFIDAVIT (UNDER SEAL) of Peter A. Muhic filed by Plaintiffs re 63 MOTION to Certify Class , Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel. (jn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/17/2017: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2) (jn). (Entered: 02/17/2017)
TEXT ONLY NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF SEALED PLEADINGS: The following document(s) were received and placed under seal: Memorandum Brief and Declaration filed by All Plaintiffs and relates to 63 Motion to Certify Class. Copy of sealed pleading(s) available to judge via ECF restriction. (jn) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
67 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and MOTION to Stay the proceedings by Global TelLink Corporation. (jn) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
68 MEMORANDUM BRIEF in Support of 67 MOTION to Compel MOTION to Stay by Global TelLink Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(jn) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
69 MOTION for Attorney Patrick Howard to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 5006129) by Shondra Caldwell, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (tg) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 69 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Patrick Howard is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if he has not already done so and enter his appearance in this matter. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on March 3, 2017. (slc) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/03/2017 03/08/2017 03/08/2017 03/16/2017 03/17/2017 03/20/2017 03/21/2017
03/21/2017 03/21/2017 03/21/2017
03/27/2017 04/04/2017 04/10/2017

70 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick Howard on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Howard, Patrick) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
71 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration by Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 71 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiffs may file a response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 67) by no later than March 27, 2017, and Defendant may file a reply of no more than ten (10) pages by no later than April 10, 2017. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on March 8, 2017. (jch) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
72 MOTION for Attorney Michael R. Sklaire to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 5006158) by Global TelLink Corporation. (tg) (rg). Modified on 3/17/2017 to replace correct document(rg). (Entered: 03/16/2017)
TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 72 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Michael R. Sklaire is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if he has not already done so and enter his appearance in this matter. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on March 17, 2017. (slc) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
TEXT ONLY NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF SEALED PLEADINGS: The following document(s) were received and placed under seal: Opposition and Statement of Facts with Exhibits filed by Global TelLink Corporation and relates to 63 Motion to Certify Class,. Copy of sealed pleading(s) available to judge via ECF restriction. (rg) modified to add text on 3/21/17 tg (Entered: 03/20/2017)
73 UNDER SEAL Global TelLink Corporation's Opposition to 63 MOTION to Certify Class, Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel. (tg) (tg). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/21/2017: # 1 UNDER SEAL Exhibit List, # 2 1, # 3 2, # 4 3, # 5 4, # 6 5, # 7 6, # 8 7, # 9 8, # 10 9, # 11 10, # 12 11, # 13 12, # 14 13, # 15 14, # 16 15, # 17 16, # 18 17, # 19 18, # 20 19, # 21 20, # 22 21, # 23 22, # 24 23, # 25 24, # 26 25, # 27 26, # 28 27, # 29 28, # 30 29, # 31 30, # 32 31, # 33 32, # 34 33, # 35 34, # 36 35, # 37 36, # 38 37, # 39 38, # 40 39, # 41 40, # 42 41, # 43 42, # 44 43, # 45 44, # 46 45, # 47 46, # 48 47, # 49 48, # 50 49, # 51 50) (tg). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/27/2017: # 52 Exhibit 23) (tg). (Entered: 03/21/2017)
74 UNDER SEAL STATEMENT OF FACTS In support of Global TelLink Corporation's 73 Opposition to 63 MOTION to Certify Class, Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel by Global TelLink Corporation. (tg) (tg). (Entered: 03/21/2017)
75 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael R. Sklaire on behalf of All Defendants. (Sklaire, Michael) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
76 EXHIBITS TO 73 Opposition continued by Defendant Global TelLink Corporation. (tg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/21/2017: # 1 52, # 2 53, # 3 54, # 4 55, # 5 56, # 6 57, # 7 58, # 8 59, # 9 60, # 10 61, # 11 62, # 12 63, # 13 64, # 14 65, # 15 66, # 16 67, # 17 68, # 18 69, # 19 70, # 20 71, # 21 72, # 22 73, # 23 74, # 24 75, # 25 76, # 26 77, # 27 78, # 28 79, # 29 80, # 30 81, # 31 82, # 32 83, # 33 84, # 34 85, # 35 86, # 36 87, # 37 88, # 38 89, # 39 90, # 40 91, # 41 92, # 42 93, # 43 94, # 44 95 Cover, # 45 95 GTL Stuart, # 46 95, # 47 96, # 48 97, # 49 98, # 50 99) (tg). (Entered: 03/21/2017)
77 RESPONSE in Opposition re 67 MOTION to Compel MOTION to Stay filed by Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Y. Michael Twersky with Exhibits A−N)(Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
78 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order by Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
79 STIPULATION AND ORDER. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on April 10, 2017. (rg) (Entered: 04/10/2017)

04/10/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/17/2017 04/18/2017 04/28/2017 04/28/2017
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 05/01/2017 05/10/2017 06/01/2017
06/14/2017

80 RESPONSE in Support re 67 MOTION to Compel MOTION to Stay filed by Global TelLink Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit John W. Baker II)(Sklaire, Michael) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
81 MOTION for Attorney Robert J. Herrington to Appear Pro Hac Vice . (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 0861−1501867) by Global TelLink Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Affidavit of Robert J. Herrington)(Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 81 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Robert J. Herrington is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if he has not already done so and enter his appearance in this matter. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on April 14, 2017. (slc) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
82 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert J. Herrington on behalf of Global TelLink Corporation. (Herrington, Robert) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
83 NOTICE by Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon re 77 Response in Opposition to Motion, Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Opinion − James v. Global Tel*Link Corporation)(Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
84 NOTICE of FILING UNDER SEAL by Larry Bageant, Luann Bouvier, Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz, Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon (jn) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
85 REPLY UNDER SEAL to Response to Motion re 63 MOTION to Certify Class , Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel filed by Larry Bageant, Luann Bouvier, Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz, Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (jn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/28/2017: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Ex XX, # 3 Ex YY, # 4 Ex ZZ, # 5 Ex AAA, # 6 Ex BBB, # 7 Ex CCC, # 8 Ex DDD, # 9 Ex EEE, # 10 Ex FFF, # 11 Ex GGG, # 12 Ex HHH) (jn). (Entered: 04/28/2017)
86 MOTION for Attorney Derek T. Ho to Appear Pro Hac Vice . (PHV Application fee paid $ 100; receipt number 0861−1509897) by Global TelLink Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Affidavit of Derek T. Ho)(Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 86 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Derek T. Ho is directed to immediately register as a CM/ECF user if he has not already done so and enter his appearance in this matter. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on May 1, 2017. (slc) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
87 NOTICE of Appearance by Derek Ho on behalf of Global TelLink Corporation. (Ho, Derek) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
TEXT ONLY Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks: In Court Hearing held on 5/10/2017. (Dana Hayden−Court Reporter)(Proceedings held in Fayetteville−Room 509) (slc) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
88 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of In Court Hearing held on 5/10/2017, before Judge Timothy L. Brooks. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Dana Hayden, Telephone number 479−695−4460. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber. After the Release of Transcript Restriction deadline, it, or a redacted transcript, may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER A Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of the Transcript MUST be filed within 7 calendar days of the filing of the transcript and served manually on the court reporter/transcriber. Redaction Request due 6/22/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/3/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/30/2017. (src) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
89 MOTION for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by Global TelLink Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Decision)(Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/14/2017
06/21/2017 06/23/2017 06/28/2017
09/28/2017 09/28/2017 10/03/2017 10/12/2017 10/18/2017 10/19/2017
10/27/2017 11/06/2017 11/06/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 89 Motion for Leave to File. Defendant may file a supplemental brief in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 63), by no later than June 21, 2017. Plaintiffs are given advance leave to file a reply to Defendant's supplemental brief by no later than June 28, 2017. Neither brief may exceed ten (10) pages. Neither brief may discuss matters that are not directly relevant to the June 13, 2017 decision in the D.C. Circuit case of Global Tel*Link v. FCC, case number 15−1461, which Defendant has filed at Doc. 89−1 of the instant docket. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on June 14, 2017. (jch) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
90 RESPONSE in Opposition re 63 MOTION to Certify Class , Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel filed by Global TelLink Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − 2017 06 13 USCA DC Opinion in 15−1461)(Ho, Derek) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
91 Redaction of 88 Transcript of Hearing. (tg) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
92 REPLY to Response to Motion re 89 MOTION for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, 63 MOTION to Certify Class , Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel filed by Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
93 NOTICE by Global TelLink Corporation re 90 Response in Opposition to Motion, Notice of Supplemental Authority In Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ho, Derek) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
94 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 63 Motion to Certify Class; and denying 67 Motion to Compel and Motion to Stay. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on September 28, 2017. (tg) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
95 TEXT ONLY ORDER Setting TELEPHONE CONFERENCE: Telephone Conference set for 10/12/2017 01:30 PM in Fayetteville −− 5th flr (Rm 509) before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks. NOTE TO COUNSEL: Please provide Chambers with your contact information via email to tlbinfo@arwd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on October 3, 2017. (slc) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
96 TEXT ONLY Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks: Telephone Conference held on 10/12/2017. (Dana Hayden−Court Reporter)(Proceedings held in Fayetteville−Room 509) (slc) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
97 Appeal Remark: A Petition for permission to appeal has been filed as a miscellaneous case in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. USCA Miscellaneous case number is 17−8029 (Attachments: # 1 Petition filed in 8th Circuit)(src) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
98 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference held on 10/12/2017, before Judge Timothy L. Brooks. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Dana Hayden, Telephone number 479−695−4460. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber. After the Release of Transcript Restriction deadline, it, or a redacted transcript, may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER A Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of the Transcript MUST be filed within 7 calendar days of the filing of the transcript and served manually on the court reporter/transcriber. Redaction Request due 11/9/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/20/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/17/2018. (src) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
99 Appeal Remark: MANDATE denying 97 Petition for Permission to Appeal (USCA Miscellaneous case number 17−8029) (Attachments: # 1 Judgment, # 2 Letter)(src) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
100 STIPULATION (Joint Stipulation for Limited Exception to Sealing Order) by Global TelLink Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Oct. 6, 2017 Order, # 2 Exhibit B − Aug. 8, 2017 Protective Order)(Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
101 TEXT ONLY ORDER adopting and approving the Joint Stipulation filed at Doc. 100 Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on November 6, 2017. (jch) Modified on

