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

12613-001/00725721_1 Error! Unknown document property name.

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAIN

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

JEFFREY KALIEL, California Bar No. 238293

ANNICK M. PERSINGER, California Bar No. 272996

TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP

483 Ninth Street, Suite 200

Oakland, CA 94607

Telephone (510) 254-6808 

Facsimile (202) 973-0950

jkaliel@tzlegal.com

apersinger@tzlegal.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Additional Attorneys on Signature Page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, GABRIELA 

PERDOMO ORTIZ, and VICTOR HUGO 

CATALAN MOLIN, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-50, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-755-CW

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1. Violation of the “Unfair” Prong of the

Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code §§ 17200, et seq.

2. Violation of the “Fraudulent” Prong of the

Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code §§ 17200, et seq. 

3. Violation of the “Unlawful” Prong of the

Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code §§ 17200, et seq.

4. Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies

Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.

5. Violation of the California Translation Act,

Cal. Civ. Code § 1632

6. Violation of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.

7. Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 

1788, et seq.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 30
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

12613-001/00725721_1 Error! Unknown document property name.

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

Plaintiffs Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz and Victor Hugo Catalan 

Molina (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege the following 

based upon personal knowledge as to allegations regarding Plaintiffs and on information and belief 

as to other allegations:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, injunctive and

declaratory relief from Defendants Libre by Nexus (“LBN”) and John Does 1-50 (collectively, 

“Defendants”), arising from their exploitation of Spanish-speaking migrant detainees with so-called 

“lease agreements” for GPS trackers.

2. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detains thousands of

undocumented immigrants each year. Once in detention, detainees who are deemed to not pose a 

flight risk or a threat to public safety are afforded the opportunity to post bond. Bond is typically set 

at an amount that well exceeds the detainees’ ability to pay, forcing them to obtain third-party 

financing or remain in detention. 

3. Some bond financing companies in the marketplace offer reasonable options in light

of credit risk. But LBN preys on detainees’ vulnerability and limited understanding of English to

foist crushing financial terms and GPS shackles on detainees in exchange for its “service” of 

arranging for a third party to post detainees’ bonds. Contrary to its marketing representations, LBN 

is not in the business of helping as a neutral advisor for families who would like to get a loved one 

out of immigration detention. Rather, LBN is in the business of leasing GPS trackers under false 

pretenses. Indeed, contrary to Cal. Ins. Code Section 1800, LBN does not even hold a bail license 

and thus is not permitted to solicit or negotiate undertakings of bail in California. 

4. Detainees’ lack of knowledge about immigration bail bond offerings and limited

English-language ability are the bedrock of LBN’s business. Using targeted English-language 

misrepresentations and omissions, LBN appends GPS monitors onto the bodies of detainees, and 

levies exorbitant fees—nearly $10,000 in the first year alone—for doing so. LBN forces detainees to 

sign an unconscionable English-language GPS ankle bracelet “lease” agreement on its customers 

while providing a Spanish disclosure that never tells the true costs of the supposed “bargain.” 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 2 of 30
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 

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

5. The process by which detainees enter into supposed lease agreements, and append

GPS trackers to their bodies, is rife with misrepresentations. Specifically, LBN misrepresents the 

amount of fees detainees will be liable to pay LBN. And LBN misrepresents the nature of those fees 

in numerous ways, as discussed herein. 

6. Through its false and deceptive advertising and pricing scheme, LBN violated (and

continues to violate) California law prohibiting misleading sales practices. Specifically, LBN

violated (and continues to violate) California’s Unfair Competition and False Advertising Laws, 

Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and §§ 17500, et seq. (the “UCL”), and the California 

Consumers’ Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq. (the “CLRA”). 

7. From its use of an English-language rental agreement with only selective Spanishlanguage disclosures, LBN violated the California Translation Act, California Civil Code § 1632. 

8. Indeed, according to the Washington Post, LBN’s CEO Michael Donovan admits that

LBN did not even attempt to implement a policy requiring its employees to provide Spanishlanguage documents at all to Spanish-speaking consumers until very recently. 

9. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seek declaratory

relief, damages, restitution, and other equitable remedies, including an injunction under the UCL, 

FAL and CLRA. 

10. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seek

compensatory damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, and other 

equitable remedies, including an injunction. 

PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Juan Quintanilla Vasquez is an individual who resides in the city of Oakland,

California. In reliance on LBN’s false and deceptive advertising, marketing, and pricing schemes, 

Mr. Vasquez paid LBN for rental of a GPS ankle monitor, beginning on April 1, 2016. As detailed 

herein, Plaintiff was damaged as a result thereof. 

12. Plaintiff Gabriela Jamileth Perdomo Ortiz is an individual who resides in the city of

Oakland, California. In reliance on LBN’s false and deceptive advertising, marketing, and pricing 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 3 of 30
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

3 

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

schemes, Ms. Ortiz paid LBN for rental of a GPS ankle monitor, beginning on August 1, 2015. As 

detailed herein, Plaintiff was damaged as a result thereof. 

13. Plaintiff Victor Hugo Catalan Molina is an individual who resides in the city of

Oakland, California. In reliance on LBN’s false and deceptive advertising, marketing, and pricing 

schemes, Mr. Catalan Molina paid LBN for rental of a GPS ankle monitor, beginning on April 1, 

2016. As detailed herein, Plaintiff was damaged as a result thereof. 

14. Defendant LBN is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Virginia, with its principal place of business at 113 Mill Place Parkway, Suite 103, Verona, 

Virginia 24482. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action under the Class Action Fairness Act

of 2005. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2) and (6), this Court has original jurisdiction because the 

aggregate claims of the members of the putative Class exceed $5 million, exclusive of costs, and at 

least two members of the proposed Class are citizens of a different state than LBN. 

16. The Northern District of California has personal jurisdiction over LBN because LBN

is licensed and doing business in Alameda County, California, and has sufficient minimum contacts 

with California, having intentionally availed itself of the California market so as to render the 

exercise of jurisdiction over it by this Court consistent with traditional notions of fair play and 

substantial justice.

17. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391,

because Plaintiffs are residents of Alameda County, California; Defendant LBN operates an office 

location in or near Alameda County, California; and because the events giving rise to the claims 

occurred in significant part in Alameda County, California. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18. According to its website LBN is part of Nexus Services, organized and existing under

the laws of Virginia, with its principal place of business at 113 Mill Place Parkway, Suite 103, 

Verona, Virginia 24482. Upon information and belief, Nexus Services is engaged in the business of, 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 4 of 30
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

4

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

among other things, providing electronic monitoring services in connection with immigrant bond 

securitization.

