kuntzman et al. v. wpp group usa, no. 8:16-cv-760 (c.d. cal. apr. 20, 2016)

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

-1-

COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

C. Brooks Cutter, Esq., (SBN 121407) [email protected] John R. Parker, Jr., Esq. (SBN 257761) [email protected] CUTTER LAW P.C. 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 290-9400 Facsimile: (916) 588-9330 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBYN KUNTZMANN; LINDA BUNCH, on behalf of themselves, and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. WPP GROUP USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; THE INTERPUBLIC GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; ALPHONSO, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TAPAD, INC., a Delaware Corporation; ISPOT.TV, INC., a Delaware Corporation; LOTAME SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; XAXIS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TUBEMOGUL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; AUDIENCE XPRESS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; VIZIO HOLDINGS, INC, a Delaware Corporation; VIZIO, INC., a California Corporation; VIZIO INSCAPE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; VIZIO INSCAPE

CLASS ACTION

Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 1. Violations of the Video Privacy

Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710

2. Violations of California’s Consumer Records Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 2798.80

3. Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.

4. Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.

5. Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1799.3

6. Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511

7. Unjust Enrichment

8. Violation of California Customer Records Act, Cal.

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1 Filed 04/20/16 of 26 Page ID #: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

-2-


TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; COGNITIVE MEDIA NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 – 50, inclusive, Defendants.

Civ. Code §§ 1798.80, et seq.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Robyn Kuntzmann and Linda Bunch, by and through their

attorneys, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, upon personal

knowledge as to themselves and their own acts and experiences, and upon

information and belief as to all other matters, complain and allege as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of the minimum

jurisdictional limit of this Court.

2. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. section

1332 (d) of The Class Action Fairness Act because the matter in controversy

exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs and because

Plaintiffs and Defendants are residents of different states.

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391 because

many of the acts and transactions giving rise to this action occurred in this District,

and Defendants (1) are authorized to conduct business in this District and have

intentionally availed themselves of the laws and markets of this District through the

manufacture, distribution and sale of their products in this District; and (2) are

subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.

II. NATURE OF THE ACTION

4. Vizio Holdings Inc. (“Vizio”) was founded in California in 2002, and since

then has become a major marketer of electronics including Smart TVs, or Internet-

connectable televisions.


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-


5. According to Vizio’s S-1/A registration filing, filed with the Security and

Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, their “products are sold in over 8,000

retail stores across the United States.” The company held “the #2 unit share

position in the U.S. smart, high definition television, or HDTV, industry in 2014.”

See

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1648158/000119312515350398/d946612d

s1a.htm

6. Through its broad distribution of Smart TVs, Vizio states that it is “creating a

community of over 10 million VIZIO connected units, or VCUs. A VCU is a

Smart TV that has been connected to the Internet and has transmitted data

collectively by our Inscape data services. Our Inscape data services capture real-

time viewing behavior data from our VCUs and enable us to provide it to

advertisers and media content providers.” See


s1a.htm

7. According to Vizio, approximately 90% of its Smart TV customers made an

initial connection of their Smart TVs to the Internet for the twelve month period

ended September 30, 2015. Vizio’s Discovery and Engagement Software, known

as VIZIO Internet Apps Plus, connects customers “with traditional and streaming

content providers, such as Netflix, Hulu, YouTube and Amazon Instant Video.

Since 2009, users have streamed more than 3.5 billion hours of content through our

discovery and engagement software.” See


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-



s1a.htm

8. The company’s Inscape data services capture this viewing data in real time.

“Inscape provides highly specific viewing behavior data on a massive scale with

great accuracy, which can be used to generate intelligent insights for advertisers and

media content providers….” The company, according to its October 22, 2015, SEC

filing, expects that this will fuel future growth and drive revenue. See


s1a.htm

9. On information and belief, to further realize its goal of monetizing its VCU

television viewers’ habits, Vizio acquired full ownership of Cognitive Media

Networks, Inc., a software provider based in San Francisco, that enables Vizio’s

Inscape data services.

10. On information and belief, Vizio actually knew that data brokers, advertisers,

or other partners would combine user identification information transmitted to it--

including the user’s IP address and other device identification information--with

information held by others to identify persons as having requested or obtained

specific video materials or services.


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-


11. On information and belief, Vizio determines the date, time, channel of

programs, and whether users watch them live or recorded. The viewing patterns are

then connected with a user's IP address - the Internet address that can be used to

identify every device in a home, from the household TVs to mobile phones. Vizio

actually knows that IP addresses can be linked to individuals through data brokers

offering “data enrichment,” combining additional information about persons tied to

particular IP addresses provided by Vizio.

12. On information and belief, Vizio has worked with such data brokers.

13. On information and belief, Vizio falsely states that it encrypts IP addresses

before sharing them; therefore, data brokers whose data includes IP addresses tied

to names can identify the persons and the prerecorded video cassette tapes or

similar audio visual materials watched by those persons merely by having their IP

address or other device IDs.

14. Consumers under this regime of tracking must make extensive efforts to

“opt-out” of this procedure, and it is set as the default in violation of the Video

Privacy Protection Act, which requires an “opt-in” procedure.

15. As its privacy policy concedes, Vizio has begun providing data about

customers’ viewing habits to companies that “may combine this information with

other information about devices associated with that IP address.” Vizio actually

knows that such data can identify persons by name.

