united states district court for the district of … · 2013. 12. 19. · united states district...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., etal.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Onity Inc.,
Defendant.
Court File No.: 13-cv-1499(SRN/FLN)
CONSOLIDATED CLASSACTION COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc.; Regency Hotel Management,
LLC; Motiram Corporation d/b/a Days Inn, Forest, MS; Kishor Desai; Saibaba
International, LLC; Baba International, LLC, Sai Nath Krupa Investments, Inc.; C&R
Associates, Inc.; and Sai Ram of Pensacola, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP; Hausfeld LLP; and Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP; for this
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against Onity Inc. (“Onity” or “Defendant”), state
upon information and belief, except as to their own actions, the investigation of their
counsel, and the facts that are a matter of public record, as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a putative class action on behalf of individuals seeking
compensatory damages, restitution, and disgorgement of all profits gained by Onity from
the manufacture and sale of locks that it designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold. As
described in greater detail below, certain model Onity locks currently suffer from critical
defects that allow the locks to be readily opened by homemade devices made from
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 1 of 42
![Page 2: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
commercially available items. The locks are ineffective and unfit to perform the basic
security function for which they were designed and warranted. Plaintiffs’ locks all have
the manifested defect and have either been replaced (at Plaintiffs’ expense) or must be
replaced.
2. Onity is a manufacturer of electronic door locks. The purpose of an Onity
lock is to securely lock a room and thereby protect the occupants and their possessions.
However, Onity Locks, including those produced under the HT and ADVANCE product
lines with the names “HT 28 Smart Lock,” “HT24 Lock,” “HT RFID,” “ADVANCE
RFID,” and “ADVANCE Lock,” (collectively referred to herein as the “Onity Lock(s)”
or “Lock(s)”), are inherently defective because the Onity Locks fail to fulfill the devices’
specific purpose: to securely lock rooms.
3. Onity expressly warranted that it would “fix” or “replace with a new one”
any Onity Lock that failed for “any reason.” Defendant also warranted and represented
that the Onity Locks possessed the “most reliable technology” available in the industry
today. Additionally, the Onity Locks had an implied warranty of being fit for the
ordinary purpose of locking doors and preventing unauthorized entries into rooms.
4. Contrary to Onity’s warranties and representations, however, the Onity
Locks are defective and not fit for their ordinary purpose. In fact, industry experts have
described the process of bypassing the locks’ card reader and triggering the locks’
opening mechanism as “stupidly simple.” As has been demonstrated repeatedly,
including for public view across the Internet, the Onity Locks can be easily opened via
the Locks’ DC port with a simple opening device, which can be built with off-the-shelf
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 2 of 42
![Page 3: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
parts using instructions readily available on the internet. No sophistication is required to
either build this “skeleton key” or to open doors with it. This defect has completely
compromised the Onity Locks and rendered each Lock useless and incapable of
performing its ordinary purpose.
5. In contrast to its warranties and representations, and only in response to
consumer and public outcry about the defective Locks, Defendant has only offered two
completely unsatisfactory options to Onity Lock owners that fail to “fix” or “replace” the
actual locks.
6. The first option is a temporary “mechanical cap” that temporarily blocks
access to the DC Port and that is neither practical nor capable of solving the Locks’
fundamental flaws. This temporary “cap” does not actually fix the defect, can be
removed, and creates further problems by blocking immediate emergency access to a
lodging room where the cap is employed.
7. The second option is to replace and upgrade the Onity Lock’s circuit board
at the Lock owners’ expense in violation of the terms of Onity’s warranties.
8. Neither of the proposed options provides an adequate remedy to Plaintiffs
and the Class, because either the Onity Locks remain defective (if the mechanical cap is
deployed) or the owner is required to assume Onity’s financial responsibility for
providing a properly functioning lock.
9. Each of the Onity Locks possesses the same design defect at the time of
manufacture and sale, continuing to the present time unless fixed at a purchaser’s own
expense. The Locks’ inherently defective nature has caused and will continue to cause
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 3 of 42
![Page 4: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Plaintiffs and the Class financial harm as they now have locks that must be repaired or
replaced at their own expense (if they have not already done so).
10. Because of the inherent defect, millions of Onity Locks can now be opened
without a keycard and therefore failed to meet their essential purpose.
11. As alleged more fully herein, Defendant has breached its express and
implied warranties, violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and has been unjustly
enriched through its sales of the defective Onity Locks.
12. Plaintiffs and the Class seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief,
equitable relief, costs and expenses of litigation including attorneys’ fees, and all further
relief available at law and equity.
PARTIES
13. Plaintiff U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc. (“U.S. Hotel”) is a South
Dakota corporation located at 3211 West Sencore Drive, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. U.S.
Hotel owns and operates numerous hotels around the country, including in the State of
Minnesota. To ensure safety and security, U.S. Hotel purchased and installed thousands
of Onity Locks for installation in its lodging properties in Minnesota, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, and
Wyoming. All of these locks were at all times defective due to their ability to be easily
bypassed as described herein.