19. The company has undergone massive growth since 2013, and now has at least 26 

offices nationwide, including six in California.

20. According to its website, “When you secure an immigration bond through Libre, you 

pay a premium payment to the bond company, which is based upon the total amount of the bond. 

Libre by Nexus is required to charge this fee and it is the fee of the bond company. Libre by Nexus 

does not keep any of that money. Libre by Nexus also charges a service fee and a GPS installation 

and tracking fee. Normally the total amount paid is roughly 20% of the bond. You are not required to 

pay collateral when using the GPS bracelet!”

21. LBN thus represents that its fees represent payments for the provision of the GPS 

tracker. That is false.

LBN MISREPRESENTS ITS PURPORTED SERVICES

22. During the Class Period (defined below), LBN marketed its services to detainees in 

the custody of ICE for whom a bond—usually in amounts between $10,000 and $20,000—has been 

set. For detainees who cannot post that cash up front, LBN arranges for bail bonds through third 

parties. It purports to “securitize” those bonds via placement of GPS ankle monitors on immigration 

detainees, which purportedly keep detainees from fleeing.

23. Immigration bail bonds without GPS tracking are readily available in the marketplace 

for immigration detainees unable to pay the full amount of the bond in cash while their case is

pending in immigration court. Typically, the cost for such bonds is between 10%-20%, and usually 

requires additional collateral (in the form of real estate or personal property) as a security. Typically, 

the 10%-20% up-front fee is the only non-refundable payment to an immigration bail bond 

company.

24. LBN, on the other hand, charges a bond security payment of 20%—at the highest end 

of the going rate in the industry—plus demands additional nonrefundable payments of $880 up front 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 5 of 30
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

5

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

and then $420 a month in perpetuity. To illustrate the unconscionable nature of these charges: on a 

$10,000 bond, a consumer will pay to LBN approximately $9,000, nonrefundable, in the first year.

25. Through the use of aggressive and deceptive sales practices, LBN is able to affix a 

GPS ankle monitoring device on the detainees, which they must wear at all times, and charge them 

the unconscionable and debilitating price of $420 a month, plus an $880 activation fee, to “lease” the 

device. 

26. All in all, this is a shockingly bad deal, even relative to the other bad options 

available to immigrant detainees, and is unconscionable on its face. Moreover, LBN is only able to 

foist this one-sided deal on consumers because it engages in a systematic campaign of 

misrepresentation and omission with its indigent, Spanish-speaking clientele, who are under the 

duress of detention. Indeed, LBN’s customers overwhelmingly possess limited or no ability to 

communicate in, or read, English. Yet virtually all “contract” documents provided by LBN are solely 

in English. The only document that was provided to Plaintiffs in Spanish is a client information sheet 

that contains five summarized points – none of which list the exorbitant “rental payment[s] for the 

GPS device.” The Lease Agreement at issue is not translated. As discussed supra, LBN’s CEO 

Michael Donovan admits that LBN did not even attempt to implement a policy requiring its 

employees to provide Spanish-language documents to Spanish-speaking consumers until very 

recently. 

27. The detainees enter into the “bargain” only because LBN’s misrepresentations and 

omissions leave them with little idea as to the reality and implications of the lease agreement. For 

example, LBN never once informs its consumers in the Spanish-language documents provided that 

they will be liable for a $420 monthly fee after making initial payment of the 20% and activation fee, 

much less indefinitely, and much less that the fee is not being used to pay down the debt of the bond.

28. Rather than communicating the purported benefits and risks of its “services” in a 

clear, straightforward, and comprehensible fashion, LBN makes numerous misrepresentations and 

material omissions during the high-pressure ankle monitor bracelet sign-up process.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 6 of 30
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

6

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

29. First, written materials provided to detainees and their families are almost exclusively 

in English, despite LBN’s knowledge that virtually none of the detainees they target are able to 

understand and read English. To wit, LBN asks detainees to sign a lengthy and dense “lease”

agreement, almost all in English. The only information provided in Spanish is a one-page “key facts” 

document, which actually conceals the most material facts about the nature of the accompanying

agreement.

30. Second, LBN misleadingly creates the impression that LBN it has power to order the

detention of immigrants. LBN’s misrepresentations are strikingly effective: “In interviews with The 

Washington Post, a dozen of Libre’s clients said they...feared if they didn’t [pay the monthly fee

they would be detained again... Most said Libre employees threatened them with exactly that.”

31. But LBN’s sole “threat” to get consumers to continue paying the monthly fees is 

based on a lie. In fact, according to the Washington Post, LBN’s CEO admits that “Libre has never 

returned anyone to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for failing to pay.” That admission is not 

because LBN has decided not to do so; it is because LBN has absolutely no power to do so.

32. Third, LBN misrepresents the financial implications of the arrangement. It never 

discloses in writing in Spanish that detainees will be required to pay $420 a month in perpetuity.

Moreover, LBN leads detainees to believe that the exorbitant monthly payments made to “lease” are 

actually payment for their outstanding bond amount. In reality, the crippling $420 fee in no way 

reduces the bond amount the migrant detainees owe.

33. Fourth, LBN charges an initial fee for affixing and activating the GPS monitor, plus 

$420 a month. LBN fails to inform detainees that they will continue to pay the monthly fee 

indefinitely. Indeed, detainees regularly end up paying total amounts to LBN that exceed or 

approximate the amount of the bond.

34. Fifth, because LBN’s core goal is to affix GPS monitors at exorbitant prices, LBN has 

a concerted corporate practice of preventing the use of collateral instead of the GPS monitors to 

“securitize” the bond, while actively discouraging detainees from exploring the use of collateral with 

other companies.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 7 of 30
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

7

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

35. The language from its website indicates this effort even goes so far as to exploit 

detainees’ understanding of the term “collateral”:

“The GPS program at Libre is about providing a critical service to our clients, the 

securitization of their immigration bond so that they can be released from 

immigration custody. Libre by Nexus guarantees the immigration bond, and uses the 

GPS to secure the bond. This means that Libre clients are not required to pay 

collateral or post property to be released.