16. On information and belief, the companies Vizio has partnered with to

collect, synthesize, sell and otherwise disclose customers’ data include WPP Group

USA, Inc.; The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.; Alphonso, Inc.; Tapad, Inc.;

iSpot.tv, Inc.; Lotame Solutions, Inc.; Xaxis, Inc.; TubeMogul, Inc.; and Audience

Xpress LLC (collectively “Data Partners”).

17. WPP Group USA, Inc. is the U.S. branch of WPP PLC, the world’s largest

communications services group. Through its numerous operating companies, WPP

provides a “comprehensive range of advertising and marketing services.” See


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-


http://wpp.com/wpp/about/.

18. The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. is an organization of advertising

agencies and marketing service companies. It is a “global provider of marketing

solutions” that specializes in “consumer advertising, digital marketing,

communications planning and media buying, public relations and specialty

marketing.” See https://www.interpublic.com/about/overview.

19. Alphonso, Inc. is an advertising technology company that works to enable its

clients to “capture TV audience data and monetize their audience better.” See

http://alphonso.tv/#advertisers.

20. Tapad, Inc. is a marketing technology firm that “offers the largest in-market

opportunity for marketers to address the ever-evolving reality of media

consumption on smartphones, tablets, home computers and smart TVs.” See

http://www.tapad.com/about-us/who-we-are/. According to its website, “Tapad has

the ability to connect a user who views an ad on TV with all of their digital

devices.” Its technology takes its clients’ “audience segment IDs and fills in all of

the associated devices.”

21. iSpot.tv, Inc. is a marketing technology company that provides social

marketing tools and analytics. On its website, iSpot.tv urges its clients to “[s]ee

your customers in a way you’ve never bene able to before, bringing an

unprecedented measurement capability to TV advertising.” See www.ispot.tv.


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-


22. Lotame Solutions, Inc. is a marketing technology company that operates one

of the world’s largest third-party data networks. According to its website, it

“collects and analyzes rich data signals flowing from [its] partner's 12MM Smart

TVs across the US” and then applies its technology “to match with mobile devices,

tablets, laptops and desktops, which are linked 1:1.” See

http://resources.lotame.com/smart-tv-audiences. Lotame further suggests that its

clients can “mix and match that data” with their own “first-party data or other third-

party data.”

23. Xaxis, Inc. is a digital advertising company that delivers targeted digital

media products that allow advertisers to reach and understand their audiences.

Xaxis collects information when Internet users view and interact with certain

websites. This information includes “the type of Internet browser, browser

language, and operating system you use, your device’s Internet protocol (‘IP’)

address, unique identifiers available at or pertaining to your device, connection type

(wired or Wi-Fi), region where your device is located, network to which your

device is connected, longitude/latitude of a (mobile) device, mobile carrier (if

available), the Site and page you came from before, and visited after, viewing an

advertisement, and information related to the Site and page you are viewing (i.e., in

order to ascertain your interests). Devices include computers, mobile phones,

tablets, e-readers, or other digital devices capable of maintaining an Internet

connection.” See https://www.xaxis.com/static/view/privacy-policy-en.

24. TubeMogul, Inc. is a digital advertising company. According to its website,

TubeMogul’s “cross-channel advertising software allows you to run global,

sophisticated brand campaigns using 1st and 3rd party data across premium

inventory on all devices, formats and channels.” See

https://www.tubemogul.com/tubemogul-software/.

25. Audience Xpress LLC is an advertising technology firm. According to its


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-


website, Audience Xpress “optimizes media buying based on the efficiency of

reaching a specific audience, using connected TV and leading 3rd party data and

analytics.” See http://www.audiencexpress.com/about/.

26. The Data Partners collaborate and partner with Vizio to track, receive,

exchange and/or repackage the personally identifiable information of Vizio

customers.

27. On information and belief, Vizio may share hashed or masked IDs in a way

that permits matching the users to information in other data sets, so that data

brokers, and specifically the Data Partners, can associate a device’s viewing

information with the personally-identifying information that the broker already

holds, therefore revealing the viewing habits of persons identified by the broker.

28. On information and belief, Vizio actually knows such data can and in many

instances will be recombined to identify persons, indeed Vizio knows it raises the

value of the data. Accordingly, Vizio actually knew that it was disclosing: 1) a

user’s identity; 2) the identity of the video material; and 3) the connection between

the two—that the given user had “requested or obtained” the given video material.

In its October 22, 2015 filing for an initial public offering, Vizio touted its ability to

provide “highly specific viewing behavior data on a massive scale with great

accuracy.”

29. The Data Partners are recipients of this personally identifiable information

and in some cases resell this information to their own, third-party clients.

III. PARTIES

30. Defendant Vizio Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation. Its principal

executive offices are located at 39 Tesla, Irvine, California.

31. Defendant Vizio, Inc., is a California corporation. Its principal executive

offices are located at 39 Tesla, Irvine, California.

32. Defendant Vizio Inscape Services, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability

Company. On information and belief, its principal executive offices are located at


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-


39 Tesla, Irvine, California.

33. Defendant Vizio Inscape Technologies, LLC, is a Delaware Limited

Liability Company. On information and belief, its principal executive offices are

located at 39 Tesla, Irvine, California.

