United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDOLPH THOMAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

NO. C08-5119 TEH

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

On March 30, 2010, this Court clarified “that the stay imposed on September 2, 2009,

encompasses all claims that would require a determination of whether the late and reconnect

fees charged by [Defendant] Sprint [Solutions, Inc.] are reasonable or lawful.” Mar. 30,

2010 Order at 13. The Court dismissed the non-stayed Consumers Legal Remedies Act

(“CLRA”) claim under paragraph 52 of the First Amended Complaint after finding that

Plaintiffs’ allegations did not rise to the required level of substantive unconscionability. The

Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ non-stayed Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) claims for failure to

allege standing.

Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their non-stayed UCL claims and filed a timely

second amended complaint (“SAC”) on April 26, 2010. Sprint’s motion to dismiss the SAC

is now before the Court. After reviewing the parties’ written arguments, the Court finds this

motion suitable for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the motion hearing

scheduled for June 14, 2010.

As Plaintiffs admitted in their one-page opposition, “[t]he standing allegations in the

SAC are substantially similar to those in the First Amended Complaint.” Opp’n at 1. 

Plaintiffs explained that they “continue to believe that their standing allegations are

sufficient” but “recognize[] that this Court has previously ruled that standing allegations in

substantially the same form do not suffice under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Case 3:08-cv-05119-JST Document 65 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiffs respectively seek to preserve their right to appeal the sufficiency of these

allegations.” Id. In light of Plaintiffs’ acknowledgment that they did not amend their

standing allegations to comply with this Court’s March 30, 2010 order and have no intention

of doing so, Plaintiffs’ non-stayed UCL claims are now dismissed with prejudice.

Sprint also asks that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ non-stayed CLRA claim with

prejudice, but the Court has already done so. Presumably, Plaintiffs did not delete the

challenged paragraph from the SAC because the paragraph contains both stayed and nonstayed claims: “To the extent that the paragraph alleges that the CLRA is violated by failure

to disclose the amounts of the late and reconnect fees, the allegations are not covered by the

stay. However, to the extent that the paragraph alleges that the CLRA is violated because the

charged fees are excessive, the allegations are included in the stay.” Mar. 30, 2010 Order

at 5. The Court dismissed the non-stayed CLRA claim with prejudice, but the stayed claim

remains in this case. Thus, it is proper for paragraph 53 to remain in the SAC.

In accord with all of the above, Sprint’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED. All

non-stayed claims in the SAC are dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the parties’ joint request in their June 7, 2010 case management

conference statement, all future dates in this action are hereby VACATED until the action

before the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is resolved. For control purposes,

the Court will schedule a case management conference on October 4, 2010, at 1:30 PM.

The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint case management conference statement on

or before September 27, 2010. If the FCC matter has yet to be resolved by that date, the

parties shall so advise the Court in a stipulated request to continue the case management

conference for not more than 120 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/09/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:08-cv-05119-JST Document 65 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2