CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1

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

Jeffrey J. Goulder (010258)

Javier Torres (0032397)

STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584

Tel: (602) 279-1600

Fax: (602) 240-6925

Email: jeffrey.goulder@stinson.com

Javier.torres@stinson.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tisha Castillo, Karen Christian, and

Steve Pratt, on behalf of themselves

and others similarly situated,

No. ___________

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs,

v.

George Harry Johnson and Jane Doe

Johnson, a married couple; Johnson

Utilities, LLC; Johnson International,

Inc.; Gary Leonard Pierce; Sherry Ann

Pierce; and James Franklin Norton and

Jane Doe Norton, a married couple,

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Tisha Castillo, Karen Christian, and Steve Pratt (“Plaintiffs”), for

themselves and for others similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, bring this

claim as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 et seq. against George Harry

Johnson (“Johnson”) and Jane Doe Johnson; Johnson Utilities, LLC (“Johnson

Utilities”); Johnson International, Inc. (“Johnson International”); Gary Leonard Pierce

(“Gary Pierce”); Sherry Ann Pierce (“Sherry Pierce”); James Franklin Norton

(“Norton”) and Jane Doe Norton, (collectively “Defendants”), and in support thereof,

upon personal knowledge as to themselves, and upon information and belief as to all

other matters, allege the following:

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 1 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 2

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

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION.

1. This is a class action arising from a scheme in which Defendants operated

an association-in-fact racketeering enterprise to unlawfully overcharge customers for

water and wastewater services. As set forth in a recent federal indictment (attached to

this Complaint as Exhibit 1), a utility’s owner, using a lobbyist and consultant as a

conduit, bribed a state regulator and his wife to corruptly charge the public excessive

prices. The purpose of this action is to obtain compensation for the utility’s customers

who overpaid as a result of this illegal scheme.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE.

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 1964(a) for the federal Civil RICO claims, and Supplemental Jurisdiction over

all state-law claims, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965 and

28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants are all subject to personal jurisdiction in this

judicial district and reside in this district.

III. PARTIES.

4. Plaintiff Tisha Castillo is an individual residing in Pinal County, Arizona.

5. Plaintiff Karen Christian is an individual residing in Pinal County,

Arizona.

6. Plaintiff Steve Pratt is an individual residing in Pinal County, Arizona.

7. Plaintiffs paid water and/or wastewater charges that were inflated by the

corrupt activities of Defendants, as described herein.

8. Defendant George Harry Johnson is the owner of Johnson Utilities, LLC.

9. Upon information and belief, George Harry Johnson and Jane Doe

Johnson are husband and wife, and are citizens of Arizona. All of the acts referenced in

this Complaint were performed in furtherance of, and for the benefit of, the Johnsons’

marital community.

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 2 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 3

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. Defendant Johnson Utilities, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company

headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. Johnson Utilities provides water and wastewater

services in Pinal County, Arizona. Johnson Utilities is subject to regulation by the

Arizona Corporation Commission (“ACC”).

11. Defendant Johnson International, Inc., is a Scottsdale-based real estate

development company owned by George Harry Johnson.

12. Defendant Gary Leonard Pierce is a former commissioner on the ACC.

He was elected commissioner in 2007, and commission chairman in 2012.

13. Defendant Sherry Ann Pierce is the wife of Gary Pierce.

14. Defendant James Franklin Norton is a lobbyist formerly employed by

R&R Partners, a firm that was retained by Johnson Utilities and George Johnson to

lobby on their behalves before the ACC and other entities.

15. Upon information and belief, James Franklin Norton and Jane Doe Norton

are husband and wife, and are citizens of Arizona. All of the acts referenced in this

Complaint were performed in furtherance of, and for the benefit of, the Nortons’ marital

community.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.

16. Arizona utilities are regulated by the ACC. The ACC, comprised of five

elected commissioners, makes final decisions on matters such as rate adjustments for

utilities.

17. Gary Pierce served on the ACC from 2007 to 2014, including as

chairman.