34. Defendant Cognitive Media Networks, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation

registered to do business in the State of California. Its principal executive offices

are located at 39 Tesla, Irvine, California.

35. Vizio Holdings, Inc.; Vizio, Inc.; Vizio Inscape Services, LLC; Vizio

Inscape Technologies, LLC; and Cognitive Media Networks, Inc. are referred to

collectively throughout this Complaint as “Vizio.”

36. Defendant WPP Group USA, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do

business in the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at 100

Park Ave., New York, New York.

37. Defendant The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. is a Delaware

Corporation registered to do business in the State of California. Its principal

executive offices are located at 909 Third Ave., New York, New York.

38. Defendant Alphonso, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do

business in the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at 735

Industrial Rd., San Carlos, California.

39. Defendant Tapad, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do business in

the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at 60 Madison

Ave., New York, New York.

40. Defendant iSpot.tv, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation. Its principal executive

offices are located at 15831 NE 8th St., Bellevue, Washington.

41. Defendant Lotame Solutions, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do

business in the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at

8850 Stanford Blvd., Columbia, Maryland.

42. Defendant Xaxis, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do business in


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-


the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at 100 Park Ave.,

New York, New York.

43. Defendant TubeMogul, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do

business in the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at

1250 53rd St., Emeryville, California.

44. Defendant Audience Xpress LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company.

On information and belief, its principal executive offices are located at 460 West

34th St., New York, New York.

45. The true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50 are unknown to

Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of these

Defendants are in some way liable for the events referred to in this complaint and

caused damage to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint and insert the

correct names and capacities of those defendants when they are discovered.

46. At all times mentioned, each of the Defendants – including Does 1 through

50 – was the representative, agent, employee, joint venture, or alter ego of each of

the other defendants and in doing the things alleged herein was acting within the

scope of its authority as such. Each Defendant is referred to collectively throughout

this Complaint as “Defendants.”

47. Plaintiff Robyn Kuntzmann is a resident of Multnomah County, Oregon.

She purchased a Vizio Smart TV model E502AR at a Costco store in Oregon in

December 2013.

48. Plaintiff Linda Bunch is a resident of Atlantic County, New Jersey. She

purchased a Vizio Smart TV model E40-C2 at a Best Buy in Mays Landing, New

Jersey in September 2015.

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

49. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action on their own behalf and on

behalf of all other persons similarly situated as members of the proposed Class,

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1), and (b)(3). This action


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-


satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and

superiority requirements of those provisions.

50. The proposed Class is defined as:

All persons or entities who purchased one or more Vizio Smart

Televisions within the United States, in United States territories, and

U.S. service people and citizens who have purchased a Vizio Smart

Television(s) and who viewed content broadcast over the Internet on

the Vizio Smart TV(s) from the four years before the first complaint in

this matter is filed through the time of trial.

51. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their affiliates, employees, agents

and attorneys, and the Court.

52. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class definitions if discovery and

further investigation reveal that any Class should be expanded, divided into

additional subclasses, or modified in any other way.

a. Numerosity and Ascertainability of the Class

53. The exact number of Class Members is presently unknown. However, the

size of the Class can be estimated with reasonable precision. Based upon the

Vizio’s representations in its SEC-1/A filing that their “products are sold in over

8,000 retail stores throughout the United States and that they held the “#2 unit share

position in the US smart, high definition television, or HDTV, industry in 2014”

and seek to create “a community of over 10 million VIZIO connected units, or

VCUs,” it is reasonable to presume that the members of the Class are so numerous

that joinder of all members is impracticable.

54. The disposition of the claims of these Class Members in a single action will

provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court.

b. Typicality

55. The claims of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the

Class because, Plaintiffs, like all Class Members, purchased one or more Vizio


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-


Smart TVs, connected them to the Internet as intended, and used the TV(s) for their

own personal use. Plaintiffs, like all Class Members, have been damaged by

Defendants’ conduct because they have had their private, identifiable viewing

habits and information obtained by Defendants, used by them, and distributed to

third parties, including the Defendant Data Partners without Plaintiffs’ knowledge

or consent. Further, the factual bases of Defendants’ misconduct are common to all

Class Members and represent a common thread of misconduct resulting in injury to

all Class Members.

c. Adequate Representation

56. Plaintiffs are members of the Class and will fairly and adequately represent

and protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel with

substantial experience in prosecuting consumer class actions, including actions

involving false advertising.

57. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this

action on behalf of the Class and have the financial resources to do so. Neither

Plaintiffs nor their counsel have interests adverse to those of the Class.

d. Commonality

58. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and

Class Members that predominate over any question affecting only individual Class

Members. The answers to these common questions will advance resolution of the

litigation as to all Class Members. These common legal and factual issues include:

a. whether the Defendants gathered, stored and transmitted the private

information about their Vizio Smart TV customers to third parties,

including the Data Partners;

b. whether Defendants knew or should have known that the private

customer information and viewing habits of Vizio’s Smart TV

customers could be easily combined with the Internet IP address of

each customer or personally did so;