11/15/2017 11/17/2017 01/08/2018 02/28/2018 03/01/2018
05/11/2018 08/23/2018 08/27/2018

11/7/2017 to add link (rg). (Entered: 11/06/2017)
102 MOTION of Edward W. Ciolko to Withdraw as Attorney by Shondra Caldwell, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
103 TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 102 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Edward W. Ciolko withdrawn, and the Clerk of Court is directed to remove his name from the list of attorneys who receive Notices of Electronic Filing in this case. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on November 17, 2017. (slc) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
**JURY TRIAL terminated. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on January 8, 2018. (slc) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
104 MOTION of Monique Myatt Galloway to Withdraw as Attorney by Larry Bageant, Luann Bouvier, Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (Galloway, Monique) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
105 TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 104 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Monique Myatt Galloway withdrawn, and the Clerk of Court is directed to remove her name from the list of attorneys who receive Notices of Electronic Filing in this case. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on March 1, 2018. (slc) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
106 FINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/11/2018 03:00 PM in Fayetteville −− 5th flr (Rm 509) before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks. JURY TRIAL set for 9/24/2018 09:00 AM before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on May 11, 2018. (slc) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
107 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Lewis Brooks, Shondra Caldwell, Walter Chruby, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Stephen Orosz(Added from 16−5165), Earl Reese, Michael Veon, Stephanie Veon. (Muhic, Peter) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
108 CLERK'S ORDER Dismissing Case: re 107 Stipulation filed by Stephen Orosz, Michael Veon, Jacqueline Mills Jacobs, Earl Reese, Lewis Brooks, Walter Chruby, Stephen Orosz, Jr., Stephanie Veon, Shondra Caldwell (CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE). (tg) (Entered: 08/27/2018)

 
 CLOSED,CONSOL
U. S. District Court Western District of Arkansas (Fayetteville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:16−cv−05165−TLB

REESE et al v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION Assigned to: Honorable Timothy L. Brooks Lead case: 5:15−cv−05136−TLB Member case: (View Member Case) Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 2:15−cv−02197 Cause: 47:0277 Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/01/2016 Date Terminated: 08/27/2018 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question

EARL REESE

represented by Amy C. Martin Attorney at Law P.O. Box 765 Fayetteville, AR 72702 (479) 422−4611 Email: theamymartin@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter A. Muhic Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667−7706 Fax: (610) 667−7056 Email: pmuhic@ktmc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Trask Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667−7706 Fax: (610) 667−7056 Email: atrask@ktmc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donna Siegel Moffa Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667−7706 Email: dmoffa@ktmc.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monique Myatt Galloway Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667−7706 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter R. Kahana Berger Montague P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 875−4629

Plaintiff Walter Chruby
Plaintiff STEPHEN OROSZ, JR.

Email: pkahana@bm.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP 280 KING OF PRUSSIA RD RADNOR, PA 19087 610−667−7706 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 875−3052 Email: mitwersky@bm.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address)

Plaintiff MICHAEL VEON

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address)

Plaintiff LARRY BAGEANT
Plaintiff LUANN BOUVIER

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WESLEY HARPER
Plaintiff ROBERT HOLMES

Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff STEPHEN OROSZ, JR.
Plaintiff EMILY OROSZ

Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CARL PETERKIN

Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff STEPHANIE VEON
Plaintiff LEWIS BROOKS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy C. Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A. Muhic (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Trask (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Myatt Galloway (See above for address)

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter R. Kahana (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yechiel Michael Twersky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Global Tel*Link Corporation

represented by Michael R. Sklaire Greenberg Traurig LLP 1750 Tysons Blvd Suite 1000 McLean, VA 22102 (703) 749−1308 Fax: (703) 714−8308 Email: sklairem@gtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRIAN T. FEENEY GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2700 TWO COMMERCE SQUARE 2001 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−988−7812 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marshall S. Ney Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP 3350 S Pinnacle Hills Pkwy Ste 301 Rogers, AR 72758 (479) 695−6049 Fax: 5012445389 Email: mney@fridayfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/23/2015
04/23/2015 04/23/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number PPE119903), filed by LEWIS BROOKS, LUANN BOUVIER, CARL PETERKIN, WALTER CHRUBY, MICHAEL VEON, LARRY BAGEANT, STEPHEN OROSZ, ROBERT HOLMES, EARL REESE, STEPHANIE VEON, WESLEY HARPER, EMILY OROSZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jmv, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 04/24/2015)
Summons Issued as to GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION. Forwarded To: 1 Orig mailed to counsel on 4/24/15 (jmv, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 04/24/2015)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY

05/14/2015 05/15/2015 05/15/2015 05/15/2015 05/15/2015 06/16/2015 06/16/2015 06/17/2015 06/18/2015 06/22/2015 06/24/2015

OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON. (jmv, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 04/24/2015)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by LEWIS BROOKS, LUANN BOUVIER, CARL PETERKIN, WALTER CHRUBY, MICHAEL VEON, LARRY BAGEANT, STEPHEN OROSZ, ROBERT HOLMES, EARL REESE, STEPHANIE VEON, WESLEY HARPER, EMILY OROSZ. GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION waiver sent on 5/4/2015, answer due 7/6/2015. (MUHIC, PETER) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 05/14/2015)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(GALLOWAY, MONIQUE) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 05/15/2015)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by AMANDA TRASK on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(TRASK, AMANDA) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 05/15/2015)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by SAMANTHA E. JONES on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(JONES, SAMANTHA) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 05/15/2015)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(MOFFA, DONNA) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 05/15/2015)
7 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION.(FEENEY, BRIAN) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 06/16/2015)
8 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 with Certificate of Service by GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION.(FEENEY, BRIAN) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 06/16/2015)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(TWERSKY, YECHIEL) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 06/17/2015)
10 Copy Re: Documents (Defendant's Motion to Transfer Actions to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 for Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings) Filed Before the JPML regarding In Re: Global Tel*Link Corporation ICS Litigation. (ems) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 06/18/2015)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by PETER R. KAHANA on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(KAHANA, PETER) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 06/22/2015)
12 APPLICATION by GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION FOR MICHAEL SKLAIRE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE, STATEMENT, CERTIFICATE OF

06/25/2015 06/25/2015 06/26/2015 06/26/2015 07/13/2015 08/06/2015 08/17/2015
10/16/2015 10/23/2015
10/28/2015 11/09/2015

SERVICE. (PPE123229 $40.00) (jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 06/25/2015)
13 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF MICHAEL R. SKLAIRE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 6/25/15. 6/25/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 06/25/2015)
14 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN TO HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ FOR ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 6/25/15. 6/25/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 06/25/2015)
15 AMENDED DOCUMENT by GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION. Amendment to 8 Disclosure Statement Form . (FEENEY, BRIAN) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 06/26/2015)
Amended Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 Identifying Corporate Parent GTEL HOLDINGS, INC. for GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION. by GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION. (SEE PAPER # 15 FOR ATTACHMENT).(fb) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 06/29/2015)
16 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD IN THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED CASE ON 8/6/2015 AT 10:00 AM IN COURTROOM 11A. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 7/13/15. 7/13/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(gs) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 07/13/2015)
17 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ Pretrial Conference held on 8/6/15. (jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 08/06/2015)
18 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL CONFER PURSUANT TO FRCP 26(F) AND SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT, ON OR BEFORE 9/18/15, A WRITTEN REPORT OUTLINING THEIR JOINT PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN. GIVEN THE PENDENCY OF DEFENDANT GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION'S MOTION TO TRANSFER BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTICT LITIGATION, THE COURT WILL NOT SCHEDULE A FORMAL RULE 16 CONFERENCE AT THIS TIME. THE COURT, HOWEVER, EXPECTS THE PARTIES TO BEGIN THE DISCOVERY PROCESS WHILE AWAITING THE PANEL'S RULING. ACCORDINGLY, THE PARTIES' DISCOVERY PLAN SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE START OF DISCOVERY PRIOR TO A FORMAL RULE 16 CONFERENCE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 8/17/15. 8/17/15 ENTERED & E−MAILED.(fdc) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 08/17/2015)
19 ORDER THAT A RULE 16 CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER ON 11/4/15 AT 1:00 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 10/15/15. 10/16/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 10/16/2015)
20 MOTION to Transfer to the Western District of Arkansas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) filed by LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON.Memorandum of Law. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(MUHIC, PETER) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 10/23/2015)
21 ORDER THAT THE RULE 16 CONFERENCE IS POSTPONED PENDING FURTHER COURT ORDER; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 10/28/15. 10/28/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 10/28/2015)
22 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Transfer to the Western District of Arkansas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) filed by GLOBAL TELLINK