18. On August 24, 2010, the ACC, unanimously and on the advice of its staff,

rejected Johnson’s request for: (1) a wastewater rate increase and (2) to allow Johnson

to have his personal income taxes reimbursed by payments made by Johnson Utilities

customers.

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 3 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 4

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. However, on August 11, 2011, Gary Pierce introduced an amendment to

the August 24, 2010 decision. Gary Pierce’s proposed amendment granted Johnson’s

requested rate increase and added language to the earlier decision expressly stating that

Johnson Utilities could request income tax reimbursement if the ACC changed its policy

regarding pass-through entities such as the Johnson Utilities’ limited liability company.

20. On September 6, 2011, Gary Pierce and a majority of the ACC voted –

against ACC staff recommendations – to approve the amendment and grant Johnson the

requested rate increase and ability to request income tax reimbursement in the future.

21. On September 28, 2011, Gary Pierce, Sherry Pierce, Norton and a person

whose identity is currently unknown, (hereinafter the “Co-Conspirator”) met for dinner.

At that dinner, the Co-Conspirator stated that Sherry Pierce would become an employee

of his consulting firm. Additionally, the Co-Conspirator stated that a confidentiality

agreement would be created to prevent Sherry Pierce from disclosing the nature of her

work for the consulting firm.

22. On November 9, 2011, Sherry Pierce signed an “Independent Contractor

Agreement” with the consulting firm, as well as a confidentiality agreement.

23. On November 9, 2011, Johnson signed a check drawn on an account held

by Johnson International for $6,000 and made payable to the consulting firm.

24. On November 10, 2011, Johnson and Norton met with the CoConspirator, and Johnson gave him the $6,000 check.

25. On November 10, 2011, the Co-Conspirator opened a checking account in

the name of his consulting firm.

26. On November 18, 2011, Gary Pierce and Sherry Pierce accepted a check

drawn on the consulting firm’s account for $3,500. The original source of that money

was Johnson. Sherry Pierce endorsed the check and deposited it into an account she

shared with Gary Pierce.

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 4 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 5

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. On December 8, 2011, Johnson signed another $6,000 check from the

Johnson International account made out to the consulting firm.

28. On December 12, 2011, Sherry Pierce sent an invoice via email to the CoConspirator labeled: “December Consulting Services as per Contract: $3,500.00.”

29. On December 19, 2011, Gary Pierce and Sherry Pierce accepted a check

drawn on the consulting firm’s account for $3,500. The original source of that money

was Johnson. Sherry Pierce endorsed the check and deposited it into an account she

shared with Gary Pierce.

30. On January 13, 2012, Johnson signed a check for $6,097.99 from the

Johnson International account made out to the consulting firm.

31. On January 31, 2012, Gary Pierce and Sherry Pierce accepted a check

drawn on the consulting firm’s account for $3,500. The original source of that money

was Johnson. Sherry Pierce endorsed the check and deposited it into an account she

shared with Gary Pierce.

32. On February 9, 2012, Johnson signed a check for $7,084.80 from the

Johnson International account made out to the consulting firm.

33. On February 21, 2012, Gary Pierce and Sherry Pierce accepted a check

drawn on the consulting firm’s account for $3,500. The original source of that money

was Johnson. Sherry Pierce endorsed the check and deposited it into an account she

shared with Gary Pierce.

34. On March 20, 2012, Johnson signed a check for $6,028.23 from the

Johnson International account made out to the consulting firm.

35. On April 6, 2012, Gary Pierce and Sherry Pierce accepted a check drawn

on the consulting firm’s account for $3,500. The original source of that money was

Johnson. Sherry Pierce endorsed the check and deposited it into an account she shared

with Gary Pierce.

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 5 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 6

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

36. On April 11, 2012, Johnson signed a check for $6,069.53 from the

Johnson International account made out to the consulting firm.

37. On May 1, 2012, Johnson signed a check for $6,029.79 from the Johnson

International account made out to the consulting firm.