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-


c. whether Defendants failed to take the steps necessary to ensure that

the private, identifiable information of Vizio’s individual customers

was not disclosed to third parties, including the Data Partners and

their clients;

d. whether Defendants made material misrepresentations regarding

the collection, storage, distribution, disclosure and utilization of

Vizio’s Smart TV customers’ personal, identifiable information;

e. whether Defendants had a duty to disclose the true nature of their

data collection and dissemination practices to Plaintiffs and Class

Members;

f. whether Defendants omitted and failed to disclose material facts

about their data collection and dissemination;

g. whether Defendants’ concealment of the true nature of the data

collection, dissemination and utilization induced a reasonable

consumer to act to their detriment by purchasing one or more Vizio

Smart TVs; and

h. whether the Data Partners received and/or further disclosed the

personally identifiable information of consumers in partnership

with Vizio; and

i. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to injunctive and

equitable relief.

e. Superiority

59. Plaintiffs and Class Members have all suffered and will continue to suffer

harm and damages as a result of Defendants’ unlawful and wrongful conduct. A

class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy.

60. Absent a class action, most Class Members would likely find the cost of

litigating their claims prohibitively high and would therefore have no effective


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-


remedy at law. Because of the relatively small size of the individual Class

Members’ claims, it is likely that only a few Class Members could afford to seek

legal redress for Defendants’ misconduct. Absent a class action, Class Members

will continue to incur damages and Defendants’ misconduct will continue without

remedy.

61. Class action treatment of common questions of law and fact would also be a

superior method to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that class

treatment will conserve the resources of the courts and the litigants, and will

promote consistency and efficiency of adjudication.

62. Defendants have acted in a uniform manner with respect to the Plaintiffs and

Class Members.

63. Class-wide declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief is appropriate

because Defendants have acted on grounds that apply generally to the Class, and

inconsistent adjudications with respect to Defendants’ liability would establish

incompatible standards and substantially impair or impede the ability of Class

Members to protect their interests. Class-wide relief assures fair, consistent, and

equitable treatment and protection of all Class Members, and uniformity and

consistency in Defendants’ duties to perform corrective action regarding the Vizio

Smart TVs and the disclosure of consumers’ information.

V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)

64. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

65. Vizio qualifies now and has qualified in the past as a “video tape service

provider” under the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), because Vizio is

“engaged in the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of rental,

sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual

materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(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

-15-


66. Each of the Defendant Data Partners also qualify as video tape service

providers under the VPPA because each is also “engaged in the business, in or

affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded

video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(4).

67. The VPPA mandates, among other things, that a video tape service provider

“shall destroy personally identifiable information as soon as practicable, but no

later than on the date the information is no longer necessary for the purpose for

which it was collected.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(e).

68. Defendants have violated 18 U.S.C. § 2710(e) because they failed to destroy

the personally identifiable information of Vizio’s customers as soon as practicable

from the date the information was no longer necessary for the purpose for which it

was collected.

69. The VPPA also requires Defendants to keep their customers’ personally

identifiable information confidential. 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1). “Personally

identifiable information” cannot be disclosed to “any person without the informed,

written consent of the consumer given at the time the disclosure is sought.” 18

U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(B).

70. As owners and users of the Vizio Smart T.V., Plaintiffs’ personally

identifiable information was disclosed for marketing and advertising purposes

without their informed, written consent by Defendants to third parties, including

Defendant Data Partners.

71. As a result of Defendants’ conduct described herein and their violation of §

2710, Plaintiffs and the Class have been aggrieved and suffered injuries. Plaintiffs,

on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class, seek an order enjoining Defendants’

conduct described herein and awarding themselves and the Class the maximum

statutory and punitive damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c), an award of

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, as well as such

other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.


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-


VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of California’s Customer Records Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.80



73. The California Customer Records Act mandates, among other things, that a

business take all reasonable steps to destroy or arrange for the destruction of a

customer’s records within its custody or control, which contain personal

information that is no longer to be retained by the business. Cal. Civ. Code §

1798.81.

74. A business may destroy customer records by erasing the information, or

modifying the personal information in those records to make it unreadable or

undecipherable through any means. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81(b), (c).

75. Defendants have violated Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81 by failing to erase or

otherwise destroy their users’ personal information or making their customers’

personal information unreadable or undecipherable.

76. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.84, Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on

behalf of the Class, seek an order enjoining Defendants’ conduct described herein,

an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, as

well as such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§

17200, et seq.



78. California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 27

§§ 17200, et seq., protects both consumers and competitors by promoting fair

competition in commercial markets for goods and services.

79. The UCL prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or


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-


practice. A business practice need only meet one of three criteria to be considered

unfair competition. An unlawful business practice is anything that can properly be

called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.

80. Defendants have violated the fraudulent prong of the UCL in that it failed to

inform Plaintiffs and the Class that it would indefinitely retain and sell their

personally identifiable information and programming viewing histories.

81. Defendants have violated the unfair prong of the UCL in that it continues to

profit from selling Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s personally identifiable information to

third parties, including Defendant Data Partners, without obtaining their consent, in

that it is violating the public policies set forth in the VPPA, California Customer

Records Act, and the CLRA, as set forth in this Complaint, and in that the utility of

the Defendants’ conduct is outweighed by the gravity of the harm to Plaintiffs and

the class. Defendant Data Partners have received and benefited from this unfairly

collected data in violation of the unfair prong of the UCL.

