Source: https://www.prisonphonejustice.org/2014/NJ/James-V-GTL-Complaint-NJ/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:13:21+00:00

Document:
WALDER, HAYDEN & BROGAN, P.A.
SKLADANY, MILAN SKLADANY, and DR.
minimum payments of $25, $50 or $100.
right and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated.
giving rise to the claims asserted herein took place in this judicial District.
was, a citizen of the State of New Jersey and resides in Newark, New Jersey.
of the State of New Jersey and resides in East Orange, New Jersey.
was, a citizen of the State of New York, residing in New York, New York.
and then thereafter in the New Jersey State Prison at Yardville, New Jersey.
Slovak Republic where he is a citizen.
corporation with it principal place of business located in Mobile, Alabama.
with its principal place of business in Mobile, Alabama.
telecommunications services to inmates in the State of New Jersey’s correctional facilities.
provider for New Jersey inmates to GTL in 2002.
other persons outside certain New Jersey state and county prison and detainee facilities.
to have a monopoly over phone services at certain State prisons and detainee facilities.
by those county prisons and detainee facilities.
receives $4.42 million per year as its percentage of revenue pursuant to its contract with GTL.
calls placed from New Jersey detention facilities would be in tens of millions of dollars per year.
facilities such as Essex, Hudson, Monmouth and Bergen Counties among others.
facilities to communicate by telephone with family members, friends and other persons.
what other providers of prepaid calling services are charging in the marketplace.
exorbitant rates for international calls.
called person is informed they must set up an account with Defendants in order to accept the call.
the Defendants’ 800 number provided at the prison facility to customers.
account for the customer or called person using a credit or debit card provided by the customer.
future and charges for all calls are deducted from the called persons’ account.
available until they have an account number.
and conditions applicable to their account.
addition to the call rates per minute.
Defendants charge upwards of $1.75 per call as a connection or transaction fee.
established that they will be charged this additional service fee to close the account.
a monthly inactivity fee will be charged against their account for any months when it is not used.
GTL in order to continue to communicate with him.
calling time. The remainder of the $25 deposit is eaten up by fees and charges.
of 2010 when her significant other was incarcerated in the Essex County Jail in New Jersey.
get a refund of the balance in her account.
month when her account was not used.
follow the scripted automated system when she first set up her account.
as a customer through Defendants automated phone system.
and her brother calls her regularly.
Mrs. King normally deposits either $25 or $50 into the Defendants account.
Defendants have never provided Mrs. King with any statement of her account.
which are imposed on her for using the prepaid service.
from prison to his parents, lawyers, relatives and friends.
remaining in her old account.
depleted in order to continue to receive telephone calls from Mark.
Milan Skladany with written statements of their accounts identifying charges and rates.
in the Mercer County Correctional Facility, Lambertville, New Jersey.
to receive telephone calls from a person incarcerated in New Jersey.
Class as set forth above.
Commonality and Predominance – Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3).
Common questions of law and fact exist as to the class members, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.
the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).
have been damaged thereby in the same manner.
adequately represent and protect the interests of the class members as required by F.R.Civ.P.
and experienced in handling class action litigation on behalf of consumers.
this litigation that will preclude its maintenance as a class action.
paragraphs 1 through 72 as though fully set forth herein.
consumers with a nexus to New Jersey, i.e.¸ telephone calls placed from New Jersey.
Plaintiffs and each Class Member are “consumers” within the meaning of CFA.
Defendants comes within the definition of “services” set forth in CFA.
violation of the CFA by charging excessive, undisclosed fees and charges as described above.
the fees and charges are imposed.
as Plaintiffs and other Class Members.
supplement to the enforcement and prosecutions of other practices unlawful under the CFA.
and forfeiture policies to customers who received a collect call for the first time from an inmate.
sale, as required by the N.J.S.A. § 56:8-176(a)(3) and applicable regulations.
account as required by N.J.S.A. § 56:8-176(a)(3).
calls inviting customers to purchase the right to receive calls and open an account.
disclose the amounts of any set-up, closure or forfeiture fees as required by the N.J.S.A. § 56:8176(a)(3).
pursuant to N.J.A.C. § 13:45A-8.3.
in this regulation for accounts without a specific expiration date.
paragraphs 1 through 100, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
product or service rendered by it within this state.
or otherwise in violation of law.
discriminatory and preferential in violation of N.J.S.A. §§ 48-3.1 and 48:3.2.
Defendants have not filed rates with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
paragraphs 1 through 108, as though fully set forth herein.
incur other charges which provide no commensurate benefit to them.
facilities and are not subject to any competitive pressures of the market.
paragraphs l through 116, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
Communications Act (“FCA”), 47 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.
practices to their customers violates CFR § 64.2401 and, therefore, violates §201(b) of the FCA.
Defendants have not filed its rates with the Federal Communication Commission.
paragraphs 1 through 122, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
with the State of New Jersey and various New Jersey Counties.
Defendants as a result of the contract which shall be paid to the contracting governmental entity.
range from 40% in the case of the State of New Jersey to 60.5% in the case of Bergen County.
qualified bidder who will pay the highest revenue to the governmental entity.
Defendants act under color of law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
services for inmates housed in the respective detention facilities.
purchase substitute phone service elsewhere at a significantly lower costs.
portion of the revenues generated by the charges imposed by Defendants.
per-minute charges for telephone calls.
Plaintiffs and other Class Members have a property interest in their money.
just compensation because those charges are grossly in excess of any benefit provided.
virtue of State action with the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983.
and other Class Members have been damaged.
paragraphs 1 through 139, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
rights and duties with respect to Defendant’s practices.
Plaintiffs request jury trial on all issues so triable.

References: § 56
 § 56
 § 56
 § 13
 § 201
 § 64
 §201
 § 1983
 §1983