There are many horror stories about families struggling to pay collateral for 

immigration bonds. We've met families who have been forced to sell everything 

that they have to pay collateral for a family member. We've seen families forced 

to go into their communities to beg people for the use of their property as 

collateral...Libre by Nexus represents the hope that this may never have to happen 

again. We are constantly innovating our services to help more detainees in crisis. We 

are here to help you. Contact us today!

36. One does not “sell” to make collateral; one puts up collateral without disposing of it.

Despite LBN’s scare tactics, families are not forced to “sell everything” to put up collateral on 

immigration bonds when they use other companies.

37. Sixth, LBN fails to inform detainees of a crucial fact: by arranging for the posting of 

a bond, LBN ensures detainees will be moved from ICE’s “detained” docket to ICE’s “nondetained” docket. The latter docket moves much more slowly, meaning that detainees will often 

remain obligated to pay LBN’s monthly fees for years on end—a fact never disclosed by LBN.

38. Compounding this omission is another crucial one: LBN never informs people of the 

total amount consumers are likely to end up paying in non-refundable fees. After one year on a 

$10,000 bond, consumers will have paid LBN nearly $9,000 in nonrefundable fees. After two years, 

that amount rises to $13,000 in nonrefundable payments.

39. Indeed, after just one year and five months, consumers on a $10,000 bond will have 

paid LBN the full value of the bond—in which case LBN bears no risk of flight or forfeiture. Yet, 

LBN still keeps collecting the obscene monthly fee.

40. Seventh, after sign-up, LBN engages in aggressive debt collection practices to ensure 

that detainees continue to pay the exorbitant monthly fee. For example, LBN falsely tells detainees 

that they will be placed back in custody if they fail to pay the $420 monthly fee.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 8 of 30
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

8

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

41. Eighth, even within the confines of the unconscionable “bargain,” LBN adds even 

more fees. For example, it automatically charges consumers a 50 cent-per-day “insurance” fee for 

the GPS monitor, but never discloses that fact in Spanish and does not receive affirmative consent 

for charging that fee.

MARKETING

42. LBN is engaged in systematic, saturation-level marketing efforts in the immigrant 

community.

43. LBN consistently touts itself as an organization with the best interests of immigrants 

in mind—a supposedly neutral advisor to get immigrants out of detention.

44. According to its website: “If your loved one is in immigration detention, you need 

help right away. Libre by Nexus is here to help. We will listen to you and we care about you and 

your family. Our goal is to get your loved one released from jail as quickly as possible. In most 

cases, we can have your loved one out the same or next day.”

THE SIGN UP PROCESS

45. LBN targets families of detainees, providing partial and untrue representations about 

its “service,” largely via verbal representations made in Spanish by its employees.

46. LBN then introduces written disclosures very late in the process, and those 

disclosures are almost entirely in English.

47. Those disclosures directly conflict with representations given to detainees and their 

families prior to provision of written disclosures. 

48. Misrepresentations and omissions made by LBN representatives to Plaintiffs are 

detailed in the Plaintiffs’ factual section below. 

THE ONLY SPANISH LANGUAGE DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY LBN 

MISREPRESENTS THE TRUE NATURE OF THE “LEASE AGREEMENT,” THE 

MONTHLY RENTAL CHARGES, AND THE MONTHLY INSURANCE CHARGES

49. The only document provided in Spanish is a one-page document providing certain 

summary disclosures and requiring initials from the detainee.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 9 of 30
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

9

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

50. That document never states that detainees will be charged $420 a month in tracker 

rental fees—much less that they will be charged such fees indefinitely.

51. That document never states that detainees will be charged 50 cents per day to insure 

those trackers.

52. Instead, the one-page Spanish language contract disclosure, which is also provided in 

English, makes at least four misleading and incomplete representations in check box form—all of 

which are misleading.

53. LBN states that it “will post the bond, and will pay the bail premium to a licensed bail 

bond company after deducting applicable fees, including collateral processing fees.” This indicates 

to reasonable consumers that they will not be liable for further charges by LBN, but rather that LBN 

will compensate itself out of the “bail premium” paid by detainees.

54. Reasonable consumers like Plaintiffs, who could only understand the Spanishlanguage disclosures provided by LBN, simply did not understand at the time of sign up that they 

would be required to pay $420 every month, indefinitely.

55. Next, in a “Conditions of Monitoring” contract connected to the Lease Agreement, 

provided in English, LBN misrepresents the consequences of a “fail[ure] to meet program 

conditions” by stating that “I may be remanded to the custody of the jurisdiction wherein I face 

charges in the above referenced case.” But that is not true either: LBN has no power to order 

detention .

56. Even reasonable consumers who can understand the English language disclosures 

were similarly misled by LBN’s representations that it will post a bond, which also suggests to 

English speakers that LBN will compensate itself out of the “bail premium” paid by detainees, and 

by LBN’s claim that they could be returned to detention for failure to comply with lease terms. 

LBN REQUIRES UNCOMPREHENDING CONSUMERS TO SIGN AN ENGLISHLANGUAGE CONTRACT OF ADHESION

57. LBN then foists upon uncomprehending detainees a much longer English language 

document entitled “Libre by Nexus Respondent Contact—Conditions of Monitoring” and “Lease 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 10 of 30
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

10

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

Agreement.” LBN is aware that the vast majority of its customers, including Plaintiffs, do not and 

cannot understand this English-language document.

58. For the first and only time, LBN discloses in the lease document that a “condition of 

participation” in the “program” referenced in the Spanish-language disclosure is a $420 monthly 

“program participant fee.” LBN later specifies in the lease document that the $420 monthly fee is 

“for the GPS bracelet.”

59. LBN also for the first and only time states in the lease document that “GPS DEVICE 

REQUIRED UNTIL CASE IS COMPLETE OR COLLATERAL PAID”.

60. The clause’s reference to paying “collateral” fosters the understanding, for reasonable 

consumers, that any monthly fees are going to “pay down” the amount of the bond. That is not true.

61. The very structure of the “lease” is deceptive. It is structured as a tripartite 

document—between LBN, the detainee (or “Leasee”) and “Agency.” As a matter of course, LBN 

does not fill in the name of the “Agency” to lead consumers to believe that they could be detained 

for breach of the lease agreement. 