82. Defendants have violated the unlawful prong of the UCL in that their

conduct violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, (18 U.S.C. §§ 2710, et seq.),

and the California Customer Records Act, (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.80), and the

CLRA as set forth in this Complaint.

83. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, Plaintiffs, on their own behalf

and on behalf of the Class, seek an order enjoining Defendants from continuing to

engage in the unfair and unlawful conduct described herein, an award of attorneys’

fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, as well as such other and

further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.

(On behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)


85. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies


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-


Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”)

86. The CLRA has adopted a comprehensive statutory scheme prohibiting

various deceptive practices in connection with the conduct of a business providing

goods, property, or services to consumers primarily for personal, family, or

household purposes. The self-declared purposes of the Act are to protect

consumers against unfair and deceptive practices and to provide efficient and

economical procedures to secure such protection.

87. Each Defendant is a “person” as defined by Civil Code Section 1761(c),

because each Defendant is a corporation as set forth above.

88. Plaintiffs and Class Members are “consumers,” within the meaning of Civil

Code Section 1761(d), because they are individuals who purchased one or more

Vizio Smart TVs for personal and/or household use.

89. Defendants’ Vizio Smart TVs are “goods” within the meaning of California

Civil Code Section 1761(a), in that they are tangible products bought by Plaintiffs

and Class Members for personal, family, and/or household use.

90. Defendants’ sale of their products to wholesalers and retailers throughout

California constitutes “transaction[s]” which were intended to result or which

result[ed] in the sale” of goods to consumers within the meaning of Civil Code

Sections 1761(e) and 1770(a).

91. Plaintiffs have standing to pursue this claim as they have suffered injury in

fact and have lost money as a result of Defendants’ actions as set forth herein.

Specifically, Plaintiffs purchased Vizio Smart TVs. Had Plaintiffs known that

these Smart TVs would be used by Defendants to collect, sell, and otherwise share

information about them, including their viewing habits, their other Internet

connected devices, and other personal information with third parties in a manner

that enabled disclosure of their identities, in violation of privacy laws, they would

not have purchased the Vizio Smart TVs.

92. Section 1770(a)(5) of the CRLA prohibits anyone from “[r]epresenting that


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-


goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, use,

benefits, or quantities which they do not have….” Defendants represented that their

Smart TVs were for the personal enjoyment of televised entertainment by their

customers, when, in fact the Smart TVs were a means whereby Defendants could

extract and sell personal information for profit in violation of privacy laws.

93. Section 1770(a)(9) of the CLRA prohibits anyone from ‘[a]dvertising goods

or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.” Defendants are multi-million

dollar companies advised by skilled counsel who, on information and belief, are or

by the exercise of reasonable care should be aware of the governing regulations and

their purpose, and the necessity to exercise reasonable care to ensure compliance

with governing regulations and their purpose. By introducing Vizio Smart TVs and

the implanted technology into the stream of commerce as products to be used for

the personal, private viewing enjoyment of their customers, and then extracting and

selling their personal viewing and other information to third parties for profit

notwithstanding this knowledge, Defendants thus intentionally sold misbranded

products.

94. Plaintiffs have attached hereto the declaration of venue required by Civil

Code Section 1780(d).

95. Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the acts and practices described above, and

awarding all available damages, restitution of property, punitive damages, and

attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with the provisions of the CLRA.

IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1799.3



97. California Civil Code § 1799.3(a) provides that “No person providing video

recording sales or rental services shall disclose any personal information or the

contents of any record, including sales or rental information, which is prepared or


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-


maintained by that person, to any person, other than the individual who is the

subject of the record, without the written consent of that individual.”

98. Defendants are each a “person providing video recording sales or rental

services” because through the technology in the Vizio Smart TVs they provide the

sale and rental of videos to consumers.

99. Defendants have disclosed and continue to disclose Plaintiffs’ personal

information and the contents of records prepared or maintained by them to third

parties, including Defendant Data Partners and other data brokers and advertisers.

100. Defendant Data Partners purchased, used, and/or resold and continue

to use and resell such personal information in willful violation of § 1799.3.

101. At all times Defendants have acted willfully. And, no exemption

provided by § 1799.3 (b) applies.

102. Defendants have not obtained Plaintiffs’ or any member of the Class’s

consent to allow them to collect their personal information and viewing records, nor

to sell or disclose their personal information and viewing records to third parties.

103. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful disclosures, Plaintiffs and the

Class have had their statutorily defined rights to privacy violated. Plaintiffs seek an

injunction prohibiting Defendants from collecting, selling and otherwise disclosing

their and the Class’s personal information in the future, as well as the maximum

statutory and punitive damages available under § 1799.3(c)(1).

X. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511


104. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

105. Defendants, either directly or by aiding, abetting, or conspiring to do

so, have intentionally intercepted or procured to be intercepted Plaintiffs’ and Class

Members’ electronic communications without Plaintiffs’ or Class Members’


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-


knowledge, authorization, or consent in violation of the Electronic Communications

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511.

106. Defendants, either directly or by aiding, abetting or conspiring to do

so, have also intentionally used or procured to be used a device to intercept the

above-referenced electronic communications.

107. Defendants conspired to intercept the content of the programs viewed

by Plaintiffs and Class Members on their Smart TVs, as alleged herein.