14. Plaintiff Regency Hotel Management, LLC (“RHM”) is a South Dakota
entity located at 3211 West Sencore Drive, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. RHM is a hotel
management company and is the agent for U.S. Hotel and other owners of lodging
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 4 of 42
![Page 5: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
properties. RHM contracted with Defendant to purchase and install thousands of Onity
Locks in numerous hotel properties in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa,
Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, and Wyoming. All of
these locks were at all times defective due to their ability to be easily bypassed, and
therefore they failed as to their ordinary purpose, as described herein.
15. Plaintiffs U.S. Hotel and RMH contracted with Onity for, purchased from
Onity, and/or installed at least 3,955 Onity Locks for 26 lodging properties. The
overwhelming majority of these properties (23 of 26 properties) purchased and installed
Onity Locks that were defectively designed as described herein.
16. Plaintiffs U.S. Hotel and RMH’s purchases of Onity Locks are reflected in
the following chart:
LockModel
Hotel City State # Locks
HT24 Grand Lake Lodge Grand Lake CO 78
HT24 Club House Inn Topeka KS 127
HT24 Marina Inn Sioux City NE 209
HT24 Best Western Ramkota Bismarck ND 336
HT24 Radisson Hotel Bismarck ND 235
Advance Club House Inn Pierre SD 108
HT24 Best Western Ramkota Aberdeen SD 210
HT24 Blue Bell Lodge Custer State Park SD 29
HT24 Legion Lake Lodge Custer State Park SD 25
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 5 of 42
![Page 6: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
LockModel
Hotel City State # Locks
Advance Lodge at Deadwood Deadwood SD 220
HT24 State Game Lodge Custer State Park SD 110
HT24 Club House Inn Sioux Falls SD 134
HT24 Rock Crest Lodge Custer State Park SD 36
HT24 Best Western Ramkota Pierre SD 128
HT24 Sylvan Lake Lodge Custer State Park SD 67
HT24 Best Western Ramkota Sioux Falls SD 211
HT24 Best Western Ramkota Watertown SD 102
HT24 Club House Inn Chicago IL 141
HT24 Bridges Bay Resort Okoboji IA 105
HT24 Arrowwood Resort Okoboji IA 150
HT24 Park Place Hotel Traverse City MI 145
Advance Best Western Plus Bloomington MN 235
HT24 Hilton Garden Inn Mankato MN 152
HT24 Crowne Plaza Plymouth MN 277
HT24 Club House Inn Albuquerque NM 151
HT24 Best Western Casper WY 234
Total 3,955
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 6 of 42
![Page 7: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
17. Plaintiff Motiram Corporation (“Motiram”) is a Mississippi corporation
with its principal place of business at 1280 Highway 35 South, Forest, Mississippi.
Motiram is the sole owner and operator of a Days Inn Hotel located in Forest,
Mississippi. On behalf of this hotel, Motiram purchased and installed Onity Locks,
specifically, the HT24 model. All of these Locks were at all times defective due to their
ability to be easily bypassed, and therefore they failed as to their ordinary purpose, as
described herein.
18. Plaintiff Kishor Desai (“Desai”), a principal at S&K Management, Inc.,
owns the Express Inn, a hotel located at 5836 Monticello Drive, Montgomery, Alabama
36117. The Express Inn is independently owned and is not part of a franchise. At the
time Plaintiff Desai purchased the Express Inn, Onity Locks were already installed on all
of the guest rooms in the hotel. All of these Locks were at all times defective due to their
ability to be easily bypassed, and therefore they failed as to their ordinary purpose, as
described herein.
19. Plaintiff Saibaba International, LLC (“Saibaba Int’l”) is an Alabama
domestic Limited Liability Company that operates Best Western Inn located at 801
Bradberry Lane, Clanton, Alabama 35046. Saibaba Int’l purchased Onity Locks and had
the locks installed in the Best Western Inn, Clanton, Alabama. All of these Locks were at
all times defective due to their ability to be easily bypassed, and therefore they failed as
to their ordinary purpose, as described herein.
20. Plaintiff Baba International, LLC (“Baba Int’l”) is an Alabama domestic
Limited Liability Company that operates The Best Western located at 56 Cahaba Road,
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 7 of 42
![Page 8: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Greenville, Alabama 36037. Baba Int’l purchased Onity Locks and had the locks
installed in the Best Western Inn, Greenville, Alabama. All of these Locks were at all
times defective due to their ability to be easily bypassed, and therefore they failed as to
their ordinary purpose, as described herein.
21. Plaintiff Sai Nath Krupa Investments, Inc. (“Krupa Investments”) is the
owner and operator of a Holiday Inn Express located at 307 North New Warrington
Road, Pensacola, Florida 32506. Plaintiff Krupa Investments purchased Onity Locks and
had the locks installed by Defendant in all of the rooms in Krupa Investments’ hotel. All
of these Locks were at all times defective due to their ability to be easily bypassed, and
therefore they failed as to their ordinary purpose, as described herein.