38. On May 16, 2012, Gary Pierce and Sherry Pierce accepted a check drawn

on the consulting firm’s account for $3,500. The original source of that money was

Johnson. Sherry Pierce endorsed the check and deposited it into an account she shared

with Gary Pierce.

39. On June 5, 2012, Johnson signed a check for $6,144.56 from the Johnson

International account made out to the consulting firm.

40. On June 11, 2012, Gary Pierce and Sherry Pierce accepted a check drawn

on the consulting firm’s account for $3,500. The original source of that money was

Johnson. Sherry Pierce endorsed the check and deposited it into an account she shared

with Gary Pierce.

41. On June 15, 2012 Gary Pierce filed a document titled “Policy Statement

on Income Tax Expense for Tax Pass-Through Entities” on the ACC docket.

42. On July 11, 2012, Gary Pierce and Sherry Pierce accepted a check drawn

on the consulting firm’s account for $3,500. The original source of that money was

Johnson. Sherry Pierce endorsed the check and deposited it into an account she shared

with Gary Pierce.

43. On July 31, 2012, the Co-Conspirator sent an email to Sherry Pierce

stating that the firm’s contract work for clients would be limited as of August 1, 2012.

44. On July 31, 2012, Sherry Pierce sent an email to the Co-Conspirator

acknowledging the end of payments from Johnson and stating: “I’ve really enjoyed

working with and getting to know you better. Gary told me about his conversation about

this with Jim so I was already aware.”

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 6 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 7

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

45. On August 3, 2012, Johnson signed a check for $6,027.48 from the

Johnson International account made out to the consulting firm.

46. On August 9, 2012, the Co-Conspirator sent an email to Sherry Pierce

stating: “Just got my final check in the mail while I was in Tucson so will get a check

out to you tomorrow.”

47. On August 13, 2012, Gary Pierce and Sherry Pierce accepted a check

drawn on the consulting firm’s account for $3,500. The original source of that money

was Johnson. Sherry Pierce endorsed the check and deposited it into an account she

shared with Gary Pierce.

48. On February 12, 2013, Gary Pierce voted to allow the owners of passthrough utility entities such as Johnson Utilities to recover their personal income taxes

from utility customers.

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS.

49. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and as a class action pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 et seq. for the following Class:

All Johnson Utilities customers who paid for water and/or

wastewater services between January 1, 2011 and the date

judgment is entered in this lawsuit.

Excluded from the Class are legal representatives, attorneys, heirs, and assigns of

Defendants; any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the

members of their immediate families and judicial staffs.

50. Numerosity. There are believed to be tens of thousands members of the

Class. Accordingly, the members of the Class are so numerous that their individual

joinder would be impracticable.

51. Commonality. There are numerous questions of law and fact that are

common to Plaintiffs and all members of the Class, including, but not limited to the

following:

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 7 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 8

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

a) Whether Defendants engaged in an pattern of racketeering activity

that resulted in Johnson Utilities customers being charged unlawfully

higher prices for water and wastewater services;

b) Whether Defendants committed consumer fraud;

c) Whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched;

d) Whether Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages; and

e) Whether Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to equitable

relief.

52. Typicality. Plaintiffs are members of the Class and have claims that are

typical of all members of the Class. Plaintiffs’ claims and all of the Class members’

claims arise out of the same uniform course of unlawful conduct by Defendants and

may be remedied under the same legal theory – that customers were subjected to and

paid charges that were corruptly increased by Defendants’ unlawful actions.

53. Adequacy. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of

the members of the Class. Plaintiffs have no conflicts of interest with, or interests that

are any different from, those of the other class members. Plaintiffs have retained

competent counsel experienced in class action and other complex litigation.

54. Predominance. Common questions of law and fact predominate over

questions affecting only individual Class members. More specifically, the corruption of

rate charges presents common issues of law and fact; the only individual issues being

the arithmetic calculation of individual customers’ shares of the corruptly increased

rates charged.