62. According to the lease, the “tracking device” is charged at $14 per day.

63. In addition, “insurance” is charged at 50 cents per day “with a deductible in the event 

of loss @$50.” Upon information and belief, LBN as a matter of corporate policy prechecks the 

“insurance” option and does not allow consumers to rent a device without purchasing insurance.

64. Putting aside the specific provisions of the lease agreement, its fundamental premise 

is a sham. Lessees are not in actuality paying $420 a month for rental of an ankle bracelet. Rather, 

they are paying (excessively) for LBN to indemnify their immigration bail bond, which is provided 

by a third party. But LBN never informs consumers that this is the true nature of the monthly fee.

65. LBN is a bond broker much more than it is a lessor of GPS trackers. That means the 

$420 monthly “GPS tracker” fee does not primarily compensate LBN for use of the GPS tracker 

itself. Rather, the fees represent a hidden indemnification fee that LBN charges for indemnifying 

immigration bail bonds it procures from third parties. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 11 of 30
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

11

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

66. Indeed, the GPS trackers cost LBN nowhere near $14 per day. According to public

filings in litigation against Nexus in the Northern District of Georgia, LBN pays no more than $3.00 

per day, and $450 per tracker, to the supplier of its GPS ankle bracelets. 

67. Yet it charges consumers $14 per day for those same bracelets, and nearly $4,000 for

their replacement.

68. That is because a massive portion of the GPS rental fee is meant to excessively

compensate LBN for its role, as a middleman, in indemnifying the immigration bonds it arranges for 

with third parties. Again, LBN never once informs detainees that the “lease” fee is actually for this 

purpose. 

LBN DOES NOT RECEIVED INFORMED CONSENT TO CHARGE “INSURANCE” 

FEES

69. Upon information and belief, LBN automatically charges consumers an “insurance”

fee for the GPS ankle shackle, but never discloses that fact in Spanish and does not receive 

affirmative consent for charging that fee.

70. Upon information and belief, LBN uniformly prechecks an “insurance” option and

does not allow consumers to rent a device without purchasing insurance. 

Plaintiff Vasquez’s Experience

71. Plaintiff Vasquez is an asylum-seeker who fled his native Honduras because he was a

target of gang violence.

72. In December 2015, he came to the United States and was placed in detention in

Houston, Texas. 

73. An Immigration Judge set Mr. Vasquez’s bond at $10,000.

74. Early last year, while in detention, he heard from other detainees that LBN could

assist him in posting bond, and one other detainee gave him a phone number to contact LBN. 

75. Plaintiff Vasquez gave the information to his wife, who communicated with LBN

while Plaintiff was detained. 

76. An LBN representative told Plaintiff Vasquez’s wife, who communicated with LBN

on behalf of him while he was detained, that if Plaintiff Vasquez could pay some money upfront to 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 12 of 30
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

12

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

LBN, LBN would pay the bond, and that he would owe LBN that money on the bond. LBN never 

disclosed that a third party was posting the bond. In addition, LBN conveyed that Plaintiff Vasquez 

would have a monthly payment to make, and led his wife to believe that the monthly payment would 

go toward paying down the bond. Plaintiff Vasquez’s wife conveyed all of this to Plaintiff Vasquez 

who agreed to proceed with LBN’s deal in reliance on the omissions and misrepresentations of 

material terms it made to his wife.

77. LBN knowingly misrepresented the terms of the deal and later provided written 

disclosures – almost entirely in English – that obfuscated the truth and did not accurately portray the 

risks and benefits of the lease agreement. 

78. Immediately after his release, an LBN representative met with Plaintiff Vasquez and 

gave him a contract to sign. This contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A. It is entirely in English 

even though Plaintiff Vasquez is not proficient in written or spoken English. The Libre 

representative verbally explained some portions of the contract in Spanish, including that he owed 

Libre the $8,000 remaining on the $10,000 bond (of which Plaintiff Vasquez had paid $2,000 

upfront) and that Plaintiff Vasquez would have to wear an ankle bracelet at all times. The 

representative also said that Plaintiff Vasquez could not disturb or remove the ankle monitor because 

doing so would be a crime and he would be incarcerated for doing so. He was also told that any 

damage to the monitor would result in a $3,000 fine.

79. Due to such misrepresentations, Plaintiff Vasquez believed that LBN could cause him

return to be returned to detention. 

80. Plaintiff Vasquez was fearful of remaining detained indefinitely, and LBN’s 

misrepresentations and omissions induced him to enter into the agreement.

Plaintiff was not informed that he would need to pay $420 per month in perpetuity; that LBN was 

charging these monies to compensate itself for indemnifying his bond with a third party; that he 

would be moved from the detained to the non-detained docket, meaning he could be required to pay 

LBN for years.

81. The financial burden of payments to LBN has been crushing for Plaintiff Vasquez. In 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 13 of 30
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

13

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

addition to the $2,000 he paid up front, he has paid over $3,000 in monthly “rental” fees, and will 

pay much more since his immigration case is not set to be heard until the end of 2017.

82. To pay the monthly fees to LBN, Plaintiff must remit a substantial portion of his 

modest wages as a day laborer. In addition to his work as a day laborer, Plaintiff Vasquez does 

miscellaneous side jobs – like collecting cans for recycling – to earn enough money to pay LBN.

83. Even though Plaintiff has kept up with his monthly rental fees, he received a call a 

few months ago from an LBN representative saying that he had missed two payments and could be 

incarcerated as a result. Plaintiff kept his financial records of payment, though, and showed that he 

had, in fact, made all of his required payments to LBN. LBN eventually agreed. Nevertheless, the 

nature of the call further solidified in Plaintiff’s mind that he needed to keep up with payments 

otherwise he would be sent to jail or back to Honduras. 

84. Plaintiff would not have entered into the lease agreement if terms had been disclosed 

accurately and truthfully.

85. Plaintiff would not have entered into the lease agreement if he knew the intrusive and 

burdensome nature of the Lease Agreement.

86. Plaintiff’s and class members’ reliance on LBN’s false and misleading 

representations and omissions in the Spanish-language document and in verbal representations was 

reasonable. 

87. Plaintiff is a monolingual Spanish speaker. 

Plaintiff Ortiz’s Experience

88. Plaintiff Ortiz is an asylum-seeker who fled her native Honduras because she was a 

target of gang violence and gang-affiliated sexual assault.

89. In April 2015, she came to the United States and was placed in detention in Houston, 

Texas. 