22. Plaintiff C&R Associates, Inc. (“C&R”) is the owner and operator of an
Executive Inn located at 6954 Pensacola Blvd., Pensacola, Florida 32505. Plaintiff C&R
purchased Onity Locks and had the locks installed by Defendant in all of the rooms in
Plaintiff C&R’s hotel. All of these Locks were at all times defective due to their ability
to be easily bypassed, and therefore they failed as to their ordinary purpose, as described
herein.
23. Plaintiff Sai Ram of Pensacola, Inc. (“Ram”) is the owner and operator of a
Best Western located at 2390 W. Detroit Blvd., Pensacola, Florida 32533. Plaintiff Ram
purchased Onity Locks and had the Locks installed by Defendant in all of the rooms in
Plaintiff Ram’s hotel. All of these Locks were at all times defective due to their ability to
be easily bypassed, and therefore they failed as to their ordinary purpose, as described
herein.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 8 of 42
![Page 9: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
24. Defendant Onity (formerly TESA Security Systems) was founded in 1941
as a lock manufacturer. Onity is a large manufacturer and supplier of electronic locks,
including the Onity Locks Plaintiffs and the Class purchased or otherwise acquired.
Defendant Onity is incorporated in the state of Delaware and has its principal place of
business at 2232 Northmont Parkway Suite 100, Duluth, Georgia, 30096. Onity has
R&D and manufacturing operations in Spain, Mexico, China, and the U.S., as well as an
extensive sales and service network that spans more than 115 countries around the globe.
Onity claims on its website that “with over 4 million electronic locks installed worldwide,
Onity electronic locking systems are found at over 22,000 properties in 115 countries.”
25. At all times relevant hereto, Onity was in the business of designing,
manufacturing, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, warrantying, and selling
Onity Locks and other products throughout the United States, including in the State of
Minnesota.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).
Jurisdiction is proper because: (a) the amount in controversy in this class action exceeds
five million dollars, exclusive of interest and costs; and (b) there is diversity of
citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendant.
27. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
Onity has sufficient minimum contacts with this District. Jurisdiction is appropriate as
Onity intentionally avails itself of the market in this District through its marketing and
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 9 of 42
![Page 10: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
sales of the products throughout the United States and into the State of Minnesota and/or
by having such other contacts with Minnesota so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction
over it in this District consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.
28. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because Class members reside
in this District, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred in this District, and because the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Moreover, Defendant has distributed, advertised, and sold the products that are the
subject of the present complaint in this District. Defendant has further consented to
venue in this District by litigating the present allegations in this District and by
stipulating to consolidation of all nationwide actions in this District.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
29. The sole purpose of the Onity Locks is to securely lock rooms and thereby
protect the occupants and their possessions. As a manufacturer of security locks that
were intended to prevent unauthorized entry on the doors to which they were affixed,
Defendant could foresee that Plaintiffs would intend for the Locks to perform for this
purpose.
Onity’s Representations and Warranties
30. Onity represents that it has “set the standard” for locking devices with
installations of more than 3.7 million locks worldwide since 1984.
31. Onity represents that it provides the finest quality in its products. Onity
proclaims on its website: “Our products meet International standards, and are designed
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 10 of 42
![Page 11: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
and built to uncompromising quality approval. From research and development to after-
the-sale support, we cover all the stages of providing electronic solutions, to guarantee
the finest quality in all our products and services.”
32. Onity represents itself as the world’s leader in the electronic lock industry
providing the most advanced and reliable technology in the field. For example, on its
website, Onity states that it is “the world’s leading provider of electronic locks.” Onity
also states on its website that it “combines innovative technology and dependable
service” to provide “the most advanced locking solutions in the industry today.” Onity
further claims that it provides “game-changing products and superior technology.”
33. In its product brochure, Onity states that its electronic locking products
have “the most reliable technology” and the company provides “the most advanced
electronic locking systems in the industry today.”
34. Onity purports to guarantee repair or replacement of all of its product parts
for any reason.
35. In the “Our Service Commitment” section on its website, Onity states: “No
one does this better than Onity! If any Onity product fails to work for any reason, send it
to us. We'll either fix the problem or replace it with a new one.” There are no limitations
on this warranty.
36. In its product brochure, Onity makes a similar warranty. It states: “Onity
provides solutions tailor made to each Hotel’s individual needs, including: Guaranteed
replacement and repair of system components.”
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 11 of 42
![Page 12: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
37. Contrary to the actual performance of the defective Locks, Onity’s product
brochure states that its Locks have “the most reliable technology.” Despite these express
representations of being the “most advanced” and the “most reliable” product in the
industry today, Onity Locks lack even basic security features and can be opened easily by
unauthorized persons due to their defective nature.
38. The defective locks at issue in this action are Onity’s HT and ADVANCE
lines.