55. Superiority. A class action is superior to all other feasible alternatives

for the resolution of this matter. Individual litigation of multiple cases would be highly

inefficient, a gross waste of the resources of the court and of the parties, and potentially

could lead to inconsistent results that would be contrary to the interests of justice.

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 8 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 9

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

56. Manageability. This case is well suited for treatment as a class action

and can easily be managed as a class action because evidence of both liability and

damages can be adduced, and proof of liability and damages can be presented, on a

class-wide basis, while the allocation and distribution of damages to Class members

would be essentially a ministerial function.

57. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiffs and

Class members by uniformly overcharging them for water and wastewater services.

Accordingly, injunctive relief, as well as legal and/or equitable monetary relief (such as

disgorgement and/or restitution), along with corresponding declaratory relief, are

appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION.

COUNT I

Civil RICO

Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

58. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in the previous paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

59. Under RICO, “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person employed by or

associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or

foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of

such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of

unlawful debt.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

60. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), anyone who is injured in his business or

property by an act that qualifies as a RICO violation is permitted to bring suit in any

federal district court and may recover three times the damages sustained as well as the

cost of the suit including reasonable attorney's fees.

61. As required for an actionable violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), these

allegations assert, for Plaintiffs and all Class members, claims showing:

1) A culpable person;

2) Who conducts the business of, or acquires an “enterprise;”

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 9 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 10

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) Affecting interstate commerce;

4) Through a pattern;

5) Of racketeering activity (the “predicate acts”);

6) Causing injury to Plaintiff’s business or property.

62. Culpable Person. RICO defines a “person” as an “entity capable of

holding a legal or beneficial interest in property.” Here, Johnson is a culpable “person”

within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3) because he is capable of holding a beneficial

interest in property. Indeed, all of the Defendants are culpable “persons” under RICO.

63. Enterprise. RICO defines an enterprise as “any individual, partnership,

corporation, association or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals

associated in fact although not a legal entity.” The enterprise in this case is an

association in fact. That is, the Defendants associated in fact to create a “Johnson

Utilities Enterprise,” which is not a legal entity. The Defendants came together to

create the association-in-fact Johnson Utilities Enterprise for a common purpose of

engaging in a course of conduct. That course of conduct was to unlawfully raise utility

rates in order to enrich the Defendants. Johnson conducted the business of the

enterprise, and in conjunction with the other Defendants operated the enterprise to

charge customers unlawfully inflated prices. The Johnson Utilities Enterprise had an

ongoing organization, either formal or informal. The organization was this: Johnson

and Johnson International paid bribes through Norton to Sherry Pierce and Gary Pierce

who ensured via his position on the ACC that Johnson Utilities could unlawfully charge

customers higher rates. The Defendants comprising the association-in-fact Johnson

Utilities Enterprise functioned as a continuing unit. The unit operated continuously for

10 months, with Johnson and Johnson International sending monthly bribe payments

through Norton to Sherry Pierce and Gary Pierce who ensured via his position on the

ACC that Johnson Utilities could unlawfully charge customers higher rates.

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 10 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 11

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

64. Defendants conducted and participated directly or indirectly in the

conduct of the association-in-fact Johnson Utilities Enterprise through a pattern of

racketeering activity. That is, Defendants used mail fraud and wire fraud to operate the

enterprise and effectuate Johnson’s goal of charging his customers higher prices for

water and wastewater services.

65. Interstate or Foreign Commerce. The interstate commerce requirement

is satisfied if either the activity of the enterprise or the predicate acts of racketeering

affect interstate commerce. Here, both the activities of Johnson Utilities and predicate

acts of racketeering affect interstate commerce. The Johnson Utilities Enterprise affects

interstate commerce by using the interstate mail system to charge and collect unlawfully

inflated prices for water and wastewater services and by using the interstate wire system

to deposit money from water/wastewater customers who paid unlawfully inflated prices.