11/16/2015
11/17/2015 11/17/2015 11/19/2015 01/15/2016 05/31/2016 05/31/2016
07/01/2016 07/01/2016 07/01/2016
07/05/2016 07/18/2016 07/18/2016

CORPORATION. (FEENEY, BRIAN) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 11/09/2015)
23 MOTION for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer to the Western District of Arkansas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) filed by LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(MUHIC, PETER) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 11/16/2015)
24 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO TRANSFER IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 11/17/15. 11/17/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 11/17/2015)
25 RESPONSE in Support OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION to Transfer to the Western District of Arkansas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 11/17/2015)
26 ORDER THAT A RULE 16 CONFERENCE AND ORAL ARGUMENT ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO TRANSFER WILL BE HELD IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER ON 12/4/15 AT 10:00 A.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 11/19/15. 11/19/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 11/19/2015)
27 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND ORAL ARGUMENT held on 12/4/15. (jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 01/15/2016)
28 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TRANSFER TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. & 14404 (a) IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 5/31/16. 5/31/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 05/31/2016)
29 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TRANSFER TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. & 14404 (a) IS GRANTED. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL TRANSFER THIS ACTION TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 5/31/16. 5/31/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) [Transferred from paed on 7/1/2016.] (Entered: 05/31/2016)
30 Case transferred in from District of Pennsylvania Eastern; Case Number 2:15−cv−02197. Docket sheet received. (Entered: 07/01/2016)
31 Magistrate Notice/Consent Furnished (jn) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
TEXT ONLY CLERK'S NOTICE: The following attorney(s) listed on Case Transferred In − District Transfer 30 is (are) not registered for CM/ECF noticing and filing in the Western District of Arkansas:ALL COUNSEL. An attorney can register for a CM/ECF login and password if they are admitted to practice in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas or are admitted pro hac vice FOR THIS CASE. Any non−registered attorney should submit the proper attorney admission petition or file an appropriate motion. Please refer to our website http://www.arwd.uscourts.gov/attorney−information for further information. (jn) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Marshall S. Ney on behalf of Global TelLink Corporation. (Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Amy C. Martin on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Martin, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
34 NOTICE by LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, Walter Chruby, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, JR, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE

07/25/2016 07/25/2016 08/16/2016

VEON of Filing Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate (Martin, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
35 NOTICE by Global TelLink Corporation Notice of Non−Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate (Ney, Marshall) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
36 ORDER consolidating case with 15−5136. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on July 25, 2016. (tg) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
TEXT ONLY MEMO OF REASSIGNMENT. Case reassigned to Honorable Timothy L. Brooks. Honorable P. K. Holmes, III no longer assigned to the case. This case was consolidated with Case No. 5:16−cv−5165 per court order dated July 25, 2016. (jas) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

 
 Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 8742

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

WALTER CH RUBY, et al.

V.

CASE NO. 5:15-CV-5136

GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Currently before the Court are: • Defendant Global Tel*Link Corporation 's ("GTL") Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceedings (Doc. 67) and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 68); Plaintiffs Walter Chruby's, Earl Reese 's, Stephen Orosz, Sr.'s, Stephen Orosz, Jr.'s, Michael Veon 's, Stefanie Veon 's, Lewis Brooks's, Jacqueline Jacobs's, and Shondra Caldwell 's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Response in Opposition (Doc. 77); GTL's Reply (Doc. 80) ; and Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 83) ; and • Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification , Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel (Doc. 63) and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 65) ; GTL's Opposition (Doc. 73) and Statement of Facts (Doc. 74) ; Plaintiffs' Reply (Doc. 85) ; GTL's Supplemental Brief (Doc. 90); and Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief (Doc. 92). For the reasons given below, both Motions are DENIED .

1

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 8743
I. BACKGROUND This case is one of four lawsuits on the topic of inmate calling services ("ICS") currently pending in this Court. Two of them are concerned with interstate calls, and two of them are concerned with intrastate calls . This is one of the intrastate cases. The Defendant in this case , GTL, is also the defendant in one of the interstate cases. A company called Securus Technologies, Inc. ("Securus") is the defendant in the other two cases. In the instant case , Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint (Doc. 1) in this Court on June 12, 2015 , followed by an Amended Complaint (Doc. 25) on August 28 of that same year. On May 17, 2016 , the Court entered an Order (Doc. 46) granting in part and denying in part GTL's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 28) . Soon thereafter, venue of a related case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was transferred to this Court, and on July 25 of that year, this Court entered an Order consolidating that case with this one. See Doc. 51. This case, like all of the ICS cases, was brought as a putative Glass action . As in the GTL interstate case, Plaintiffs "allege that GTL obtained exclusive contracts to provide telephone services to inmates at correctional facilities throughout the United States in exchange for the payment of kickbacks to those correctional facilities known as 'site commissions. "' In re Global Tel*Link Corp. /CS Litig., 2017 WL 471571 , at *1 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 3, 2017). And as in the GTL interstate case, Plaintiffs further allege "that GTL charged them excessive rates to cover the costs of site commissions it paid to correctional facilities, and charged them deposit fees that unreasonably exceeded the cost of processing deposits into prepaid accounts. " Id.
2

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 8744
In the GTL interstate case , the plaintiffs sought to recover these allegedly unjust rates and fees through two claims for relief-one brought under the Federal Communications Act ("FCA") through 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 (b) and 206 , and one brought under the common-law doctrine of unjust enrichment. See id. The plaintiffs in the Securus interstate case made substantially identical allegations and asserted the same two causes of action . See Mojica v. Securus Techs., Inc., 2017 WL 470910 , at *1 (W.D. Ark. Feb . 3, 2017). In each interstate case , the Court eventually certified one nationwide class for the FCA claims and several multi-state subclasses for the unjust enrichment claims. See id. at *9-*10; In re Global Tel*Link Corp. JCS Litig. , 2017 WL 471571 , at *10*11 (W .D. Ark. Feb . 3, 2017).
However, in June of 2017, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion in a separate proceeding that this Court was concerned might be binding authority and might undermine this Court's justification for certifying the FCA classes. See Global Tel*Link v. FCC, 859 F.3d 39 (D .C. Cir. 2017), amended and superseded by Global Tel*Link v. FCC , 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 20 17). Anticipating that a petition for rehearing en bane would be filed in that D.C. Circuit case , this Court entered administrative stays of both interstate cases pending the resolution of any such petition . The expected petition was indeed filed on July 28 , 2017 . It was denied only earlier this week on September 26 , see D.C. Cir. Case No . 15-1461 , Doc. 1694853, but this Court has not yet lifted the stays in the interstate cases. As for the Securus intrastate case , it was not filed until January of th is year, and discovery is ongoing. No motion for class certification has yet been filed in that case.
3

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 8745
In the instant case, Plaintiffs originally brought their claims under the FCA, the common-law doctrine of unjust enrichment, the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"), and California 's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). However, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' FCA claims without prejudice, essentially on the grounds that the FCA does not apply to the sort of purely intrastate communications services described in the Amended Complaint. See Doc. 46 , pp. 5-8. The case that was subsequently consolidated with the instant one also brought claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL").
On February 17 of this year, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification , Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel (Doc. 63). A couple of weeks later, on March 1, 2017 , GTL filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceedings (Doc. 67). Both Motions have been extensively briefed , and on May 10 of this year the Court heard oral argument on them for several hours. Accordingly, both Motions are ripe for decision. Below, the Court will address GTL's arbitration Motion first. Then , the Court will take up Plaintiffs' class certification Motion.
II. GTL'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION (Doc. 67) GTL has moved to compel four of the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims: Shondra Caldwell , Jacqueline Jacobs, Stefanie Veon , and Stephen Orosz, Sr. (collectively, "the Arbitrating Plaintiffs"). The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") provides that "[a] written provision in .. . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction ... shall be valid , irrevocable , and enforceable, save upon any grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. " 9 U.S.C. § 2. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
4