39. Onity’s website describes its HT RFID (Radio Frequency Identification),
ADVANCE RFID, ADVANCE, HT24, and HT28 Locks as follows:
a) HT RFID - “Based on Onity’s flagship product, the HT lock, HT RFIDutilizes contact-less RFID technology.”
b) ADVANCE RFID - “ADVANCE RFID is the newest generation ofADVANCE, utilizing contact-less RFID access technology.”
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 12 of 42
![Page 13: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
c) ADVANCE Lock - “ADVANCE is a revolutionary locking solution thatis destined to change the way you look at security, design & technology.”
d) HT28 Smart Lock - “The HT28 Smart system improves the security,productivity and management of your property through the use of smartcard technology.”
e.) HT24 Lock - “Crafted for any property size, this Windows® basedsolution helps your staff perform at optimum efficiency.”
The Onity Locks’ Defect
40. Onity Locks are supposed to open only when an encoded key is inserted to
gain access to a secured space.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 13 of 42
![Page 14: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
41. Onity Lock systems are comprised of three main parts. An “encoder” is a
device that encodes a key with a code key value compatible with a specific Onity Lock.
A “portable programmer” is a device that programs the locks with code key values,
master code key values, time tables, and other information. And the “lock” is the actual
lock installed on every door.
42. The portable programmer connects to the lock via a small DC power dock
located on the bottom of the lock. The dock is easily accessible without physically
removing any hardware on the lock. Once inserted, the portable programmer and the
lock communicate by sending pulses at regular intervals.
43. Every lock’s memory contains data that is used to communicate with the
portable programmer, including the hotel’s sitecode. A sitecode is a 32-bit unique value
that identifies and gives access to the hotel room.
44. In contrast to the industry standard and true “reliable technology,” the
Onity Locks require no authentication for reading memory. Thus, any device that
emulates the same pulses as a portable programmer can direct the lock to send data
contained in its memory and consequently command the physical lock to open.
45. Normally, a manufacturer can alleviate the problem of a lock’s memory
being readily accessible by changing the location of the memory sitecode. However,
each Onity Lock has its sitecode data at the exact same location, which allows
unauthorized, unsophisticated persons to easily uncover the sitecode once connected to
the lock with a simple “homemade” programmer. The programmer “reads” the data
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 14 of 42
![Page 15: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
stored in the lock and executes an open command with the sitecode, which causes the
lock to open.
46. Because of their inherent flaws, the Onity Locks’ memory is entirely
exposed to whatever device attempts to read it through the DC port. Each Onity Lock
has a cryptographic key that is required to trigger its “open” mechanism, but that data is
also stored in the Lock’s memory and can be immediately accessed and used to open a
door within a fraction of a second. This is a serious defect that renders the Onity Locks
incapable of performing their most basic function, namely, keeping unauthorized persons
from accessing a locked door.
47. On July 24, 2012, Cody Brocious (“Brocious”), a software engineer for
Mozilla, revealed the Onity Locks’ security flaw at the Black Hat security conference in
Las Vegas, Nevada. There, Brocious demonstrated that Onity Locks could be opened
utilizing a homemade opening device, created with readily available and store-bought
parts, to read the sitecode of an Onity Lock’s memory and open the lock.
48. This homemade opening device needed about 200 milliseconds to read an
Onity Lock’s memory and open a guestroom door. According to Brocious, the methods
used to breach the security of Onity Locks were “stupidly simple” and “an intern at the
NSA could find this in five minutes.”
49. Following his demonstration at the Black Hat conference, Brocious posted
the detailed schematics for the opening device on his internet blog. Since then, others
have been able to replicate and refine the device, and have posted videos on YouTube
explaining the method in detail. Current improvements allow an opening device to be
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 15 of 42
![Page 16: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
disguised as a dry erase marker, iPhone cover, or an aluminum wallet, which makes it
almost undetectable for most hotels and their security.
50. Forbes first reported Brocious’s lock opening method on July 23, 2012, the
day before the Black Hat conference. Shortly thereafter, other news outlets broadcast the
report including CBS, BBC, and MSNBC and the story spread rapidly across the
newswires and the Internet.
51. ABC News tested the security breach on television. On October 22, 2012,
an ABC news reporter and a security consulting firm employee visited a Holiday Inn
Express and Hilton Garden Inn where Onity Locks were installed. They were able to
gain access to hotel rooms within seconds using the device.
52. According to Forbes, Richard Kindel, a 32-year old call center employee,
who was able to assemble his own device using Brocious’s method, commented on how
easy it was to make the device: “The parts list was super simple, so I went to Radio
Shack and put it together.”
53. In the same article, another person, going by the name Mr_Q on the
Internet, claimed that he was able to assemble a similar device using readily available
parts for less than $41. Mr_Q told Forbes that the device worked on the first try on five
doors at a local hotel. Mr_Q also said that he was worried that the rapid and broad spread
of information regarding this method would “allow almost anyone to make one of these
devices and start opening doors.”
