Opinion ID: 78558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: July 2006LG VI-5225 Phone

Text: On July 5, 2006, Plaintiff activated a LG model VI-5225 mobile phone for use on his first phone line (XXX-XXX-XXXX). The telephone box for the LG VI-5225 phone contained a copy of Sprint's Terms and Conditions as an independent document, as opposed to contained in the phone's user's guide. [6] Plaintiff continued to use his one account (No. XXXXXXXXXX-X) with two phone lines until July 10, 2006. As of July 10, 2006, Plaintiff's second phone line (then with the number XXX-XXX-XXXX) became inactive. Thus, as of July 10, 2006, Plaintiff had what he started with in 2001: one phone line with the same phone number (XXX-XXX-XXXX) and the same account number (XXXXXXXXXX-X). In summary, the record shows that during 2001-2006, Plaintiff moved this first phone line between three different phones: a Samsung SCH-8500 from August 2, 2001 to February 24, 2003; a Samsung SPH-A460 from February 24, 2003 to July 5, 2006; and a LG VI-5225 from July 5, 2006 to January 20, 2008. Plaintiff also had a second phone line with a Samsung PM-A740 phone from July 2005 to July 2006. Each time he acquired a new phone, Sprint provided Plaintiff with a copy of its Terms and Conditions in effect at that time, and it appears Plaintiff's monthly invoices consistently informed Plaintiff that Sprint's current Terms and Conditions always were available on Sprint's website. And he was given a copy of the Terms and Conditions containing the class action waiver in both 2005 and 2006 when he acquired new phones.