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 8746
recognized this to be the enunciation of a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration ." AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion , 566 U.S. 333, 339 (2011 ) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983)).
However, the Arbitrating Plaintiffs contend that here , GTL has waived any right it may have to arbitrate their claims. "A party waives its right to arbitration if it '(1) knew of an existing right to arbitration ; (2) acted inconsistently with that right; and (3) prejudiced the other party by these inconsistent acts ."' Messina v. N. Cent. Distrib., Inc. , 821 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 2016 ) (quoting Lewallen v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 487 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8-th Cir. 2007)). The Arbitrating Plaintiffs bear-the burden of demonstrating that these elements are satisfied here. See Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. Inc. v. Freeman , 924 F.2d 157, 158 (8th Cir. 1991 ). Whether these elements are met is an issue for this Court-not an arbitrator-to decide. See N & D Fashions, Inc. v. DHJ Indus. , Inc., 548 F.2d 722 , 728 (8th Cir. 1976).
All three elements of waiver are easily satisfied with respect to Ms. Caldwell , Ms. Jacobs, and Ms. Veon . GTL contends that all three of these individuals agreed to arbitrate their claims before any of them filed their instant lawsuits , see Doc. 68 , p. 7, so GTL surely knew of its right to arbitrate given that it possessed these arbitration agreements, see Messina , 821 F.3d at 1050.1 Yet, GTL waited well over a year and a half after the instant
1 GTL insists that it did not know of its right to arbitrate until it recently received these Plaintiffs' phone numbers in discovery and used those phone numbers to identify them as the individuals who signed the arbitration agreements in question. The Court finds this implausible. GTL has been aware of these Plaintiffs' names from the moment they served it with copies of their complaints in this case , and GTL's counsel conceded during oral argument that GTL had the ability to search their database of arbitration agreements for these·Plaintiffs' names. See Doc. 88 , pp. 25- 26 . Given that there is no representation or evidence in the record that any such search was ever attempted , the Court places no stock in the theoretical possibility that, if such a search had been performed , it might have
5

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 8747
litigation began before attempting to compel these Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims . In the meantime , GTL forced these Plaintiffs to defend against a motion before the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to transfer all related actions to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania , see E.D . Pa . Case No. 2:15-cv-2197, Doc. 10, pp . 1, 3, and forced Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Caldwell to defend against a motion here in the Western District of Arkansas that sought dismissal of their claims on the merits, see W.D. Ark. Case No. 5:15-cv-5136, Doc. 28 .
A party acts inconsistently with its right to arbitration "if it substantially invokes the litigation mnchinery before asserting its arbitration right, whe n-;-for example , it . .. fails to move to compel arbitration and stay litigation in a timely manner." Messina , 821 F.3d at 1050 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). And "[p]rejudice from a failure to assert an arbitration right occurs when , for example , parties ... litigate substantial issues on the merits, or when compelling arbitration would require a duplication of efforts ," or when a party is "forced to defend against [a] motion to transfer venue ." See id. at 1051. The aforementioned motion to dismiss was granted with respect to Plaintiffs' claims under the FCA, and denied with respect to Plaintiffs' state-law claims-rulings which established law of the case for all of the subsequently consolidated Plaintiffs as well . Seeking "an immediate and total victory in the parties' dispute" in federal court, and then only subsequently seeking to compel arbitration smacks of "want[ing] to see how the case was going in federal district court before deciding whether it would be better off there or in
turned up multiple individuals with identical names. See id. "To safeguard its right to arbitration , a party must 'do all it could reasonably have been expected to do to make the earliest feasible determination of whether to proceed judicially or by arbitration ."' Lewallen v. Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C., 487 F.3d 1085, 1091 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Cabinetree of Wis ., Inc. v. Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc., 50 F.3d 388 , 391 (7th Cir. 1995)).
6

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 8748
arbitration"-a form of "heads I win , tails you lose , which is the worst possible reason for failing to move for arbitration sooner than it did ." See Hooper v. Advance Am. , Cash Advance Ctrs. of Missouri, Inc., 589 F.3d 917 , 922 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The issue of waiver would appear at first glance to be a bit closer with respect to Mr. Orosz, Sr. GTL contends that he signed an arbitration agreement on May 4, 2016 , see Doc. 68 , pp . 7-8, which was half a year after contested briefing was completed on the issue of venue in Mr. Orosz, Sr.'s case , see, e.g., Case No. 5:16-cv-5165 , Doc. 25 , and one month after contested briefing was completed on GTL's-motion to dismiss in the case with wh ich Mr. Orosz, Sr. 's case was ultimately consolidated , see, e.g. , Case No. 5:15-cv-5136 , Docs . 45 , 51 . After May 4, 2016 , GTL did not file any contested or substantive motions until roughly ten months later, when it moved to compel arbitration. GTL represents that it has demanded minimal discovery from the Plaintiffs during that period . See Doc. 88 , p. 30 . If these facts were the whole story, then there might be a good argument that Mr. Orosz, Sr. was not prejudiced by GTL's ten-month delay. Cf. James v. Global Tel*Link Corp. , 2016 WL 589676 , at *10 (D.N.J. Feb . 11 , 2016) ("Here, the discovery, while not de minimus, does not rise to a level sufficient to constitute prejudice to the Plaintiffs .").
However, GTL knew this was a putative class action , see Case No. 5:16-cv-5165, Doc. 1 (styled "Class Action Complaint") , and that at some point on or before February 17, 2017-nine months after it claims he signed the arbitration agreement-Mr. Orosz, Sr. would move to certify a class and be appointed as a class representative, see Case No. 5:15-cv-5136 , Docs. 52 , 57. Yet, GTL chose not to move to compel arbitration of Mr.
7

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 8749
Orosz, Sr. 's claims until a month after the deadline had passed for him to move for class
certification , even though GTL contends that Mr. Orosz, Sr.'s arbitration agreement prohibits him from arbitrating his claims on behalf of a class. See Doc. 68 , pp . 5-6 ; Doc.
,m 68-1 , 6, 8. By this Court's tally, the Motion for Class Certification and supporting
documents that Mr. Orosz, Sr. and his fellow Plaintiffs filed on February 17, 2017 consist of 3,191 pages. See Docs. 63-66 . Thus, if there is in fact a valid , enforceable arbitration agreement between GTL and Mr. Orosz, Sr., and if that arbitration agreement means what GTL says it means, then GTL's delay in moving for arbitration of Mr. Orosz, Sr.'s claims resulted·-~A·'.him devoting some substantial amount of time £ nd effort towards the litigation of class certification issues that would be of utterly no use to him in arbitration , and that he never would have undertaken if GTL had simply moved to compel arbitration in a timely manner. That is a textbook example of prejudice .
Ultimately, then , all three elements of waiver are satisfied with respect to each of the Arbitrating Plaintiffs. Therefore, GTL's Motion to Compel Arbitration will be DENIED . Now the Court will turn to Plaintiffs' class certification Motion .
Ill. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (Doc. 63) Plaintiffs seek certification of the following four classes: Unjust Enrichment Class 1: All persons who at any time on or after April 24, 2011 , paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility in Arkansas , California, Indiana, or Vermont, during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the intrastate calls; Unjust Enrichment Class 2: All persons who at any time on or after April 24, 2011, paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility in Pennsylvania , Georgia , Florida , Maryland , Mississippi , South Dakota , or Virginia , during a period of
8

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 8750
time when Global Tel*Link paid the facil ity a commission of any type in connection with the intrastate calls;
ADTPA Class: All persons who at any time on or after June 12, 2010: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility in Arkansas , during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the intrastate calls ; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel *Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any intrastate calls within Arkansas ; and
UCL Class: All persons who at any time on or after August 28 , 2011: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility in California , during a period of time when Global Tel*:Link paid the facility a commission of any type in ccmnection with the intrastate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any intrastate calls within California .
See Doc. 63, ,I,I 1-2; Doc. 85-1 , ,I 18; Doc. 88 , pp. 69-70 . Plaintiffs also initially sought
certification of a UTPCPL class, see Doc. 63 at ,I 2, but they have since withdrawn that
particular request , see Doc. 85 , p. 7 n.2; Doc. 85-1 , ,I 17. After reciting the legal standard
for class certification motions, the Court will discuss its application to Plaintiffs' request.
A. LEGAL STANDARD
The party seeking class certification bears the burden of proving that Rule 23's
requirements are satisfied . See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 , 350
(2011 ). The district court retains "broad discretion in determining whether to certify a
class, recognizing the essentially factual basis of the certification inquiry and . . . the
district court's inherent power to manage and control pend ing litigation ." In re Zurn Pex
Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d 604 , 616 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and
citations omitted) . A district court must undertake "a rigorous analysis" to ensure that the
requirements of Rule 23 are met. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon , 467 U.S . 147, 161
9

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 8751
(1982) . "Frequently that 'rigorous analysis' will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claim ." Wal-Mart Stores, 564 U.S. at 351 (2011 ). The district court may "resolve disputes going to the factual setting of the case" if necessary to the class certification analysis. Blades v. Monsanto Co. , 400 F.3d 562 , 567 (8th Cir. 2005).
An implicit requirement for any class certification inquiry involves a court's assessment as to the ascertainability of the class. The description of a proposed class must be sufficiently definite to permit class members to be identified by objective criteria . See Sandusky Wellness Ctr. , LLC v. Medtox Sci. , Inc., 821 F.3d 992 , 996-97 (8th Cir. 2016). "The require :-:1ent that a class be clearly defined is designed pr:" arily to help the trial court manage the class. It is not designed to be a particularly stringent test, but plaintiffs must at least be able to establish that the general outlines of the membership of the class are determinable at the outset of the litigation ." Bynum v. Dist. of Columbia , 214 F.R.D . 27, 31 (D.D.C. 2003).
Under Rule 23 , certifying a class action requires a two-step analysis. First, the Court must determine whether:
• the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable ("numerosity" );
• there are questions of law or fact common to the class ("commonality"); • the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class ("typicality''); and • the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class (" fair and adequate representation"). Rule 23(a)(1 )-(4). Second, the Court must determine whether:
10