54. According to a Hotel Online article written by Todd Seiders from Petra
Risk Solutions, burglaries and thefts involving of the opening devices have been reported
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 16 of 42
![Page 17: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
in Texas. Similar instances of attempted burglaries that might have been linked to the
devices were also reported in Florida. Seiders concluded the article by emphasizing the
need to train and notify the hotel staffs that the burglaries relating to use of the devices
are “spreading across the country.”
55. A Google search of “Onity locks” yields further information about the ease
and prevalence of illegally accessing these Locks, including to commit crimes at will.
See, e.g., http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/15/hotel-lock-hack-still-
being-used-in-burglaries-months-after-lock-firms-fix/.
Onity’s Inadequate “Solutions” to the Defective Onity Locks
56. Following Brocious’s public demonstration and further reports of the
defective nature of Onity’s Locks, Onity told the BBC in a statement that “Onity places
the highest priority on the safety and security provided by its products and works
everyday to develop and supply the latest security technologies to the marketplace,” and
that “Onity is prepared to address any potential issues posed by the presentation.” Onity
also posted a statement on its website stating that the demonstrated lock opening method
is “unreliable” and “complex to implement.” Onity then removed this posting and
replaced it with contact information for concerned customers.
57. In August 2012, Onity issued a statement in response to the public
revelation that all of its locks had failed because they could not prevent unauthorized
entry:
Onity places the highest priority on the safety and security provided by itsproducts. We will continue to support and augment our customers’ securitystrategies.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 17 of 42
![Page 18: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Immediately following a hacker’s public presentation of illegal methods ofbreaking into hotel rooms, Onity engineers developed both mechanical andtechnical solutions, which have been tested and validated by twoindependent security firms. These solutions began shipping to customersworldwide in August 2012.
As of February 2013, Onity has shipped over four million solutions forlocks to hotel properties.
We continue to work to ensure all hotel properties in our database receivethe mechanical solution. These mechanical caps and security screws blockphysical access to the lock ports that hackers use to illegally break intohotel rooms. The mechanical solution remains free of charge to customers.
Technical solutions vary depending on the age, model and deployment oflocks at properties. Customers can call Onity’s dedicated customerassistance line at 1-800-924-1442. Our specialists are available to helpanswer questions related to the mechanical and technical solutions.
http://en.onity.com/support/Pages/Onity-Statement.aspx (last accessed November 8,
2013).
58. Thus, Onity’s official “good will” program in response to the public
revelation of the security defect consisted of two options: a mechanical caps that did not
fix the defect, and a permanent solution. The mechanical caps involved issuing caps that
attempted to block the DC data port. The permanent solution was a new circuit board
that would actually fix the defect. Each of these proposed solutions were inadequate and
violate the express and implied warranties applicable to the Onity Locks.
59. The mechanical cap will diminish the value of the lock and cause undue
burden and expense to Plaintiffs. The lock would have to be disassembled every time
one needed to use the docket for ordinary purposes, including for emergency access to a
guestroom. Indeed, the mechanical cap itself could be removed by anyone who wished to
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 18 of 42
![Page 19: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
do so. Therefore the mechanical does not “fix” the fundamental defect in the Lock
system; it only creates a minor hurdle that can be bypassed with a normal screwdriver.
60. To obtain the permanent solution that would actually fix the locks, Onity
required Lock purchasers to pay the costs for the new circuit boards, labor costs of
installation, and shipping.
61. Furthermore, Onity deemed Onity Locks’ purchasers prior to 2005
ineligible to receive the circuit board fix, even though those Locks have the same design
defects. Instead, Onity offered to either provide the free mechanical caps (which fixed
nothing) or to replace these purchasers’ Onity Locks at a cost of $21 per lock.
62. On information and belief, despite its public position, Onity purportedly
entered into private agreements with select, large hotel chains to refund all costs
associated with replacing the defective Locks. According to an article in Forbes, some of
these agreements were disclosed in internal memos circulated by executives at large hotel
chains, such as Marriott, InterContinental Hotels Group, and Hyatt, which then were
leaked to the public. The full text of one such memo outlining Onity’s agreement with
Marriott Hotels is as follows:
Current Incidents
New and ongoing incidents affecting hotel operations around the world.Onity Door Lock Issue
As communicated in the July 30 Franchise Weekly Update, a hacker claimsto have compromised the Onity brand guestroom lock system with a devicecontaining a circuit board with several wires attached. However, ascommunicated in the Oct. 26 memo from Liam Brown and Jim Fisher, thedevice has since been made to fit inside a dry-erase marker and it is
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 19 of 42
![Page 20: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
expected that there will be heightened awareness of this issue due to a storyon ABC News.
Since these initial communications, Onity agreed to extend the followingoffer to Marriott-managed and franchised hotels with Onity locks.
Effective November 28, 2012, Onity will extend the offer below to Marriottfranchisees, if the franchisee contacts Onity and agrees to the terms of theoffer.
For All Installations:Onity will provide mechanical caps for HT series locks at no cost toMarriott franchisee. Marriott franchisee will be responsible for theinstallation.