Additionally, the predicate acts affect interstate commerce because the interstate mail

system was used to send and receive bribery checks, and the interstate wire system was

used to fund and deposit bribery checks.

66. Pattern of Racketeering. RICO defines a “pattern of racketeering” as “at

least two acts of racketeering activity...the last of which occurred within 10 years after

the commission of a prior act of racketeering.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Here, numerous

acts of racketeering activity took place between 2011 and 2013.

67. Racketeering Activity. “Racketeering activity” is defined as any number

of state and federal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). In the instant case,

Defendants engaged in racketeering activity through violations of federal offenses

relating to mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

68. The elements of mail fraud are (1) a plan or scheme to defraud (2) intent

to defraud, (3) reasonable foreseeability that the mails will be used, and (4) actual use of

the mails to further the scheme. In the instant case, Defendants knowingly and with

intent devised a scheme to defraud Johnson Utilities’ customers by bribing Gary Pierce

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 11 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 12

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 exchange for his official action allowing Johnson Utilities to charge unlawfully

higher prices for water and wastewater services. It was reasonably foreseeable that as

part of this scheme, Defendants would use the mails to send bribery checks. Indeed, on

multiple occasions in 2011 and 2012, Defendants placed and caused to be placed in the

mails checks that were sent from Johnson to the Co-Conspirator and then on to Gary

and Sherry Pierce.

69. The elements of wire fraud are (1) a plan or scheme to defraud (2) intent

to defraud, (3) reasonable foreseeability that the wires will be used, and (4) actual use of

the wires to further the scheme. In the instant case, Defendants knowingly and with

intent devised a scheme to defraud Johnson Utilities’ customers by bribing Gary Pierce

in exchange for his official action at the ACC allowing Johnson Utilities to charge

unlawfully higher prices for water and wastewater services. It was reasonably

foreseeable that as part of this scheme, Defendants would use the interstate wires to

settle funds transfers and for email communications. Indeed, on multiple occasions in

2011 and 2012, Defendants used and caused to be used the wires to settle fund transfers

from checks from Johnson to the Co-Conspirator and from the Co-Conspirator to Gary

and Sherry Pierce. Additionally, Sherry Pierce and the Co-Conspirator communicated

via email in furtherance of the scheme to defraud.

70. Moreover, since Plaintiffs and members of the Class paid their bills to

Johnson Utilities, virtually all by checks submitted by mail or ACH or credit card

charge payments, the United States Postal system and the interstate wire systems were

the primary vehicles by which the proceeds of the corruptly increased rate charges were

collected. Each such payment constitutes an event of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) or

wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343).

71. Injury. To establish standing under RICO, a plaintiff must be (1) a

person; (2) who sustains injury (3) to his or her business or property” (4) “by reason” of

defendants’ violation of Section 1962. Here, Plaintiffs are persons under RICO who

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 12 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 13

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

sustained injury to their property by reason of Defendants’ unlawful racketeering. That

is, Plaintiffs and the Class would not have paid extra money for water and wastewater

services but for Defendants’ mail fraud and wire fraud.

72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ racketeering activities and

violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), Plaintiffs and the Class have been actionably injured

in their business and property, and are entitled to recover their damages, and trebled,

plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1964(c).

COUNT II

Arizona Anti-Racketeering Act

Violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2314

73. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in the previous paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

74. More specifically, Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege this Complaint’s

allegations of ¶¶ 55-69, substituting therein the phrase “pattern of illegal activity” for

the phrase “pattern of racketeering activity.”

75. Plaintiffs and each Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of Ariz.

Rev. Stat. § 13-1214.04.

76. The allegations of ¶¶ 55-69, as modified by this Count II, constitute a

pattern of illegal activity by Defendants as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-2301(D)(4),

13-2301(D)(4)(b)(vi) and 13-2301(D)(4)(b)(xx) because it involved at least two “acts

chargeable or indictable” under the laws of the United States, including multiple acts of

bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud which were part of the above-described “bribery” and

“scheme or artifice to defraud” Plaintiffs for Defendants’ personal financial gain.

77. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have sustained reasonably foreseeable

injury to their business or property on account of the foregoing pattern of illegal activity

by the conduct of Defendants alleged herein.

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 13 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 14

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

78. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-23143.04 entitles Plaintiffs to file the instant claim

for relief.

COUNT III

Arizona Consumer Fraud Act

Violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522

79. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in the previous paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

80. At all relevant times, there was in full force and effect the Arizona

Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 441-1521 et.

seq.

81. The Act provides:

The act, use or employment by any person of any deception,

deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false

promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or

omission of any material fact with intent that others rely on such

concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale

or advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has

in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be

an unlawful practice.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522.

82. Defendants made misrepresentations and material omissions, and

concealed and suppressed their unlawful conduct, in connection with Johnson Utilities’

sale of water and wastewater services to Plaintiffs and members of the Class.

83. More specifically, Defendant Johnson did not inform his customers that

the rate increase and his ability to pass on his income-tax liability to customers was

achieved as a result of bribery. Nor did Defendant Gary Pierce inform Johnson Utilities

customers that the rate increase and the tax pass-through he approved were the result of

bribery. Defendants Sherry Pierce and Norton concealed and suppressed their

knowledge that Johnson achieved the rate increase and the tax benefits by bribery.

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 14 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 15

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

84. As a direct and proximate result of Johnson’s and Pierce’s

misrepresentations and material omissions, Plaintiffs and members of the Class

overpaid for water and wastewater services.

COUNT IV

Unjust Enrichment

85. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in the previous paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

86. As described above, Defendant Johnson received benefits in the form of

an unlawful rate increase and tax benefits. Defendants Gary Pierce, Sherry Pierce and

Norton have received benefits in the form of payments from Johnson in return for

enabling the scheme to unlawfully increase water rates and provide tax benefits for

Johnson.

87. Plaintiffs and the Class conferred a benefit upon Defendants by paying

unlawfully inflated bills for water and/or wastewater services.

88. The benefits received by Defendants were received at the expense of

Plaintiffs and members of the Class.

89. Because the scheme perpetrated by Defendants to increase water rates and

offset Johnson’s income taxes was unlawful, it would be unjust to allow Defendants to

retain the benefits conferred upon them by Plaintiffs and the Class.

VII. JURY DEMAND.

90. Plaintiffs and members of the Class request a jury trial.

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

91. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, respectfully

request that this Court:

a) Certify the Class as requested herein, appoint Plaintiffs as Class

Representatives and their selection of counsel as Class Counsel,

and order class-wide relief;

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 15 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 16

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

b) Adjudge and decree that Defendants have engaged in the conduct

alleged herein;

c) Enjoin and restrain Defendants and its officers and agents from

continuing or engaging in similar conduct as alleged herein;

d) Order that Defendants pay restitution to Plaintiffs and the Class

which would restore Plaintiffs and the Class to the financial

position they would have been in absent Defendant’s unlawful

conduct;

e) Order that Defendants pay any statutory damages – including treble

damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964 – as a result of their

unlawful conduct;

f) Order that Defendants pay any compensatory damages as a result

of their unlawful conduct;

g) Order that Defendants pay punitive damages as a result of their

unlawful conduct;

h) Order that Defendants pay interest on the monies wrongfully

obtained from the date of collection through the date of entry of

judgment in this action;

i) Order Defendants to identify victims of its unlawful conduct;

j) Order that Defendants are financially responsible for notifying all

members of the Class of the unlawful conduct set forth herein;

k) Award attorneys’ fees, expenses, and all costs reasonably incurred

in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this

action; and

l) Grant all other such relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 16 of 17
CORE/3503617.0002/136473978.1 17

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED 18th day of December 2017.

STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP

By: /s/ Jeffrey J. Goulder

Jeffrey J. Goulder

Javier Torres

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584

(602) 279-1600

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:17-cv-04688-DLR Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 17 of 17