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 8752
• questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over questions affecting only individual members ("predominance"); and
• a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy ("superiority").
Rule 23(b)(3). B. DISCUSSION
1. Definition and Ascertainability As this Court observed in its interstate GTL class certification order, "the Eighth Circuit, 'unlike most other-courts of appeals, has not outlined a ... separat e~preliminary requirement' of ascertainability that would require plaintiffs to demonstrate a method of identifying class members that is administratively feasible ." In re Global Tel*Link Corp. /CS Litig., 2017 WL 471571 , at *3 (W.D. Ark. Feb . 3, 2017) (quoting Sandusky Wellness , 821 F.3d at 996). Instead , the Eighth Circuit simply adheres to a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23 factors , and while it recognizes that this analysis necessarily entails that a class be 'adequately defined and clearly ascertainable ,' the focus of this threshold inquiry is on whether the proposed class definition identifies class members by objective criteria , rather than on the administrative concerns that are already taken into account by the Rule 23(b)(3) factors of predominance and superiority. Id. GTL argues that Plaintiffs' class definitions create choice-of-law problems by not specifying where the class members were geographically located at the time they placed an intrastate call. See Doc. 88, pp. 70-75. Without knowing where the class members were located , the argument goes, we cannot know which state's law to apply to any given class member's claims without conducting a choice-of-law multi-factor balancing test for
11

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 8753
every single member. See id. But this concern, however legitimate it may be, has nothing to do with whether the proposed class definitions identify class members by objective criteria ; rather, it concerns whether common issues predominate over questions affecting individual class members.
Apart from the foregoing issue , "GTL's position on ascertainability is the same in this case as in the interstate case and incorporates the same arguments and evidence here ." (Doc. 73 , p. 33). Likewise, for the same reasons as in the interstate case, those arguments are unavailing here and Plaintiffs' proposed class definitions satisfy the ascertainability requirement. See In re Global Tel*Link Corp. JCS Litig. , 2017-WL 471571 , at *3-*5 (W .D. Ark. Feb. 3, 2017).
2. Rule 23(a): Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, and Fair and Adequate Representation
The proposed classes are numerous, likely containing at least thousands of members. Plaintiffs' claims are also typical of the proposed classes' claims, as all class members' claims "are based on the same . .. remedial theory," Paxton v. Union Nat. Bank, 688 F.2d 552 , 561-62 (8th Cir. 1982), which is that GTL violated several states' consumer protection laws and common law of unjust enrichment "by charging them exorbitant rates and deposit fees for [intra]state phone calls ." In re Global Tel*Link Corp. JCS Litig. , 2017 WL 471571 , at *6 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 3, 2017). And Plaintiffs would fairly and -adequately represent the classes' interests, which are aligned with their own ; as in the interstate case , "they have vigorously prosecuted their own interests through qualified counsel up through the present moment in this litigation, and the Court sees no reason to believe this vigorous prosecution will abate following class certification ." Id. GTL has not argued in its briefing that these three Rule 23(a) factors weigh against class certification,
12

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 8754
and at oral argument counsel for GTL clarified that it has no arguments to offer with respect to these three factors that this Court has not already rejected in the interstate case. See Doc. 88, pp. 34-35.
Instead , GTL has focused its Rule 23(a) analysis on the factor of commonality, which it has blended with its discussion of the Rule 23(b)(3) factor of predominance. Although they implicate many of the same issues, the Court prefers to keep these two factors analytically distinct. Here, as in the interstate case :
Plaintiffs allege that GTL recoups the site commissions it pays incarceration facilities through the rates it charges users of its inmate calling services, that GTL charges fees -for -depositing funds in inmate prepaid accounts -that · grossly exceed the cost of processing those deposits, and that these practices are the result of nationwide policies rather than of ad hoc negotiations with individual consumers of GTL's services. In re Global Tel*Link Corp . /CS Litig. , 2017 WL 471571 , at *5 (W.D . Ark. Feb. 3, 2017). And here, as there , these particular allegations present factual questions that are common to the class, in that their truth or falsity "do[es] not depend in any way on the individual circumstances surrounding ind ividual payments by class members ." See id.
3. Rule 23(b)(3): Predominance and Superiority However, whether such common questions predominate over individual questions as required by Rule 23(b)(3) is a different matter. "The Rule 23(b) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation ." Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997). The Eighth Circuit has explained that: When determining whether common questions predominate , a court must conduct a limited preliminary inquiry, looking behind the pleadings, but that inquiry should be limited to determining whether, if the plaintiffs' general allegations are true, common evidence could suffice to make out a prima
13

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 8755
facie case for the class. While limited in scope , this analysis should also be rigorous. In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d 604, 618 (8th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In the interstate case, the Court was persuaded that the aforementioned common allegations, if true, could suffice to make out a prima facie case for the proposed FCA and unjust enrichment classes. However, in the instant case, the Court does not believe these same common allegations could suffice to make out a prima facie case for the proposed ADTPA and UCL classes. Furthermore , new arguments raised in this case about one of GTL's defenses to Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims have persuaded the Court that common issues do not predominate with respect to the unjust enrichment classes either. GTL offers a great variety of arguments on the topic of predominance, many of which are ones that, if reached, the Court would find unpersuasive here for the same reasons it found them unpersuasive in the interstate GTL case . The Court sees no point in discussing those arguments in this Opinion , since they ultimately do not drive its decision here. Instead, the Court will focus its discussion on the new arguments GTL has offered, which have persuaded the Court that class certification is not appropriate here. One of those arguments concerns the "voluntary payment doctrine ," which GTL says it would assert as an affirmative defense in this case. This is not the first time the voluntary payment doctrine has come up in these ICS cases, but it has a particular nuance here that the Court has not previously explored. To provide some context for this new twist, the Court will first recap what the voluntary payment doctrine is, and how the issue arose in the two interstate cases.
14

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 8756
The voluntary payment doctrine holds that "payments which are voluntarily made cannot be recovered except for payments made as a result of duress, fraud , mistake or failure of consideration. " Gautrau v. Long, 271 Ark. 394, 396 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980). Among these ICS cases , the Court first encountered the voluntary payment doctrine in the Securus interstate case . As previously mentioned , a plaintiff in that case , Susan Mojica, was asserting claims under the FCA, as well as under the Arkansas common law of unjust enrichment, to recover excessive calling rates and excessive credit card fees (a different term for the aforementioned "deposit fees") that she had paid Securus in order to communicate with an imprisoned loved one. Before any class had been certified ifl ·that case, Securus moved for summary judgment against Ms. Mojica. For the most part, that motion was denied , but there was one issue on which it was granted-and that issue concerned the voluntary payment doctrine.
Securus contended that Ms. Mojica 's "claims regarding credit card fees are barred by the common-law voluntary payment doctrine. " See Mojica v. Securus Techs. , Inc. , 2016 WL 7650654, at *4 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 29 , 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court rejected this argument with respect to Ms. Mojica 's claim under the FCA, ruling that "[b]ecause the voluntary payment doctrine is a creature of state common law, it does not apply to Ms. Mojica's statutory federal claim under the FCA .. . ." See id. (citing Allen ex rel. Martin v. LaSalle Bank, N.A. , 629 F.3d 364 , 369 (3d Cir. 2011 ); Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson , 485 F.3d 226 , 231 (4th Cir. 2007)) . However, with respect to Ms. Mojica's claim under Arkansas common law for unjust enrichment, the Court noted "the undisputed fact that [Ms . Mojica] could have obtained Securus's services while avoiding paying any credit card fees if she had used a non-credit card method of payment, such as check,
15

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 8757
money order, or sending money to the inmate to pay from his own calling card or account," and found further that she had failed to come forward with any specific evidence that would support applying any of the traditional exceptions to the voluntary payment doctrine in her case. See id. at *5. Accordingly , the Court granted Securus partial summary judgment on Ms. Mojica's claim for unjust enrichment, "to the extent that this claim is for the recovery of credit card fees ." See id.
At the time the Court made this ruling , the motion for class certification in that case had already been fully briefed and was still pending . In that class certification motion , the plaintiffs were seeking certificatio ~ of one nationwide class for their FCA claims, and t·No subclasses for their unjust enrichment claims. Originally, all three of their proposed classes sought recovery of excessive calling rates and excessive credit card fees . But in light of the Court's summary-judgment ruling , they withdrew that portion of their classcertification request which pertained to unjust enrichment claims for credit card fees . A few months later, in its Order granting what remained of their motion for class certification , this Court addressed one of Securus's arguments on the factor of predominance as follows:
Securus argues that "individual questions arise under the voluntary payment doctrine and bar certification of any deposit fee claim ." This Court has already held that the voluntary payment doctrine does not apply to Plaintiffs' FCA claims, and the argument is otherwise mooted by Plaintiffs' withdrawal of their Motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim for deposit fees. Mojica v. Securus Techs., Inc. , 2017 WL 470910 , at *7 (W.D . Ark. Feb . 3, 2017) (internal alterations and citations omitted). Meanwhile, in the GTL interstate case , although GTL had not moved for summary judgment on the issue of the voluntary payment doctrine , the plaintiffs in that case saw
16