Post-2005 Installations:Onity will provide the upgraded boards at no charge using one of thefollowing methods:
(1) Onity will send Marriott franchisee refurbished upgraded boards, withthe understanding that Marriott franchisee will send Onity the replacedboards upon installation of the upgraded boards. Onity will invoice theMarriott franchisee $11 per board when the refurbished upgraded boardsship and will credit back $11 for each board returned by Marriott franchiseewithin 30 days and in good working condition.
(2) For certain regions outside the United States and Canada, Onity willsend Marriott franchisee property upgraded boards without any obligationthat the Marriott franchisee return the boards that it replaced; or
(3) Onity will re-flash the advance boards at Marriott franchisee location.
Onity will determine the appropriate method of deployment as enumeratedabove. Installation and associated costs for the first and second methodswill be the responsibility of the franchisee. “Upgraded Boards” means newfirmware that addresses the hacking methods published at the Black HatConference in Las Vegas in July 2012.
Pre-2005 Installations :Franchisees may elect to purchase new boards with the new firmware forUS $11.00 per board. Onity will install the new boards at the request ofMarriott franchisee for US$10.00 per door.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 20 of 42
![Page 21: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Other Terms:Onity will work with franchisees to develop the details of implementing theabove offer. This offer will be effective for twelve (12) months from itsacceptance by Marriott franchisee.
Onity’s proposal for franchisees is conditioned on the franchisee’sacknowledgement that Onity does not guarantee a lock’s invulnerability tohacking.
To take advantage of this offer, or if you have questions, contact Onitydirectly at 1-800-924-1442.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/12/06/lock-firm-onity-starts-to-shell-
out-for-security-fixes-to-hotels-hackable-locks/ (last accessed on November 8, 2013).
63. Despite the fact that Defendant has admitted the defects in its Locks and
has purportedly entered into agreements with larger hotel chains, Defendant has refused
to replace the Locks or provide any other compensation to Plaintiffs and the Class.
Plaintiffs’ Costs to Remedy Onity’s Breach
64. Plaintiffs and Class Members have Onity Locks on rooms on their
properties. When acquiring the Locks, Plaintiffs and Class Members expected, and Onity
warranted, that the Locks were not defective and would serve their ordinary purpose of
providing reasonable protection against unauthorized access. Each Onity Lock was
rendered useless, however, due to an inherent defect present at the time of purchase—a
defect that was unknown to Plaintiffs and the Class and that made the Locks easily
susceptible to being bypassed. While any product might break down over time, Plaintiffs
and Class Members reasonably expected that the Lock itself would not contain an
inherent defect off the assembly line. Moreover, no Class Member would have known
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 21 of 42
![Page 22: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
that Onity Locks were worthless because they were incapable of protecting against easy
and instant access.
65. After news of the Onity Locks’ vulnerabilities was exposed in the media,
each Plaintiff took action to attempt to remedy the fact that the Locks they purchased
from Onity were incapable of performing their basic function by virtue of their defective
design.
Plaintiffs U.S. Hotel and RHM
66. Representatives of Onity visited with representatives of U.S. Hotel and
RHM (collectively, “U.S. Hotel”) in October 2012 regarding the defects in the locks and
Onity’s “fix” program. U.S. Hotel and Defendant discussed the presence of defective
locks at each of Plaintiffs’ properties.
67. Onity informed U.S. Hotel of the two remedies it was making available –
the free mechanical cap “fix” and the replacement circuit boards that U.S. Hotel’s would
have to purchase. Onity informed U.S. Hotel the replacement circuit boards would cost
$11 per lock for a circuit board upgrade to permanently fix the problem. Onity offered
U.S. Hotel a $6 “rebate” on the circuit board fixes for Onity Locks purchased after 2005.
68. U.S. Hotel opted to purchase replacement circuit boards for their affected
Onity Locks, but also to immediately obtain the mechanical cap fix (which were installed
at these Plaintiffs’ own time and expense) as an interim stopgap remedy until the circuit
boards could be installed. U.S. Hotel incurred substantial out of pocket costs in these
efforts to render their locks suitable for the purposes for which they were intended.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 22 of 42
![Page 23: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Plaintiff Motiram
69. Plaintiff Motiram contacted Onity to inquire about the defective nature of
its Locks, and was directed to fill out a request for a software upgrade that would
supposedly remedy the issue. In contrast to its guarantee, Onity required Motiram to
purchase the upgraded circuit boards at its own expense, at the cost of $11 per board,
which then arrived over two months after the order date. At that point, Motiram installed
the new circuit boards on each room at its own time and expense.
70. Motiram also requested the mechanical cap in order to provide any
protection while waiting for the new boards, but did not receive this “solution” until well
after the new boards arrived.
71. On July 18, 2013, Motiram sent formal written notice to Onity’s counsel on
behalf of the entire class regarding the nature of its claims against Onity and its intention
to file suit if Onity continued to refuse to provide an adequate remedy for the failure of its
Locks.