90. An Immigration Judge set Ms. Ortiz’s bond for $20,000.

91. In 2015, while in detention, she heard from other detainees that LBN could assist her 

in posting bond. One other detainee’s family had seen commercials on television and gave Plaintiff 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 14 of 30
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

14

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

Ortiz LBN’s telephone number. 

92. Plaintiff Ortiz gave the information to her husband who communicated with LBN

while she was in detention. 

93. An LBN representative told Plaintiff Ortiz’s husband, who communicated with LBN

on behalf of her while she was detained, that if Plaintiff Ortiz could pay some money upfront to 

LBN, LBN would pay the bond, and that she would owe LBN that money on the bond. LBN never 

disclosed that a third party was posting the bond. In addition, LBN conveyed that Plaintiff Ortiz 

would have a monthly payment to make, and led her husband to believe that the monthly payment 

would go toward paying down the bond. Plaintiff Ortiz’s husband conveyed all of this to Plaintiff 

Ortiz who agreed to proceed with LBN’s deal in reliance on the omissions and misrepresentations of 

material terms it made to her husband.

94. LBN knowingly misrepresented the terms of the deal and later provided written

disclosures – almost entirely in English – that obfuscated the truth and did not accurately portray the 

risks and benefits of the lease agreement. 

95. Immediately after her release, an LBN representative picked Plaintiff Ortiz up from

the detention facility, took her to an office and gave her a contract to sign. This contract is attached 

hereto as Exhibit B. It is almost entirely in English, with just one page of limited disclosures in 

Spanish, even though Plaintiff Ortiz is not proficient in written or spoken English. The LBN 

representative verbally explained some portions of the contract in Spanish, including that she owed 

LBN the $15,000 remaining on the bond and that Plaintiff Ortiz would have to wear an ankle 

bracelet at all times. She was also led to believe that she could not disturb or remove the ankle 

monitor because doing so would be a crime and she would be detained, incarcerated or deported. 

96. LBN also took several “mugshot” like photos of Ms. Ortiz, leading her to believe that

ICE or the police would come after her if she did anything wrong to the device or failed to keep up 

on payments. 

97. Plaintiff Ortiz believed that LBN could cause her to be returned to detention.

98. Plaintiff Ortiz was fearful of remaining detained indefinitely, and LBN’s

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 15 of 30
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

15

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

misrepresentations and omissions induced her to enter into the agreement. 

99. Plaintiff was not informed that she would need to pay $420 per month in perpetuity; 

that LBN was charging these monies to compensate itself for indemnifying her bond with a third 

party; that she would be moved from the detained to the non-detained docket, meaning she could be 

required to pay LBN for years.

100. The financial burden of payments to LBN by Nexus has been crushing for Plaintiff 

Ortiz and her family. In addition to the $5,000 she paid up front, she has paid about $7,140 in 

monthly “rental” fees, and will pay much more since her immigration case is not set to be heard until 

the end of this year.

101. To pay the monthly fees to LBN, Plaintiff must remit a substantial portion of her 

husband’s modest wages. Their family has undergone substantial hardship from keeping up with the 

payments. For example, Ms. Ortiz and her husband have had to forgo buying groceries in order to 

make her monthly payment to LBN. 

102. Even though Plaintiff has kept up with her monthly rental fees, she has received calls

from a LBN representative saying that she had missed payments and could be incarcerated as a 

result. The nature of the calls further solidified in Plaintiff’s mind that she needed to keep up with 

payments otherwise she would be sent to jail, detention or back to Honduras. 

103. Plaintiff would not have entered into the lease agreement if terms had been disclosed 

accurately and truthfully.

104. Plaintiff’s and class members’ reliance on LBN’s false and misleading 

representations and omissions in the Spanish-language document and in verbal representations was 

reasonable. 

105. Plaintiff is a monolingual Spanish speaker. 

Plaintiff Catalan Molina’s Experience

106. Plaintiff Catalan Molina is an asylum seeker who fled his native Mexico because he 

and his family were the targets of cartel violence due, in part, to Mr. Molina’s involvement as the 

head of a taxi cooperative.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 16 of 30
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

16

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

107. In December 2015, he came to the United States and was placed in detention in San 

Diego, California. 

108. An Immigration Judge set Mr. Catalan Molina’s bond for $10,000.

109. In early 2016, while in detention, another detainee told him that LBN could assist him 

in posting bond, and gave him LBN’s telephone number. That individual received referral fees for 

referring detainees to LBN. 

110. Plaintiff Catalan Molina gave the information to his wife who, along with his wife’s 

sister, communicated with LBN while he was in detention. An LBN representative told Plaintiff’s 

wife that if Plaintiff could pay some money upfront to LBN, LBN would pay the bond, and that he 

would owe LBN that money on the bond. LBN never disclosed that a third party was posting the 

bond. In addition, LBN conveyed that Plaintiff would have a monthly payment to make, and led his 

wife to believe that the monthly payment would go toward paying down the bond. Plaintiff’s wife 

conveyed all of this to Plaintiff who agreed to proceed with LBN’s deal in reliance on the omissions 

and misrepresentations of material terms it made to his wife. 

111. LBN knowingly misrepresented the terms of the deal and later provided written 

disclosures – almost entirely in English – that obfuscated the truth and did not accurately portray the 

risks and benefits of the lease agreement. 

112. Immediately after his release, an LBN representative picked Plaintiff Catalan Molina

up from the detention facility, took him to an office and gave him a contract to sign. This contract is 

attached hereto as Exhibit C. It is almost entirely in English, with just one page of limited 

disclosures in Spanish, even though Plaintiff Catalan Molina is not proficient in written or spoken 

English. The LBN representative verbally explained some portions of the contract in Spanish, 

including that Plaintiff Catalan Molina would have to wear an ankle bracelet at all times. He was 

also led to believe that he could not disturb or remove the ankle monitor because doing so would be 

a crime and he would be detained or incarcerated. 

113. Due to LBN’s actions, Plaintiff Catalan Molina reasonably believed that LBN could 

cause him to be returned to detention. The LBN representative told Plaintiff Catalan Molina that if 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 17 of 30
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

17

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

he did not make payments or otherwise comply with LBN’s demands, he could be arrested or 

detained.

114. Plaintiff Catalan Molina was fearful of remaining detained indefinitely, and LBN’s 

misrepresentations and omissions induced him to enter into the agreement. 