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 8758
the hand writing on the wall after the Court's summary-judgment ruling in Mojica , and accordingly withdrew the ir request for certification of unjust-enrichment deposit-fee subclasses in the same manner as the plaintiffs had in Mojica . Thus, in its Order granting what remained of those plaintiffs' motion for class certification , the Court rejected GTL's voluntary-payment predominance argument with respect to deposit fees in the same manner it had rejected Securus's-finding the argument moot as to unjust enrichment, and inapplicable to the FCA. See In re Global Tel *Link Corp. /CS Litig., 2017 WL 471571 , at *7 (W.D. Ark. Feb . 3, 2017). However, the Court addressed an additional wrinkle in GTL's argument that had been lacking in Securus's, noting that "GTL contends that t-!';e voluntary payment doctrine ... raise[s] individualized fact issues with respect to class members' claims that recoupment of site commissions [through excessive calling rates] violates the common law of unjust enrichment. " See id. at *8 (emphasis added). The Court rejected this argument, but with the caveat that it was doing so "on the basis of the record currently before it. " See id. It explained , "[t]here is no evidence in the record that any class members who wished to use inmate calling services had the option of not paying recoupments of site commissions to GTL ; thus, whether these rates were 'voluntary' or the 'result of duress' under such conditions is a question that is common among all class members." Id. (emphasis in original).
But now, in the instant intrastate case , GTL has directed the Court's attention to concrete evidence that at least some class members who wished to use inmate calling services did , in fact , have the option of not paying recoupments of site commissions to GTL at least some of the time . It has provided the Court with a copy of a contract between it and a county sheriff's office , that states in relevant part: "The [inmate telephone system]
17

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 8759
shall allow free local telephone calls from the booking area or to selected telephone
numbers approved by [the sheriff's office] ." See Doc. 73-15 . It has identified relevant
transcript portions from the deposition of one of the class representatives in the interstate
case , Kaylan Stuart, who testified that while he was an inmate at a facility serviced by
GTL , he was able to make free calls from the front of the jail to his lawyer, his
grandmother, and his parents. See Doc. 73-21, pp. 8-14. It has also highlighted
deposition testimony of Thomas Sweeney, GTL's Vice President of Sales and Marketing ,
likewise taken through the interstate case , describing how inmates "have free calls at all
the booking phones." See Doc. 73-4, ,.,. 14:2
In addition to this evidence regarding free calling options , GTL has given the Court
a related set of arguments to ponder that was not raised in either of the interstate cases.
This family of arguments crops up in various guises throughout GTL's Response-
sometimes as an argument about predominance , and at other times as an argument
about whether Plaintiffs have standing . But essentially, this family of arguments boils
2 Out of curiosity, the Court went back to the docket for the interstate GTL case, to explore whether these particular deposition transcripts ever made it into the evidentiary record. Interestingly enough, they did-but courtesy of the plaintiffs, rather than GTL. As best the Court can tell, GTL never attached any deposition testimony of Mr. Sweeney to its class certification and summary judgment briefing in that case. And although GTL did attach some other excerpts (on other topics) from Mr. Stuart's deposition , it never attached these particular excerpts. See In re Global Tel*Link Corp. /CS Litig., Case No. 5: 14-cv-5275, Doc. 106-8. However, among the plaintiffs' many exhibits in support of their class certification briefing , were the entire deposition transcripts for both Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Stuart-including the pages discussed above. See In re Global Tel*Link Corp. /CS Litig., Case No. 5:14-cv-5275 , Doc. 93-4, pp. 171 , 1063-67, 108384. So actually, when the Court wrote in its class certification order in that case that "(t]here is no evidence in the record that any class members who wished to use inmate calling services had the option of not paying recoupments of site comm issions to GTL ," it was incorrect. What it should have written was that no such evidence had been brought to the Court's attention . But it is there , and now the Court is aware of it.
18

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 8760
down to the following proposition : that GTL has not harmed anyone by simply offering a service, at a fully and honestly disclosed price , to inmates who are perfectly free to take or leave the offer as they wish , and then providing exactly what was promised to those who choose to accept the offer.
To the extent this is an argument that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims, the Court does not buy it. Plaintiffs allege , inter alia , that GTL exploited an exclusiveprovider contract by charging them , and all proposed class members, excessive phone rates that were designed to recoup the exorbitant site commissions GTL paid to acquire the exclusive contracts in the first place . The Court simply does not see how it could rule that this sort of allegation fails to describe a "concrete and particularized " injury that is "an invasion of a legally protected interest," Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016), given that, for example , the Arkansas Supreme Court has affirmed a finding that an entity violated the ADTPA by improperly exploiting economic leverage resulting from exclusive-provider contracts . See Baptist Health v. Murphy, 365 Ark . 115, 128-29 (2006) .
But to the extent this is an argument not about standing , but about the voluntary payment doctrine, the Court finds it much more persuasive, because it is a defense that GTL could assert against every single member of the proposed unjust enrichment classes. 3 True , Plaintiffs would then turn around and argue that one of the exceptions of "fraud , duress , mistake of fact, coercion , or extortion " applied , see Douglas v. Adams Trucking Co., Inc. , 345 Ark. 203 , 212 (2001 ), but that would be an inherently individualized inquiry.
3 Importantly, the voluntary payment doctrine exists in every member state of the proposed unjust enrichment classes. See Doc. 73-33, pp. 3-5 (collecting authorities).
19

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 8761
For example, consider an unpopular inmate housed in a maximum-security facility 500 miles away from his nearest loved one, with no free-calling options. And then consider a popular inmate at a minimum-security facility with free-calling options , whose loved ones routinely visit him in person but every once in a blue moon chat with him on the phone instead. The case for duress is obviously much easier to make for the former than the latter. Or, instead of conversations between longed-for loved ones, consider conversations between inmates and investigative journalists,4 or between inmates and psychology students who are researching cognitive distortions common to criminal thinking. Can the decision to pay for eit!-:er of those types of phone calls be fairly characterized as having been made under duress? At a minimum , the Court is very skeptical that they could be .
The Court's point in providing these hypothetical examples is not to suggest that any of them is typical of the proposed class members , or to speculate about the percentage of class members against whom GTL's voluntary payment defense would actually succeed . Rather, the Court's point is simply that GTL's voluntary payment defense can be asserted in good faith against every member of the proposed unjust enrichment classes, and that it cannot be resolved without an individualized inquiry every time-not only into each member's personal circumstances , but even into the particular circumstances surrounding each call. The Court is certainly mindful of the Supreme Court's instruction that "[w]hen one or more of the central issues in the action are common
4 Listeners to the first season of the popular podcast "Serial" might recall the recorded message that opened every episode of that season (and every phone conversation between the show's host and the show's subject): "This is a Global Tel*Link prepaid call from Adnan Syed , an inmate at a Maryland correctional facility ." See https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=cGD2H5Fg2Dc (last visited September 25 , 2017) .
20

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 8762
to the class and can be said to predominate, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative defenses peculiar to some individual class members ." Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo , 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). But that is a far cry from the situation here . GTL's voluntary payment defense overwhelms issues common to the unjust enrichment classes. It plays every bit as ubiquitous a formal role in the determination of liability as is played by the very elements of the offense , and is countless times more labor-intensive.
· It is illuminating to contrast this partietJ~-ar defense of GTL's with a different one , which the Court does not believe would frustrate predominance: arbitration. GTL has standard form arbitration agreements, provided to users of ICS in the form of automated telephone messages or internet-browser check-the-box text. The Court has already found the telephonic arbitration agreement unenforceable in GTL's interstate case, for reasons that would almost certainly apply with equal force to every single class member against which GTL would assert that defense in this case. See In re Global Tel*Link Corp. /CS Litig., 2017 WL 8311101 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 2, 2017). And assuming for the sake of argument that the Court were to find the online arbitration agreement enforceable (other than against the Arbitrating Plaintiffs discussed in Section II of this Order), identifying class members against whom it should be enforced would require nothing more than a very simple search for names in an electronic database. See pp. 5-6 n.1, supra; Doc. 88 , pp. 25-26 . That is very different from the administrative nightmare created by GTL's voluntary payment defense, which is effectively a separate full-on trial on the merits with respect to every single member of the unjust enrichment classes.
21