Plaintiff Desai
72. At the time Desai bought the Express Inn located in Montgomery,
Alabama, Onity Locks were already installed on each of the guest rooms.
73. Because of their inherent defects, all of the Onity Locks installed at the
Express Inn are, and were at the time Desai purchased the hotel, defective and unfit for
their intended use. The purchase price of fully functioning Onity Locks was built into the
purchase price of the hotel, for a hotel that lacks functional room locks is worth
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 23 of 42
![Page 24: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
substantially less than one with functional room locks since room security is a material
concern to hotel guests.
74. In a letter to Desai dated December 14, 2012, Onity North America General
Manager Greg Morris wrote:
Dear Valued Customer:
This is an important update regarding recent improvements to our HT andAdvance Series of locks.
As you may know, hackers have targeted electronic hotel locks bypublishing methods to illegally break into hotel rooms. While this activityis clearly troubling, we continue to look for ways we can augment ourcustomers’ security strategies.
Mechanical and technical improvements for all affected locks have beentested and validated by independent security firms, and began shipping tocustomers worldwide in August 2012. As of November 30, 2012, Onityhas shipped solutions for 1.4 million locks to customers.
Information regarding the mechanical and technological solution optionsfor your HT and Advance series locks can be found below. Please contactus directly at our dedicated support line for the most up-to-date informationat 1-800-924-1442. We have specialists ready to work directly with you onyour specific property needs.
As always, Onity continues to place the highest priority on the safety andsecurity of its products. We are committed to supporting you.
* * *
HT Series Locks
Onity is shipping mechanical security solutions for HT series locks to allhotel properties that have not already ordered them. Mechanical caps andsecurity screws block physical access to the DC lock ports that the hackersuse to illegally break into hotel rooms. Onity provides the caps, securityscrews, and tool free of charge. The mechanical solution can be installedby hotel staff accustomed to replacing batteries and other routine lockmaintenance.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 24 of 42
![Page 25: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
As of November, 2012 Onity has shipped 1.4 million solutions for locks tohotel properties. While this represents a significant portion of locksaffected, we have decided to accelerate the distribution of technicalsolutions. Over the next several weeks, we will ship this solution to hotelproperties in our database that have not already requested the mechanicalsolution.
75. Desai received the “mechanical solution” caps sent by Onity, which he
installed at his own time and expense.
(The “mechanical solution” sent by Onity to plaintiff Desai)
76. In order to receive the new circuit boards that would actually fix the
defective Locks, Defendant required Desai to pay $15.00 per circuit board in addition to
the cost of shipping and labor for installation.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 25 of 42
![Page 26: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Plaintiff Saibaba Int’l
77. Saibaba Int’l owns and operates the Best Western Inn, located at 801
Bradberry Lane, Clanton, Alabama 35406.
78. Based upon information provided by Defendant Onity, Saibaba Int’l
decided to purchase Onity Locks to be installed in each of the guest rooms located at Best
Western Inn in Clanton, Alabama.
79. Onity representatives then installed the locks and trained Saibaba Int’l’s
employees on the proper use and operation of the Onity Locks.
80. Because of the inherent design defects, all of the Onity Locks installed at
the Best Western Inn, Clanton, Alabama are defective and unfit for their intended use.
81. In order to correct the design defect on all of the Onity Locks installed on
its guest rooms, Saibaba Int’l is required to purchase new circuit boards and pay for
installation costs.
82. According to Defendant, Saibaba Int’l is not eligible for the official
reimbursement program even though the Onity Locks it has installed at the Best Western
Inn, Clanton, Alabama, are defective.
Plaintiff Baba Int’l
83. Plaintiff Baba Int’l, LLC owns and operates Best Western Inn, located at 56
Cahaba Road, Greenville, Alabama 36037.
84. Based upon information provided by Defendant Onity, Baba Int’l decided
to purchase Onity Locks to be installed in each of the guest rooms located at Best
Western Inn in Greenville, Alabama.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 26 of 42
![Page 27: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
85. Onity representatives then installed the Onity Locks and trained Baba
Int’l’s employees on the proper use and operation of the Onity Locks.
86. Because of Onity’s design defects, all of the Onity Locks installed at the
Best Western Inn, Greenville, Alabama, are defective and unfit for their intended use.
87. In order to correct the design defect on all of the Onity Locks installed on
its guest rooms, Defendant has required Baba Int’l to purchase new circuit boards and
pay for the installation costs.
88. According to Defendant, Baba Int’l is not eligible for official
reimbursement program even though the Onity Locks it has installed at the Best Western
Inn, Greenville, Alabama, are defective.
Plaintiff Krupa Investments
89. Plaintiff Krupa Investments purchased Locks from Defendant for
installation in its hotel.
90. Krupa was notified of the defect in the Onity Locks and received the
“mechanical solution” caps sent by Onity, which Krupa installed at its own time and
expense.
91. Krupa requested that Defendant replace the Onity Locks. Onity informed
Krupa that to receive working Locks, it would have to pay $15.00 per circuit board in
addition to the cost of shipping and labor for installation.