115. Plaintiff was not informed that he would need to pay $420 per month in perpetuity; 

that LBN was charging these monies to compensate itself for indemnifying his bond with a third 

party; that he would be moved from the detained to the non-detained docket, meaning he could be 

required to pay LBN for years.

116. The financial burden of payments to LBN has been crushing for Plaintiff Molina. In 

addition to the $3,020 he paid up front, he has paid about $5,000 in monthly “rental” fees, and will 

pay much more since his wife’s immigration case, of which he is a derivative, is not set to be heard 

until the end of 2017. 

117. To pay the monthly fees to LBN, Plaintiff must remit a substantial portion of his 

modest wages as a day laborer. To make the payments, he and his family often have to skip eating 

meals and fall behind on their monthly rent.

118. Even when Plaintiff has kept up with his monthly rental fees, he has received text 

messages and calls from a LBN representative saying that he had missed payments and could be 

incarcerated as a result. The sister-in-law who originally co-signed the agreement also receives such 

calls. The nature of the calls further solidified in Plaintiff’s mind that he needed to keep up with 

payments otherwise he would be sent to jail or detention. 

119. Plaintiff would not have entered into the lease agreement if terms had been disclosed 

accurately and truthfully.

120. Plaintiff would not have entered into the lease agreement if he knew the intrusive and 

burdensome nature of the ankle monitor.

121. Plaintiff did not receive any payment for maintaining, charging and hauling his ankle 

monitor for LBN’s benefit and under threat of detention by LBN. 

122. Plaintiff’s and class members’ reliance on LBN’s false and misleading 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 18 of 30
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

18

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

representations and omissions in the Spanish-language document and in verbal representations was 

reasonable. 

123. Plaintiff is a monolingual Spanish speaker. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

124. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set 

forth herein. 

125. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the members of the proposed 

National Class and California Subclass. The proposed National Class consists of:

All individuals residing in the United States who, within the applicable 

statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action and going forward 

from the date of this Complaint, paid monies to LBN to lease a GPS tracker.

126. The proposed California Subclass consists of:

All individuals residing in the State of California who, within the applicable 

statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action and going forward 

from the date of this Complaint, paid monies to LBN to lease a GPS tracker.

127. Excluded from the Class and Subclass are LBN, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, 

officers and directors, any entity in which LBN has a controlling interest, all customers who make a 

timely election to be excluded, governmental entities, and all judges and their staff assigned to hear 

any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members.

128. The members of the Class and Subclass are so numerous that joinder is impractical.

The Class and Subclass consist of thousands of members, the precise number of which is within the 

knowledge of and can be ascertained only by resort to LBN’s records.

129. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class and Subclass

which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class and Subclass.

Among the questions of law and fact common to the Subclass are: 

(a) Whether LBN engaged in unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices under 

California law; 

(b) Whether LBN misrepresented and/or failed to disclose material facts.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 19 of 30
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

19

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

(c) Whether LBN made false or misleading statements of fact; 

(d) Whether LBN’s conduct, as alleged herein, was intentional and knowing;

(e) Whether Class members are entitled to damages and/or restitution, and in what 

amount;

(f) Whether an injunction is necessary; and

(g) Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ 

fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. 

Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are: 

(a) Whether LBN violated 15 U.S.C § 1692;

(b) Whether Class Members are entitled to damages and in what amount; 

(c) Whether an injunction is necessary; and

(d) Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to an award of reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. 

130. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class and Subclass. 

Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to the interests of any other member of the Class and 

Subclass.

131. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives who will fully and adequately assert and 

protect the interests of the Class and Subclass, and have retained counsel experienced in prosecuting 

class actions.

132. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this lawsuit, because individual litigation of the claims of all members of the Class

and Subclass is economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. While the aggregate 

damages sustained by the Class and Subclass are in the millions of dollars, the individual damages 

incurred by each member of the Class and Subclass resulting from LBN’s wrongful conduct are too 

small to warrant the expense of individual lawsuits. The likelihood of individual Class and Subclass

members prosecuting their own separate claims is remote, and, even if every member of the Class 

and Subclass could afford individual litigation, the court system would be unduly burdened by 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 20 of 30
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

20

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

individual litigation of such cases.

133. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class and Subclass would 

create a risk of establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for LBN. 

For example, one court might enjoin LBN from performing the challenged acts alleged herein, 

whereas another might not. Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the 

Class and Subclass, although certain class members are not parties to such actions.

134. LBN’s alleged misconduct is generally applicable to the Class and Subclass as a 

whole, and Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, equitable remedies with respect to the Class and Subclass as a 

whole. As such, the systematic policies and practices of LBN make declaratory relief with respect to 

the National Class and California Subclass as a whole appropriate.

COUNT I

(Violation of the “Unfair” Prong of the UCL, 

California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.)

(California Subclass Only)

135. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set 

forth herein. 

136. The UCL defines unfair business competition to include any “unlawful, unfair or 

fraudulent” act or practice, as well as any “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading” advertising. Cal. 

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

137. A business act or practice is “unfair” under the UCL if the reasons, justifications and 

motives of the alleged wrongdoer are outweighed by the gravity of the harm to the alleged victims. 

138. LBN has violated the “unfair” prong of the UCL through its acts and omissions 

detailed herein, including the imposition of an exploitative English-language agreement onto nonEnglish speakers, who are required to pay exorbitant fees over a number of years under the threat of 

detention.

139. The acts and practices alleged herein are unfair because they caused Plaintiff, and 

reasonable consumers like them, to incur substantial financial loss.

140. The gravity of the harm to members of the Class resulting from these unfair acts and 

practices outweighs any conceivable reasons, justifications and/or motives of LBN for engaging in 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 21 of 30
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

21

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

such deceptive acts and practices. By committing the acts and practices alleged above, LBN engages 

in unfair business practices within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code §§ 

17200, et seq.

141. Through its unfair acts and practices, LBN has improperly obtained money from 

Plaintiffs and the Class. As such, Plaintiffs request that this court cause LBN to restore this money to 

Plaintiffs and all Class members, and to enjoin LBN from continuing to violate the UCL as 

discussed herein and/or from violating the UCL in the future. Otherwise, Plaintiffs and the Class 

may be irreparably harmed and/or denied an effective and complete remedy if such an order is not 

granted. 