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 22 of 28 PageID #: 8763
As for Plaintiffs' proposed statutory classes, the Court doubts that the voluntary payment doctrine is available to GTL against any of their members. The Court has been unable to find a single California case discussing the availability of the voluntary payment doctrine as a defense against UCL claims, or a single Arkansas case discussing its availability against ADTPA claims. Consumer protection statutes are intended to be construed broadly in favor of the consumer, such that applying a common-law defense to a consumer's claim may stymie the legislative intent. See Sobel v. Hertz Corp., 698 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1223-24 (D. Nev. 2010) (collecting cases discussing whether the voluntary payment rule may be properly asserted as a defense to a statutory consumer protection claim). Several courts have found that public policy does not favor allowing a voluntary payment defense to a statutory claim. See Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson , 485 F.3d 226 , 231 (4th Cir. 2007) (explaining that "common law immunities cannot trump the [Fair Debt Collection Practices] Act's clear application"); Sobel, 698 F. Supp. 2d at 1224 (finding that Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act was designed "primarily for the protection of consumers" and that permitting the voluntary payment rule to be asserted as a an affirmative defense would be contrary to public policy); Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. lntegra Telecom of Wash. , Inc. , 162 Wash. 2d 59 , 86 (2007) (find ing the voluntary payment rule "inappropriate as an affirmative defense in the [Washington Consumer Protection Act] context" because the Act should be construed "liberally in favor of plaintiffs"); Huch v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721 , 727 (Mo. 2009) ("To allow (defendant] to avoid liability [under Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act] for this unfair practice through the voluntary payment doctrine would nullify the protections of the act and be contrary to the intent of the legislature."); Ramirez v. Smart Corp., 371 Ill. App. 3d
22

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 23 of 28 PageID #: 8764
797 , 804 (Ill. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that Illinois "has an interest in transactions that violate 'statutorily-defined public policy"' such that "the voluntary payment rule will not be applicable").
However, the problems with predominance that characterize the voluntary payment defense nevertheless also characterize Plaintiffs' classwide prima facie cases under the ADTPA and the UCL. This is because these causes of action all require a plaintiff to prove more than simply that GTL had a uniform practice of recouping site commissions (and charging excessive deposit fees) , and that the plaintiff or class member ·· -;:,aid -GTL a calling rate (or deposit fee) . They alsc require a plaintiff to prove things that require inherently individualized inquiries , along similar lines to what has been discussed above with respect to the voluntary payment doctrine.
For example, take Ark . Code Ann.§ 4-88-107(a)(8), which is one of the two prongs of the ADTPA under which Plaintiffs bring their claims. That section requires that the claimant be "reasonably unable to protect his or her interest because of: (A) Physical infirmity; (B) Ignorance; (C) Illiteracy; (D) Inability to understand the language of the agreement; or (E) A similar factor." Id. Factors (A) through (D) obviously all require individualized inquiry, and just as obviously, none of those first four factors would be common among all class members. Plaintiffs could try to argue that incarceration is a "similar factor" under (E)-but then what about our hypothetical inmate who receives regular visits from loved ones and feels no urgent need to call them on the phone as well , but nevertheless does so on rare occasions just because he finds it pleasant to do so every now and then? What about an inmate who has free calling options but chooses for whatever reason not to use them? What about our hypothetical investigative journalist or
23

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 24 of 28 PageID #: 8765
psychology student? For that matter, what about literally any member of the class who is not an inmate and not an inmate's loved one , but who simply wishes to speak over the phone with an inmate on any topic at all that is not urgent and is willing to pay to do so? It seems impossible to the Court that a prima facie showing of liability under (E) could be made with respect to any such class member without delving into an individualized inquiry .
The same problem is present under Plaintiffs' other ADTPA prong , Ark. Code Ann . § 4-88-107(a)(10) , which prohibits "[e]ngaging in any other unconscionable, false , or deceptive act or practice in business, commerce , or--tf-ade." Plaintiffs are not alleging that GTL has been lying to them , so presumably they intend to prove that GTL unconscionably exploited its economic leverage by charging them excessive rates and fees . See, e.g., Universal Cooperatives, Inc. v. AAC Flying Serv. , Inc., 710 F.3d 790 , 795-96 (8th Cir. 2013). But when examining whether a contract is unconscionable under the ADTPA, "the courts should review the totality of the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and execution of the contract. " State ex rel. Bryant v. R & A Inv. Co. , Inc. , 336 Ark. 289 , 296 (1999) (quoting Ark. Nat'/ Life Ins. Co. v. Durbin , 3 Ark. App. 170, 174-75 (1981)). And there we are right back in individualized-inquiry land .
As for the UCL, pursuant to this Court's Order last year on GTL's Motion to Dismiss, although there are three ways of establishing liability under that statute , only one is available to Plaintiffs here: the so-called "unfairness" prong . See Doc. 46 , pp. 17-18. And as the Court observed in that same Order:
In cases where the plaintiff is a consumer alleging violation of the UCL's unfairness prong , the California Supreme Court "has not established a definitive test to determine whether a business practice is unfair." Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Ass'n, 182 Cal. App. 4th 247, 256 (2010). In that
24

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 25 of 28 PageID #: 8766
absence , a split of authority has arisen amongst the California Courts of Appeal , producing at least three different tests. Id. Plaintiffs argue they have alleged sufficient facts to support a claim under two of these tests, known respectively as the "balancing test" and the "public policy test. " To state a claim under the balancing test, the alleged business practice must be "immoral, uneth ical , oppressive , unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers ," and "the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim " must outweigh "the utility of the defendant's conduct. " See id. at 257 (quoting Bardin v. Oaimlerchrysler Corp. , 136 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 1260 (2006)). To state a claim under the public policy test , the alleged business practice must violate some public policy that is "tethered to specific constitutional , statutory, or regulatory provisions ." See id. (quoting Bardin, 136 Cal. App. 4th at 1260-61 ). A third test, which the parties have not argued , draws guidance from the notion of unfairness expressed in the Federal Trade Commission Act at 15 U.S.C . § 45(n), and requires the consumer to have suffered an injury that is (1) "substantial ," (2) not "outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition ," and (3) one "that consumers themselves could not reasonably have avoided. " See id. (quoting Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 179 Cal. App. 4th 581 , 597-98 (2009)).
(Doc. 46 , pp. 18-19).
The "balancing" test is the only test the Plaintiffs mention in their class certification
briefing. But once again , it explicitly demands an individualized analysis by requiring the
Court to weigh the "gravity of the harm to the alleged victim "-which, as described above ,
will vary dramatically from one victim to another-against the "utility of the defendant's
conduct. " As for the "public policy" test, Plaintiffs have put forward no theory of the case
under it, and the Court is unaware of any "specific constitutional, statutory , or regulatory
provision" on which they could rely for their claims. So the Court does not see how it
could certify a class under that test. And the third test, which Plaintiffs also have not
discussed , requires at least two elements of individualized analysis : whether the
claimant's harm is "substantial ," and whether the claimant could "reasonably have
avoided it. " As to the latter of those two , this would again turn on peculiar facts like the
availability of free-calling options , the ease and frequency with which their loved ones
25

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 26 of 28 PageID #: 8767
could visit them in person , and the urgency of the need or desire for the particular phone calls themselves.
There simply is no path forward under the common law of unjust enrichment or the statutory laws of ADTPA and the UCL that avoids the necessity of overwhelmingly claimant-specific factual analysis. Therefore, the Court cannot certify these classes. Given that conclusion , there is no need to address the final Rule 23(b)(3) factor of superiority.
Some final comments are warranted. Throughout these four ICS cases, the Court has e:1 deavored to keep its rulings as consistent from c:,e case to another as the facts and law of each case permits. But the Court must acknowledge a certain inconsistency in outcome between its decisions to certify unjust enrichment classes in the interstate cases (particularly the GTL one) and its decision not to certify unjust enrichment classes in the instant case. The Court would make three observations on this point.
First, GTL presented the Court this time with arguments that had not previously been made to it, and which had not previously occurred to the Court. The Court finds those new arguments persuasive where the old ones were not, and it believes it has a duty to rule in accordance with what it presently understands the law to require here.
Second , the inconsistency will not be permanent. "The court's duty to assure compliance with Rule 23(a) continues even after certification," Hervey v. City of Little Rock, 787 F.2d 1223, 1227 (8th Cir. 1986), and "[a]n order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1 )(C). As previously mentioned , both interstate cases are presently stayed , but the event which prompted the stays appears to have recently been resolved. See supra, p.
26

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 27 of 28 PageID #: 8768
3. After those stays are lifted , the Court will take whatever measures are appropriate at that time to restore consistency to its rulings in these ICS cases.
Third , at least for now, the Court considers the D.C. Circuit's opinion in Global Tel*Link v. FCC, 866 F.3d 397 (D .C. Cir. 2017), to be much more relevant to the issue of FCA class certification in the interstate cases than the instant Opinion and Order is. As previously noted , the Court does not believe the defense of voluntary payment is available against claims brought under the FCA. And the Court's analysis of the ADTPA and UCL proposed classes was grounded in the elements of those particular causes of actionnot in the elements of any cause of action under the FCA.
Of course , the instant case is not either of those interstate cases. But the Court makes these observations here out of courtesy to the parties and in the interest of judicial economy, knowing that counsel for GTL , Securus , and the plaintiffs in all four ICS cases all read all of the opinions and orders that this Court files in all four cases. Beyond these closing bare observations , the Court will not speculate any further here on this Order's implications for the interstate cases.
IV. CONCLUSION IT 15 THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Global Tel*Link Corporation 's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceedings (Doc. 67), and Plaintiffs Walter Chruby's, Earl Reese 's, Stephen Orosz, Sr.'s, Stephen Orosz, Jr.'s, Michael Veon 's, Stefanie Veon 's, Lewis Brooks's, Jacqueline Jacobs's, and Shondra Caldwell's Motion for Class Certification , Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel (Doc. 63) are both DENIED .
27