108. Through the provision, loading, and enabling of software and other

technology on Smart TVs, collection of communications, and provision of services

to permit the illegal interception of electronic communications as alleged herein,

Defendants, one or all of them, set out on a course of conduct with the intention of

intercepting communications of Plaintiffs and Class Members.

109. An “electronic communication” is defined in § 2510(12) as any

transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature

transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or

photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce. This definition

includes television programming.

110. Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) by intentionally

intercepting, endeavoring to intercept, or procuring another person to intercept or

endeavor to intercept Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ electronic communications.

111. Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c) by intentionally collecting,

transmitting, storing and disclosing, or endeavoring to disclose, to any other person,

the contents of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ electronic communications, knowing

or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the

interception of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ electronic communications.

112. Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(d) by intentionally using or

endeavoring to use the contents of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ electronic

communications, knowing or having reason to know that the information was


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-


obtained through the interception of Plaintiffs’ or Class Members’ electronic

communications.

113. Neither Plaintiff nor Class Members authorized nor consented to

Defendants’ interception of electronic communications.

114. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2520

provides for a private cause of action and allows for declaratory and equitable relief

as appropriate, damages, disgorgement of profits, and statutory damages of the

greater of $10,000.00 or $100.00 per day for each day of violation, actual and

punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

115. Plaintiffs and the Class seek all relief afforded by these provisions as a

result of Defendants’ violations.

XI. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unjust Enrichment



herein.

117. A measurable benefit has been conferred on Defendants under such

circumstances that Defendants’ retention of the benefit without payment to

Plaintiffs and Class Members would be unjust.

118. The benefit is the secret taking of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’

private information and capitalizing on it by using it and/or selling it to third parties

for Defendants’ monetary gain.

119. The benefit is measurable because Defendants systematically, through

carefully designed computer programs and calculations, commoditized and

packaged Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ private information and used it and/or

sold it to third parties.

120. Defendants retained both the private information and profits from its

sale.


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-


121. Defendants’ retention of the benefits would be unjust because this

information was private and personal, it contained personally identifiable

information, and Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have voluntarily provided

that information for free, as Vizio has admitted.

XII. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of California Customer Records Act,

Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.80, et seq.



herein.

123. California Civil Code § 1798.81 (the “Customer Records Act”)

provides that “[a] business shall take all reasonable steps to dispose, or arrange for

the disposal, of customer records within its custody or control containing personal

information when the records are no longer to be retained by the business by (a)

shredding, (b) erasing, or (c) otherwise modifying the personal information in those

records to make it unreadable or undecipherable through any means.”

124. By knowingly and willfully obtaining and/or disclosing and continuing

to disclose Plaintiffs’ and the Class’ personal information and viewing history and

habits to third parties, Defendants have failed to take any steps to dispose, or

arrange for the disposal, of customer records within their custody and control

containing personal information of Plaintiffs and members of the Class, in violation

of California’s Customer Records Act.

125. California Civil Code § 1798.81.5 requires a business that “discloses

personal information about a California resident pursuant to a contract with a

nonaffiliated third party that is not subject to [the security requirements of §

1798.81.5(b)] shall require by contract that the third party implement and maintain

reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the


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-


information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized access,

destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.” Defendants have failed to

contractually require third party buyers of this personal information and other data

based on this information to so implement and maintain security procedures and

practices in violation of the Customer Records Act.

126. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions and conduct, Plaintiffs and

Class Members’ statutory rights to privacy have been violated. Plaintiffs and the

Class seek an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing to engage in the

unlawful conduct alleged herein, as well as actual damages, punitive damages, civil

penalties, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under Cal. Civil Code § 1798.84(g),

and all other appropriate relief.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated request

the Court to enter judgment against Defendants as follows:

A. An order certifying the proposed Class, designating Plaintiffs as the

named representatives of the Class, and designating the undersigned as

Class Counsel;

B. A declaration that Defendants are financially responsible for notifying

Class members about the true nature of Vizio Smart TVs;

C. An order enjoining Defendants to desist from further deceptive

distribution, marketing and sales of non-compliant Vizio Smart TVs;

D. An award to Plaintiffs and Class Members of compensatory, exemplary,

punitive and statutory penalties and damages, including interest, in an

amount to be proven at trial;

E. An award to Plaintiffs and Class Members for the return of the purchase

prices of the Vizio Smart TVs, with interest from the time it was paid for

the reimbursement of the reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale, for


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-


damages and for reasonable attorneys’ fees;

F. A declaration that Defendants must disgorge, for the benefit of Plaintiffs

and Class Members all or part of the ill-gotten profits received from the

use and sale of their personally identifiable information to third parties,

and make full restitution to Plaintiffs and Class Members;

G. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs as allowed by law;

H. An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by

law;

I. Leave to amend this Complaint to conform to the evidence produced at

trial; and

J. Such other relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances.

DATED: April 20, 2016 CUTTER LAW, P.C.

/s/ John R. Parker, Jr. By: _______________________ C. BROOKS CUTTER JOHN R. PARKER, JR. Attorneys for Plaintiffs


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-


DECLARATION OF JOHN R. PARKER, JR.

PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 1780(d)

I, John R. Parker, Jr., declare as follows:

1. I submit this declaration pursuant to section 1780(d) of the California

Consumers Legal Remedies Act. I have personal knowledge of the matters set

forth below and if called as a witness could and would be competent to testify

thereto.

2. Venue is proper in this Court because (1) Vizio’s principal place of

business is located in this District; (2) many of the acts and transactions giving rise

to this action occurred in this District, (3) Defendants are authorized to conduct

business in this District and have intentionally availed themselves of the laws and

markets of this District through the manufacture, distribution and sale of their

products in this District and/or the purchase and use of personal information within

this District; and (4) Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.

3. Plaintiff Robyn Kuntzmann is a resident of Multnomah County,

Oregon, and Plaintiff Linda Bunch is a resident of Atlantic County, New Jersey.

4. Defendants Vizio Holdings, Inc., Vizio, Inc., Vizio Inscape Services,

LLC, Vizio Inscape Technologies, LLC, and Cognitive Media Networks Inc.,

maintain their principal executive offices at 39 Tesla, Irvine, California.

5. This action is commenced in the United States District Court for the

Central District of California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California

and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

was executed on April 20, 2016, in Sacramento, California.

/s/ John R. Parker, Jr. John R. Parker, Jr.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL COVER SHEET

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS ( Check box if you are representing yourself DEFENDANTS (

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are representing yourself, provide the same information.

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)

1. U.S. Government Plaintiff

3. Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

2. U.S. Government Defendant

4. Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES-For Diversity Cases Only(Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant)

Citizen of This State

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

Citizen of Another State

PTF DEF1 1

3

2

3

Incorporated or Principal Place of Business in this StateIncorporated and Principal Place of Business in Another State

Foreign Nation

DEFPTF4 4

5 5

66

2

IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.) 1. Original Proceeding

2. Removed from State Court

3. Remanded from Appellate Court

4. Reinstated or Reopened

6. Multi- District Litigation

V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: Yes No (Check "Yes" only if demanded in complaint.)

CLASS ACTION under F.R.Cv.P. 23: No MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: YesVI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)

VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only).CONTRACT

TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY

PRISONER PETITIONS

LABOR

REAL PROPERTY

IMMIGRATION

BANKRUPTCY

CIVIL RIGHTS

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PROPERTY RIGHTS

SOCIAL SECURITY

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

375 False Claims Act

400 State Reapportionment410 Antitrust

430 Banks and Banking

490 Cable/Sat TV480 Consumer Credit

460 Deportation

896 Arbitration

895 Freedom of Info. Act

893 Environmental Matters

891 Agricultural Acts

899 Admin. Procedures Act/Review of Appeal of Agency Decision

450 Commerce/ICC Rates/Etc.

470 Racketeer Influ- enced & Corrupt Org.

850 Securities/Com- modities/Exchange

890 Other Statutory Actions

110 Insurance

120 Marine

130 Miller Act

140 Negotiable Instrument150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment

151 Medicare Act

152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loan (Excl. Vet.)

153 Recovery of Overpayment of Vet. Benefits

160 Stockholders' Suits

190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability196 Franchise

210 Land Condemnation220 Foreclosure

230 Rent Lease & Ejectment

REAL PROPERTY CONT.240 Torts to Land

245 Tort Product Liability290 All Other Real Property

310 Airplane315 Airplane Product Liability320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Fed. Employers' Liability

340 Marine345 Marine Product Liability

350 Motor Vehicle355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability360 Other Personal Injury362 Personal Injury-Med Malpratice365 Personal Injury-Product Liability367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability

950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

462 Naturalization Application

465 Other Immigration Actions

370 Other Fraud

371 Truth in Lending

380 Other Personal Property Damage

385 Property Damage Product Liability

422 Appeal 28 USC 158423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157

441 Voting

442 Employment443 Housing/Accommodations445 American with Disabilities-Employment446 American with Disabilities-Other

440 Other Civil Rights

448 Education

510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 530 General535 Death Penalty

540 Mandamus/Other

550 Civil Rights555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement

625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881690 Other

710 Fair Labor Standards Act720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations

740 Railway Labor Act

751 Family and Medical Leave Act790 Other Labor Litigation791 Employee Ret. Inc. Security Act

820 Copyrights

830 Patent

840 Trademark

861 HIA (1395ff)

862 Black Lung (923)

863 DIWC/DIWW (405 (g))

864 SSID Title XVI

865 RSI (405 (g))

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant)871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:

Habeas Corpus:

463 Alien Detainee

Other:

)

5. Transferred from Another District (Specify)

OTHER STATUTES

TORTS

PERSONAL PROPERTY

Check box if you are representing yourself

Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are representing yourself, provide the same information.

)

$

Page 1 of 3CV-71 (02/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

Case Number:

376 Qui Tam (31 USC 3729(a))

John R. Parker, Jr. CUTTER LAW P.C. 401 Watt Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95864 / 916.290.9400

WPP GROUP USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; et al.ROBYN KUNTZMANN and LINDA BUNCH

CA CA

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1-1 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:27

VIII. VENUE: Your answers to the questions below will determine the division of the Court to which this case will be initially assigned. This initial assignment is subject to change, in accordance with the Court's General Orders, upon review by the Court of your Complaint or Notice of Removal.