COUNT II

(Violation of the “Fraudulent” Prong of the UCL,

California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.)

(California Subclass Only)

142. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set 

forth herein. 

143. The UCL defines unfair business competition to include any “unlawful, unfair or 

fraudulent” act or practice, as well as any “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading” advertising. Cal. 

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

144. A business act or practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if it is likely to deceive 

members of the consuming public. 

145. LBN deceived consumers into believing, inter alia, that LBN was their only option to

leave detention, that the financial terms were manageable, that LBN could return them to detention,

and that wearing an LBN ankle “bracelet” would not be onerous. LBN’s acts and practices as 

described herein have deceived Plaintiffs and were highly likely to deceive members of the 

consuming public. Accordingly, Plaintiffs suffered monetary loss as a direct result of LBN’s 

practices described herein. 

146. As a result of the conduct described above, LBN has been unjustly enriched at the 

expense of Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class. Specifically, LBN has been unjustly 

enriched by obtaining revenues and profits that it would not otherwise have obtained absent its false, 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 22 of 30
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

22

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

misleading and deceptive conduct.

147. Through its unfair acts and practices, LBN has improperly obtained money from 

Plaintiffs and the Class. As such, Plaintiffs request that this court cause LBN to restore this money to 

Plaintiffs and all Class members, and to enjoin LBN from continuing to violate the UCL as 

discussed herein and/or from violating the UCL in the future. Otherwise, Plaintiffs and the Class 

may be irreparably harmed and/or denied an effective and complete remedy if such an order is not 

granted. 

COUNT III

(Violation of the “Unlawful” Prong of the UCL,

California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.)

(California Subclass Only)

148. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set 

forth herein.

149. The UCL defines unfair business competition to include any “unlawful, unfair or 

fraudulent” act or practice, as well as any “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading” advertising. Cal. 

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

150. A business act or practice is “unlawful” under the UCL if it violates any other law or 

regulation. 

151. LBN violates the unlawful prong by violating the CLRA, the California Translation 

Act, the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act. 

152. Additionally, LBN violates the unlawful prong by violating California Insurance 

Code Section 1800 which states: “An insurer shall not execute an undertaking of bail except by and 

through a person holding a bail license as issued as provided in this chapter. A person shall not in 

this state solicit or negotiate in respect to execution or delivery of an undertaking of bail or bail bond 

by an insurer, or execute or deliver such an undertaking of bail or bail bond unless licensed as 

provided in this chapter ...”

(a) LBN is not a licensed in this state to solicit or negotiate in respect to execution 

or delivery of an undertaking of bail or bail bond by an insurer or to execute 

or deliver such an undertaking of bail or bail bond; 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 23 of 30
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

23

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

(b) LBN solicits detainees and negotiates with them in respect to the execution or 

delivery of an undertaking of bail; and

(c) Plaintiffs and the classes paid leases they would not otherwise have paid 

because LBN held itself out as having the ability to solicit or negotiate bail 

even though it was not licensed;

153. As a result of the conduct described above, LBN has been unjustly enriched at the 

expense of Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class. Specifically, LBN has been unjustly 

enriched by obtaining revenues and profits that it would not otherwise have obtained absent its false, 

misleading and deceptive conduct.

154. Through its unlawful acts and practices, LBN has improperly obtained money from 

Plaintiffs and the Class. As such, Plaintiffs request that this court cause LBN to restore this money to 

Plaintiffs and all Class members, and to enjoin LBN from continuing to violate the UCL as 

discussed herein and/or from violating the UCL in the future. Otherwise, Plaintiffs and the Class 

may be irreparably harmed and/or denied an effective and complete remedy if such an order is not 

granted.

COUNT IV

(Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, 

California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.)

(California Subclass Only)

155. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set 

forth herein.

156. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the CLRA. 

157. Plaintiffs and each member of the proposed class are “consumers” within the meaning 

of California Civil Code § 1761(d).

158. LBN’s selling of LBN services to Plaintiffs and the Class were “transactions” within 

the meaning of California Civil Code § 1761(e). The LBN services purchased by Plaintiffs and the 

Class are “goods” within the meaning of Civil Code §1761(a).

159. Plaintiff and the California subclass members are not sophisticated experts with 

independent knowledge of bail bonds, collateral, or LBN’s tracking system. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 24 of 30
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

24

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

160. As described herein, LBN violated Civil Code § 1770(a)(8), by “[a]dvertising goods 

or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.” Defendant knew that Plaintiffs and the 

California subclass members were deceived into believing that they would be “paying” down 

collateral, when, in fact, LBN was collecting exorbitant fees disguised as lease payments. 

161. Defendant violated California Civil Code §§ 1770(a)(5) and (a)(7) by misleading 

consumers to believe that they were “paying” down their collateral by making payments to LBN, 

when, in fact, they were not. 

162. LBN made misrepresentations in violation of §§ 1770(a)(5) and (a)(7) by 

representing that it would post the bond, leading detainees to believe that that LBN will compensate 

itself out of the “bail premium” paid by detainees. 

163. Defendant represented that LBN’s services were of a particular standard or quality 

when Defendant was aware that they were of another in violation of § 1770(a)(7). Defendant 

“Libre” (which means “free”) maintained that consumers would be heavily burdened by exorbitant 

lease fee agreements. 

164. Plaintiffs relied on LBN’s false representations in deciding to purchase LBN services. 

Plaintiffs would not have purchased LBN services or would have paid less for them absent LBN’s 

unlawful conduct.

165. Prior to the filing of this First Amended Complaint, a CLRA notice letter was served 

on Defendant which complies in all respects with California Civil Code § 1782(a). A true and 

correct copy of Plaintiffs’ letter is attached as Exhibit D. On February 16, 2017, Plaintiffs sent 

Defendant a letter via certified mail, return receipt requested, advising Defendant that it is in 

violation of the CLRA and must correct, repair, replace, or otherwise rectify the services alleged to 

be in violation of § 1770. Defendant was further advised that in the event that the relief requested 

had not been provided within thirty (30) days, Plaintiffs would bring an action for damages pursuant 

to the CLRA. On February 2, 2017, Defendant received the letter. Defendant has not corrected its 

violations. Wherefore, Plaintiffs seek damages, in addition to restitution, and injunctive relief for 

this violation of the CLRA.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 25 of 30
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

25

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

166. Plaintiffs request this Court enjoin LBN from continuing to violate the CLRA as

alleged herein in the future and to order restitution to Plaintiffs and each member of the proposed 

class. Otherwise, Plaintiffs, the Class and members of the general public may be irreparably harmed 

and/or denied effective and complete remedy if such an order is not granted. 