Case 5:15-cv-05136-TLB Document 94 Filed 09/28/17 Page 28 of 28 PageID #: 8769

__Jt_Ii IT IS SO ORDERED on this

day of Septemb

s
!STRICT JUDGE

28

 
 Case: 2:15-cv-2197 As of: 12/21/2018 11:25 AM EST 1 of 10
CLOSED,SPECIAL
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15−cv−02197−JS

REESE et al v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION Assigned to: CHIEF JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ Case in other court: USDC WD of AR, 16−CV−5165 Cause: 47:227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/23/2015 Date Terminated: 05/31/2016 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutes: Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question

EARL REESE

represented by PETER A. MUHIC Kessler Topaz Metlzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 610−667−7706 Fax: 610−667−7056 Email: pmuhic@ktmc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMANDA TRASK Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087 610−667−7706 Email: atrask@ktmc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087 610−667−7706 Email: dmoffa@ktmc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 610−667−7706 Fax: 610−667−7056 Email: mgalloway@ktmc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER R. KAHANA Berger Montague PC 1818 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 United Sta 215−875−4629 Fax: 215−875−4604 Email: pkahana@bm.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMANTHA E. JONES KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP 280 KING OF PRUSSIA RD

Case: 2:15-cv-2197 As of: 12/21/2018 11:25 AM EST 2 of 10

RADNOR, PA 19087 610−667−7706 Email: sjones@ktmc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY Berger Montague PC 1818 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 United Sta 215−875−3052 Fax: 215−875−4604 Email: Mitwersky@BM.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WALTER CHRUBY

represented by PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff STEPHEN OROSZ, JR.

represented by PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:15-cv-2197 As of: 12/21/2018 11:25 AM EST 3 of 10

PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MICHAEL VEON

represented by PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LARRY BAGEANT

represented by PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:15-cv-2197 As of: 12/21/2018 11:25 AM EST 4 of 10

SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LUANN BOUVIER

represented by PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WESLEY HARPER

represented by PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:15-cv-2197 As of: 12/21/2018 11:25 AM EST 5 of 10

YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROBERT HOLMES

represented by PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff STEPHEN OROSZ

represented by PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:15-cv-2197 As of: 12/21/2018 11:25 AM EST 6 of 10

Plaintiff EMILY OROSZ
Plaintiff CARL PETERKIN
Plaintiff STEPHANIE VEON

represented by PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:15-cv-2197 As of: 12/21/2018 11:25 AM EST 7 of 10

PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
LEWIS BROOKS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

represented by PETER A. MUHIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMANDA TRASK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER R. KAHANA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMANTHA E. JONES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

represented by

Case: 2:15-cv-2197 As of: 12/21/2018 11:25 AM EST 8 of 10

GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION

MICHAEL R. SKLAIRE GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1750 TYSONS BLVD SUITE 1000 MCLEAN, VA 22102 703−749−1308 Email: sklairem@gtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

BRIAN T. FEENEY GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2700 TWO COMMERCE SQUARE 2001 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−988−7812 Email: feeneyb@gtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/23/2015
04/23/2015 04/23/2015 05/14/2015
05/15/2015 05/15/2015 05/15/2015 05/15/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number PPE119903), filed by LEWIS BROOKS, LUANN BOUVIER, CARL PETERKIN, WALTER CHRUBY, MICHAEL VEON, LARRY BAGEANT, STEPHEN OROSZ, ROBERT HOLMES, EARL REESE, STEPHANIE VEON, WESLEY HARPER, EMILY OROSZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jmv, ) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
Summons Issued as to GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION. Forwarded To: 1 Orig mailed to counsel on 4/24/15 (jmv, ) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON. (jmv, ) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by LEWIS BROOKS, LUANN BOUVIER, CARL PETERKIN, WALTER CHRUBY, MICHAEL VEON, LARRY BAGEANT, STEPHEN OROSZ, ROBERT HOLMES, EARL REESE, STEPHANIE VEON, WESLEY HARPER, EMILY OROSZ. GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION waiver sent on 5/4/2015, answer due 7/6/2015. (MUHIC, PETER) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(GALLOWAY, MONIQUE) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by AMANDA TRASK on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(TRASK, AMANDA) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by SAMANTHA E. JONES on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(JONES, SAMANTHA) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(MOFFA, DONNA) (Entered: 05/15/2015)

Case: 2:15-cv-2197 As of: 12/21/2018 11:25 AM EST 9 of 10

06/16/2015 06/16/2015 06/17/2015
06/18/2015 06/22/2015
06/24/2015 06/25/2015 06/25/2015 06/26/2015 06/26/2015 07/13/2015 08/06/2015 08/17/2015

7 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION.(FEENEY, BRIAN) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
8 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 with Certificate of Service by GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION.(FEENEY, BRIAN) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(TWERSKY, YECHIEL) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
10 Copy Re: Documents (Defendant's Motion to Transfer Actions to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 for Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings) Filed Before the JPML regarding In Re: Global Tel*Link Corporation ICS Litigation. (ems) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by PETER R. KAHANA on behalf of LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON with Certificate of Service(KAHANA, PETER) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
12 APPLICATION by GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION FOR MICHAEL SKLAIRE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE, STATEMENT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (PPE123229 $40.00) (jl, ) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
13 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF MICHAEL R. SKLAIRE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 6/25/15. 6/25/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
14 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN TO HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ FOR ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 6/25/15. 6/25/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
15 AMENDED DOCUMENT by GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION. Amendment to 8 Disclosure Statement Form . (FEENEY, BRIAN) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
Amended Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 Identifying Corporate Parent GTEL HOLDINGS, INC. for GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION. by GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION. (SEE PAPER # 15 FOR ATTACHMENT).(fb) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
16 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD IN THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED CASE ON 8/6/2015 AT 10:00 AM IN COURTROOM 11A. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 7/13/15. 7/13/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(gs) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
17 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ Pretrial Conference held on 8/6/15. (jl, ) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
18 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL CONFER PURSUANT TO FRCP 26(F) AND SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT, ON OR BEFORE 9/18/15, A WRITTEN REPORT OUTLINING THEIR JOINT PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN. GIVEN THE PENDENCY OF DEFENDANT GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION'S MOTION TO TRANSFER BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTICT LITIGATION, THE COURT WILL NOT SCHEDULE A FORMAL RULE 16 CONFERENCE AT THIS TIME. THE COURT, HOWEVER, EXPECTS THE PARTIES TO BEGIN THE DISCOVERY PROCESS WHILE AWAITING THE PANEL'S RULING. ACCORDINGLY, THE PARTIES' DISCOVERY PLAN SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE START OF DISCOVERY PRIOR TO A FORMAL RULE 16 CONFERENCE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 8/17/15. 8/17/15 ENTERED & E−MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 08/17/2015)

Case: 2:15-cv-2197 As of: 12/21/2018 11:25 AM EST 10 of 10

10/16/2015 10/23/2015
10/28/2015 11/09/2015 11/16/2015
11/17/2015 11/17/2015 11/19/2015 01/15/2016 05/31/2016 05/31/2016
07/01/2016

19 ORDER THAT A RULE 16 CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER ON 11/4/15 AT 1:00 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 10/15/15. 10/16/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
20 MOTION to Transfer to the Western District of Arkansas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) filed by LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON.Memorandum of Law. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(MUHIC, PETER) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
21 ORDER THAT THE RULE 16 CONFERENCE IS POSTPONED PENDING FURTHER COURT ORDER; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 10/28/15. 10/28/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
22 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Transfer to the Western District of Arkansas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) filed by GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION. (FEENEY, BRIAN) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
23 MOTION for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer to the Western District of Arkansas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) filed by LARRY BAGEANT, LUANN BOUVIER, LEWIS BROOKS, WALTER CHRUBY, WESLEY HARPER, ROBERT HOLMES, EMILY OROSZ, STEPHEN OROSZ, CARL PETERKIN, EARL REESE, MICHAEL VEON, STEPHANIE VEON.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(MUHIC, PETER) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
24 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO TRANSFER IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 11/17/15. 11/17/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
25 RESPONSE in Support OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION to Transfer to the Western District of Arkansas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jl, ) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
26 ORDER THAT A RULE 16 CONFERENCE AND ORAL ARGUMENT ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO TRANSFER WILL BE HELD IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER ON 12/4/15 AT 10:00 A.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 11/19/15. 11/19/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
27 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND ORAL ARGUMENT held on 12/4/15. (jl, ) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
28 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TRANSFER TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. & 14404 (a) IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 5/31/16. 5/31/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
29 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TRANSFER TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. & 14404 (a) IS GRANTED. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL TRANSFER THIS ACTION TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 5/31/16. 5/31/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
Original record transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas via interdistrict transfer system. (fb) (Entered: 07/01/2016)