QUESTION A: Was this case removed

from state court? If "no, " skip to Question B. If "yes," check the box to the right that applies, enter the corresponding division in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

NoYes

STATE CASE WAS PENDING IN THE COUNTY OF: INITIAL DIVISION IN CACD IS:

Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo

Orange

Riverside or San Bernardino

Western

Southern

Eastern

QUESTION B: Is the United States, or

one of its agencies or employees, a

PLAINTIFF in this action? If "no, " skip to Question C. If "yes," answer Question B.1, at right.

NoYes NO. Continue to Question B.2.

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division. Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

Page 2 of 3CV-71 (02/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET


CIVIL COVER SHEET

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division. Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

A.

Orange County

B.

Riverside or San Bernardino County

Indicate the location(s) in which 50% or more of plaintiffs who reside in this district reside. (Check up to two boxes, or leave blank if none of these choices apply.)

Indicate the location(s) in which 50% or more of defendants who reside in this district reside. (Check up to two boxes, or leave blank if none of these choices apply.)

D.1. Is there at least one answer in Column A? D.2. Is there at least one answer in Column B?

If "yes," your case will initially be assigned to the

SOUTHERN DIVISION.

Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

If "no," go to question D2 to the right.

QUESTION E: Initial Division?

Enter the initial division determined by Question A, B, C, or D above:

INITIAL DIVISION IN CACD

QUESTION D: Location of plaintiffs and defendants?

If "yes," your case will initially be assigned to the

EASTERN DIVISION.

Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below.

If "no," your case will be assigned to the WESTERN DIVISION.

Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below.

Yes No Yes No

NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division. Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

QUESTION C: Is the United States, or

one of its agencies or employees, a

DEFENDANT in this action? If "no, " skip to Question D. If "yes," answer Question C.1, at right.

Yes No

B.1. Do 50% or more of the defendants who reside in the district reside in Orange Co.?

check one of the boxes to the right

B.2. Do 50% or more of the defendants who reside in the district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino Counties? (Consider the two counties together.) check one of the boxes to the right

C.1. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the district reside in Orange Co.?

check one of the boxes to the right

C.2. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino Counties? (Consider the two counties together.) check one of the boxes to the right

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division. Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

NO. Continue to Question C.2.

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division. Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division. Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

C.

Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo County

QUESTION F: Northern Counties?

Do 50% or more of plaintiffs or defendants in this district reside in Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo counties? Yes No

Southern Division


IX(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court?

NO YES

IX(b). RELATED CASES: Is this case related (as defined below) to any civil or criminal case(s) previously filed in this court?

NO YES

Civil cases are related when they (check all that apply):

Notice to Counsel/Parties: The submission of this Civil Cover Sheet is required by Local Rule 3-1. This Form CV-71 and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. For more detailed instructions, see separate instruction sheet (CV-071A).

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:

861 HIA

862 BL

863 DIWW

863 DIWC

864 SSID

865 RSI

Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action

All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b))

All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C. 923)

All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as amended.

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

If yes, list case number(s):

If yes, list case number(s):

DATE:X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY

(OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT):

CV-71 (02/16) Page 3 of 3CIVIL COVER SHEET


CIVIL COVER SHEET

A. Arise from the same or a closely related transaction, happening, or event;

B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or

C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.

Note: That cases may involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright is not, in itself, sufficient to deem cases related.

A. Arise from the same or a closely related transaction, happening, or event;

B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or

A civil forfeiture case and a criminal case are related when they (check all that apply):

C. Involve one or more defendants from the criminal case in common and would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.

8:15-01860; 8:15-01984; 8:15-02090; 8:15-02151; 8:15-02166; 8:16-00156

04/20/2016/s/ John R. Parker, Jr.


AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the

__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if youare the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Central District of California

ROBYN KUNTZMANN; LINDA BUNCH, on behalf ofthemselves, and a class of similarly situated persons,

WPP GROUP USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation;SEE ATTACHMENT


AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00


CV-30 (05/13) NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ATTORNEY(S) OR OF PARTY APPEARING IN PRO PER

ATTORNEY(S) FOR:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff(s),v.

Defendant(s)

CASE NUMBER:

CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

(Local Rule 7.1-1)

TO: THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD:

The undersigned, counsel of record for or party appearing in pro per, certifies that the following listed party (or parties) may have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made to enable the Court to evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.

PARTY CONNECTION / INTEREST

(List the names of all such parties and identify their connection and interest. Use additional sheet if necessary.)

Date Signature

Attorney of record for (or name of party appearing in pro per):

C. Brooks Cutter, (SBN 121407) John R. Parker, Jr. (SBN 257761) CUTTER LAW P.C. 401 Watt Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95864 Tel: 916.290.900 - Fax 916.588.9330

Plaintiffs

ROBYN KUNTZMANN and LINDA BUNCH, et al.

WPP GROUP USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; et al.

Plaintiffs ROBYN KUNTZMANN and LINDA BUNCH

ROBYN KUNTZMANN LINDA BUNCH

Plaintiff Plaintiff

4.20.16

Plaintiffs ROBYN KUNTZMANN and LINDA BUNCH

/s/ John R. Parker, Jr.


kuntzman et al. v. wpp group usa, no. 8:16-cv-760 (c.d. cal. apr. 20, 2016)

Documents