Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

RICHARD L. WATTERS,

*

*

Plaintiff,

*

*

vs.

*

Case No. 1:10-cv-111

*

AT&T, CORP., ILD CORP., d/b/a ILD

*

TELESERVICES, INC. and CONTACT

*

MESSAGE SYSTEMS, LLC.

*

*

Defendants.

*

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, RICHARD L. WATTERS ("Plaintiff") and for his complaint

against AT&T, Corp. (“AT&T”), ILD Corp. d/b/a ILD Teleservices, Inc. (“ILD”) and Contact

Message Systems, LLC (“CMS”) states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for actual damages, statutory damages, and attorney fees for

violation of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; actual damages, statutory damages,

and attorney fees for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1961 et seq.; damages under Alabama tort law for breach of contract, negligence, wantonness,

fraud, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is a bonafide resident citizen of Mobile County, Alabama.

3. Defendant, AT&T is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware

with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas which at all times material herein was doing

business in Mobile County, Alabama.

4.

Defendant, ILD, is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located

at 5000 Sawgrass Village Circle, Suite 30, Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32092. At all times material

herein ILD was doing business in Mobile County, Alabama.

6. Defendant, CMS is foreign Limited Liability Company with its principal place of

business located at 5000 Sawgrass Village Circle, Suite 30, Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32092. At all

times material herein ILD was doing business in Mobile County, Alabama.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 207; 18 USC § 1964; and 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On or about May through June of 2008 Plaintiff was contacted by telephone by an

agent of CMS offering a telephone maintenance service to Plaintiff which would be billed to his

telephone bill with AT&T. CMS represented to Plaintiff that he would only be charged for the

services if he authorized it. Plaintiff refused the service but requested that CMS provide him written

materials concerning the services that it was offering and he would review the written materials.

9. CMS never sent Plaintiff any written materials as to the services that it was offering.

10. In February, 2010 Plaintiff’s bookkeeper inquired of Plaintiff as to a charge being

made to his telephone bill in the sum of $52.95 per month. Said charge was being made to Plaintiff’s

telephone bill by ILD who was making the charges to said bill on behalf of CMS. Plaintiff had been

charged this amount every month on his AT&T telephone bill from July 2008 through the present

and continues to be charged for said services.

11. Plaintiff never ordered any such telephone maintenance services with the Defendant

CMS and never authorized any of the Defendants to charge his telephone bill for such services.

Plaintiff has never used the telephone maintenance services provided by CMS and has no idea what

services are provided by said Defendant.

12. In February, 2010 Plaintiff contacted Defendants and objected to the charge being

made on his telephone bill. Defendant, CMS, misrepresented to Plaintiff that he had authorized said

charge and that the billing was correct. Said misrepresentations were made to induce the Plaintiff

into paying the monthly charges.

COUNT ONE

VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT

12. Plaintiff realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

13. Defendants have engaged in illegal “cramming” by the addition to Plaintiff’s

telephone bill charges for services offered by CMS which charges were never ordered nor authorized

by Plaintiff.

14. AT&T has a duty to ensure that all charges and practices for and in connection with

its communications services as provided to Plaintiff are just and reasonable. 47 USC § 201(b). As

Plaintiff never ordered nor authorized the charges made to his telephone bill by Defendants, ILD and

CMS, said charges are not just and reasonable and therefore are unlawful. 47 USC § 201(b).

15. The actions of Defendants as aforesaid have caused Plaintiff actual damages in that

he has had to pay the sum of $52.95 per month for a period of twenty months and continues to have

to make said payments or suffer termination of his telephone services.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for compensatory damages,

attorney fees and costs of this action.

COUNT TWO

VIOLATION OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT

16. Plaintiff realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

17. Each use of the United States Mail in connection with collecting the charges made

by Defendants to each of Plaintiff’s monthly telephone bills from July, 2008 through the present

constitutes an act of mail fraud in violation of 18 USC § 1341.

18. The misrepresentations made by CMS to Plaintiff in the telephone call of February,

2010 constitutes an act of wire fraud in violation of 18 USC § 1343.

19. Defendants devised and/or participated in a scheme or artifice to defraud the Plaintiff

out of money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises,

all in violation of 18 USC §§ 1341 and 1343.

20. The above described operations is an enterprise. This enterprise was and is conducted

by Defendant, CMS, in conjunction with and aided and abetted by Defendants, AT&T and ILD. This

enterprise is operated by Defendants through a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning

of 18 USC § 1961(1)(b). This pattern of racketeering activity includes numerous acts of connected,

related and continuing mail and wire fraud.

21. Each use of the United States Mails by the Defendants in furtherance of their

enterprise as hereinabove described constitutes a separate act of mail fraud which is related to the

conduct of the enterprise. Such acts of mail fraud are conducted in an ongoing pattern.

22. The Defendants and their agents, associates and fellow enterprises, have conducted

and conspired to conduct the enterprise as hereinabove described through a pattern of racketeering

activity in violation of 18 USC § 1962©) and (d). The acts of wire fraud and mail fraud as set forth

in this Complaint constitute a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 USC § 1962

et seq.

22. Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants actions as aforesaid by having to pay

the unauthorized charges for approximately 20 months.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for actual damages, treble

damages, punitive damages and the cost of this action, together with expenses of litigation, including

reasonable attorney’s fees as provided by 18 USC § 1964.

COUNT THREE

BREACH OF CONTRACT

23. Plaintiff realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

24. There was a valid contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, AT&T, in which AT&T

had an obligation to provide telephone services to Plaintiff and Plaintiff had an obligation to pay for

those services.

25. Plaintiff has paid and continues to pay all monthly charges billed by AT&T and

otherwise substantially performed all of his obligations under his contract with AT&T.

26. AT&T has breached its contract with Plaintiff by collecting fees for services offered

by Defendants, CMS and ILD, even though Plaintiff never authorized nor used said services.

27. As a proximate result of AT&T’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has been damaged by

by having to pay the unauthorized charges for approximately 20 months.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, AT&T for compensatory

damages and the costs of this action.

COUNT FOUR

NEGLIGENCE

28. Plaintiff realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

29. Defendants had a statutory duty to charge Plaintiff only lawful charges on his

telephone bill. The charges made by CMS and ILD in the amount of $52.95 per month were not

lawful charges. Defendants negligently breached its duty to Plaintiff by causing him to have to pay

for such unlawful charges.

30. As a proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has been damaged by by

having to pay the unauthorized charges for approximately 20 months.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages

and the costs of this action.

COUNT FIVE

WANTONNESS

28. Plaintiff realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

29. Defendants had a statutory duty to charge Plaintiff only lawful charges on his

telephone bill. The charges made by CMS and ILD in the amount of $52.95 per month were not

lawful charges. Defendants wantonly breached its duty to Plaintiff by causing him to have to pay for

such unlawful charges.

30. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wanton conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged by

by having to pay the unauthorized charges for approximately 20 months.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory, punitive

damages and the costs of this action.

COUNT SIX

FRAUD

31. Plaintiff realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

32. The representation to Plaintiff by the Defendant, CMS, that Plaintiff would only be

charged if he authorized the services to be billed to his account was false. Said representation was

made to Plaintiff with the intent to deceive Plaintiff and induce him not to closely scrutinize his

telephone bill for unlawful charges.

The representation to Plaintiff by the Defendant, CMS, that

Plaintiff had actually authorized the services 20 months prior to the contact by Plaintiff was false.

Said representation was made to Plaintiff with the intent to deceive Plaintiff and induce him not to

contest the unlawful charges. In the alternative the Defendant made said misrepresentations

recklessly without knowledge as to the truthfulness of said representation or the Defendant made said

misrepresentations innocently or by mistake with the intent that the Plaintiff would rely on said

misrepresentation.

33. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the said misrepresentations by not closely scrutinizing

his telephone bill for unlawful charges.

34. As a proximate result of CMS’s fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged by

by having to pay the unauthorized charges for approximately 20 months.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, CMS

for compensatory

damages, punitive damages and the costs of this action.

COUNT SEVEN

CONSPIRACY

35. Plaintiff realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

36. The Defendants conspired with each other to collect unlawful charges from Plaintiff

by billing him through his telephone bill for charges for services that he never ordered, authorized

or used.

37. As a proximate result of said conspiracy, Plaintiff has been damaged by by having

to pay the unauthorized charges for approximately 20 months.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, CMS

for compensatory

damages, punitive damages and the costs of this action.

COUNT EIGHTH

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

38. Plaintiff realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

39. Plaintiff never used the services provided by CMS.

40. Plaintiff has made all payments for said services from July 2008 until the present.

41. Defendants have ben unjustly enriched to the detriment of the Plaintiff.

42. It is unfair and unjust for Defendants to retain the money that they received from

Plaintiff for services that Plaintiff never ordered, authorized or used.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages

and the costs of this action.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY

/s/ Frank L. Thiemonge

FRANK L. THIEMONGE, III Attorney for Plaintiff 808 Downtowner Blvd., Suite H Mobile, AL 36609

/s/ Richard L. Watters

RICHARD L. WATTERS (WATTR5713) Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL Richard L. Watters (WATTR5713) WATTERS & ASSOCIATES, P. C. P. O. Box 87 Mobile, AL 36601 (251) 433-3753 (251) 432-7888 (facsimile) e-mail:rlwatrs@bellsouth.net

Please serve Defendants by Certified Mail at :

AT&T Corp.

c/o The Corporation Company, Reg. Agent

2000 Interstate Park Drive, Ste. 204

Montgomery, AL 36109

ILD Corp., d/b/a ILD Teleservices, Inc.

C/o India Vincent, Reg. Agent BURR & FORMAN, LLP

420 North 20

Birmingham, AL

th

Street, Ste 3400

Contact Message Systems, LLC

5000 Sawgrass Village Circle, Suite 30

Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32092.