COUNT V

(Violation of the California Translation Act, 

California Civil Code § 1632) 

(California Subclass Only) 

167. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set

forth herein. 

168. This cause of action is brought pursuant to California Civil Code § 1632, the

California Translation Act. 

169. LBN is engaged in a trade or business and orally negotiated primarily in

Spanish in the course of entering into rental contracts with Plaintiffs and Class members. 

170. California Civil Code § 1632(b)(2) provides:

(b) Any person engaged in a trade or business who negotiates primarily in Spanish, Chinese,

Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Korean, orally or in writing, in the course of entering into any of 

the following, shall deliver to the other party to the contract or agreement and prior to the 

execution thereof, a translation of the contract or agreement in the language in which the 

contract or agreement was negotiated, that includes a translation of every term and 

condition in that contract or agreement: 

...

(2) A loan or extension of credit secured other than by real property, or unsecured, for use

primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. 

171. LBN’s Lease Agreements serve as a loan or extension of credit for the percentage of

bail paid by a third-party bail bondsmen. 

172. LBN’s Lease Agreements are for personal purposes of being released from detention.

173. LBN negotiates primarily in Spanish prior to providing an untranslated “Lease

Agreement” and addendum documents. 

174. For the rental contracts, or “Lease Agreement,” LBN failed to translate every term

and condition in those contracts. LBN deliberately and selectively translated certain terms into 

Spanish to mislead consumers such as Plaintiffs and Class members into believing they were 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 26 of 30
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

26

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

receiving a materially better deal than they ultimately did. For example, none of the few translated 

terms include the rental payment for the GPS device. 

175. Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ reliance on LBN’s false and misleading 

representations and omissions in the Spanish language document and in verbal representations was 

reasonable. 

COUNT VI

(Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,

15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692(p)

(National Class)

176. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege by reference each and every preceding paragraph 

as if fully set forth herein. 

177. This cause of action is brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692(p), Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).

178. LBN is a “debt collector” because, among other reasons, it “regularly collects or 

attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” 

15 U.S.C. § 1692(a). 

179. Plaintiffs and class members are “consumers” because they are natural persons who 

have been obligated or allegedly obligated to pay debt. 

180. LBN regularly transmits oral and written communication to Plaintiffs and class 

members, attempting to collect debt.

181. In its communications with Plaintiffs and class members, Defendant has regularly 

used false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means, in violation of Section 807 of the 

FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e), including but not limited to:

(a) Falsely representing or implying that it is capable of causing their return to detention, 

in violation of Section 807(1) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (e)(1);

(b) Falsely representing or implying that non-payment of a debt will result in the arrest or 

imprisonment of a person or the seizure, garnishment, or attachment of a person’s property or wages, 

when such action is not lawful or when Defendant has no intention of taking such action, in violation 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 27 of 30
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

27

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

of Section 807 (4) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4);

(c) Threatening to take action that is not lawful or that Defendant does not intend to take, 

in violation of Section 807(5) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5);

(d) Falsely representing or implying that a consumer has committed a crime or other 

misconduct in order to disgrace the consumer, in violation of Section 807(7) of the FDCPA, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692(e)(7);

182. As a result of each and every violation of the FDCPA, Plaintiffs and Class members, 

are entitled to any actual damages pursuant to U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages for a 

knowing or willful violation in the amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); 

and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) from Defendant.

COUNT VII

(Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,

Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788-1788.32 (RFDCPA)

(California Subclass Only)

183. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege by reference each and every preceding paragraph 

as if fully set forth herein. 

184. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations of the 

RFDCPA.

185. As a result of each and every violation of the RFDCPA, Plaintiffs and the California 

Class Members are entitled to any actual damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(a); statutory 

damages for a knowing or willful violation in the amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 1788.30(b); and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30 (c) from 

the Defendant.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz, and Victor 

Hugo Catalan Molina, and the members of the Class, demand a jury trial on all claims so triable and 

judgment against Defendants, as follows:

A. An order certifying that this action may be maintained as a class action, that Plaintiffs 

be appointed Class Representative and Plaintiffs’ counsel be appointed Class Counsel;

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 28 of 30
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

28

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

B. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs and all members of the Class restitution and/or other

equitable relief, including, without limitation, restitutionary disgorgement of all profits and unjust 

enrichment that LBN obtained from Plaintiffs and the Class as a result of its unlawful, unfair and 

fraudulent business practices described herein; 

C. An order enjoining LBN from continuing to violate the UCL, CLRA, California

Translation Act, FDCPA, and RFDCPA as described herein; 

D. A judgment awarding actual, statutory, treble, and punitive damages to Plaintiffs and

the Class in an amount to be determined at trial; 

E. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs costs of their suit; including reasonable attorneys’

fees pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 1780(d), Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and as 

otherwise permitted by statute; and pre and post-judgment interest; and

F. Such other and further relief as may be deemed necessary or appropriate.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS demand a jury trial on all triable issues. 

Dated June 9, 2017 

By:

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Jeffrey Kaliel

Jeffrey Kaliel 

JEFFREY KALIEL, CA Bar No. 238293

ANNICK M. PERSINGER, CA Bar No. 272996

TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP

483 Ninth Street, Suite 200

Oakland, CA 94607

Telephone (510) 254-6808 

Facsimile (202) 973-0950

jkaliel@tzlegal.com

apersinger@tzlegal.com

PAUL CHAVEZ, CA Bar No. 241576

JESSE NEWMARK, CA Bar No. 247488

AIDIN CASTILLO, CA Bar No. 280262

CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA

3400 E. 12th Street, 

Oakland, CA 94601

Telephone (510) 437-1554 

pchavez@centrolegal.org

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 29 of 30
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

29

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

jessenewmark@centrolegal.org

acastillo@centrolegal.org

NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO, pro hac vice forthcoming

JASON S. RATHOD, pro hac vice forthcoming 

MIGLICACCIO & RATHOD LLP

412 H St NE, Suite 302

Washington DC 20002

Telephone (202) 470-3520 

nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

jrathod@classlawdc.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 28 Filed 06/09/17 Page 30 of 30