Plaintiff C&R
92. Plaintiff C&R purchased Onity Locks from Defendant for installation in its
hotel.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 27 of 42
![Page 28: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
93. C&R was notified of the defect in the Onity Locks and received the
“mechanical solution” caps sent by Onity, which C&R installed at its own time and
expense.
94. C&R requested that Defendant replace the Onity Locks. However, in order
to receive the new circuit boards, Defendant required C&R to pay $15.00 per circuit
board in addition to the cost of shipping and labor for installation.
Plaintiff Ram
95. Plaintiff Ram purchased Onity Locks from Defendant for installation in its
hotel.
96. Ram was notified of the defect in the Onity Locks and received the
“mechanical solution” caps sent by Onity, which Ram installed at its own time and
expense.
97. Ram requested that Defendant replace the Onity Locks. However,
Defendant informed Ram that in order to receive new circuit boards to fix the Locks,
Plaintiff would have to pay $15.00 per circuit board in addition to the cost of shipping
and labor for installation.
ADDITIONAL PRE-SUIT CLASSWIDE NOTICE
98. In addition to the pre-suit notice letter sent by Motiram, through their
attempts to receive fixes from Onity for defective Onity Locks, Plaintiffs have put
Defendant on notice of its breaches prior to this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant has been
on notice at least since July 23, 2012 due to the wide press coverage on this issue. In
fact, Defendant updated its website to reflect its knowledge of the defects many times
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 28 of 42
![Page 29: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
prior to the filing of any Plaintiff’s Complaint and in fact has attempted to cure (albeit
ineffectively) the defect in the Onity Locks.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
99. Pursuant to Rules 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs
bring this action against Defendant on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated. The Class is defined as follows:
All entities in the United States that own HT or ADVANCEOnity Electronic Locks and who have not already receivedcomplete repair or replacement of those Locks at Onity’s fullexpense.
100. Excluded from the Class are directors and officers of the Defendant or its
affiliates. Also excluded from the Class are any federal, state, or local governmental
entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her
immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.
101. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class definition if discovery and
further investigation reveal that the Class should be expanded or otherwise modified.
102. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members
would be impracticable. It is estimated that Onity has sold hundreds of thousands of
these defective locks in the United States. Indeed, Onity claims that it has already
shipped over four million replacement parts. The precise numbers of members can be
ascertained through discovery, which will include Defendant’s sales, warranty service,
and other records.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 29 of 42
![Page 30: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
103. There are common questions of law and fact that predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members of the Class. For example, Onity has
unilaterally published notice since the bypass method became publicly known, addressed
to the owners of all affected Onity Locks, offering an upgrade or “fix” upon request.
Onity’s actions demonstrate the substantial identity of all putative class members as
litigants herein. Among the common legal and factual questions common to the class
are:
a. Whether the subject Onity Locks are defective;
b. Whether Onity Locks failed to conform to Onity’s promises or affirmations
of fact;
c. Whether Defendant offered express warranties of its products;
d. Whether Defendant breached any express warranties;
e. Whether Defendant impliedly warranted that its products were of
merchantable quality and fit for their ordinary purpose;
f. Whether Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability;
g. Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched by its conduct and retention of
benefits conferred upon it by Plaintiffs and the Class; and
h. Whether, as a result of Defendant’s misconduct, Plaintiffs and the Class are
entitled to damages, restitution, equitable relief and other relief, and the
amount and nature of such relief.
104. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members. Plaintiffs
and all Class Members have been injured by the same wrongful practices. Plaintiffs’
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 30 of 42
![Page 31: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
claims arise from the same practices and course of conduct that give rise to the claims of
the Class Members and are based on the same legal theories.
105. Plaintiffs will fully and adequately assert and protect the interests of the
Class, and have retained class counsel who are experienced and qualified in prosecuting
class actions. Neither Plaintiffs nor their attorneys have any interests contrary to or
conflicting with the Class.
106. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this lawsuit because individual litigation of the claims of all
Class Members is economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. While the
aggregate damages sustained by the Class are likely in the millions of dollars, the
individual damages incurred by each Class member in most cases are too small to warrant
the expense of individual suits. Even if every Class member could afford individual
litigation, the court system would be unduly burdened by individual litigation of such
cases. Further, individual members of the Class do not have a significant interest in
individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions, and individualized litigation
would also result in varying, inconsistent, or contradictory judgments and would magnify
the delay and expense to all of the parties and the court system because of multiple trials
of the same factual and legal issues. In addition, Defendant has acted or refused to act on
grounds generally applicable to the Class and, as such, final injunctive relief or
corresponding declaratory relief with regard to the members of the Class as a whole is
appropriate.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 31 of 42
![Page 32: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
107. Plaintiffs do not anticipate any difficulty in the management of this
litigation. Any potential difficulties can be easily managed through sub-classing or other
methods.
TOLLING AND ESTOPPEL
108. The design defects in Defendant’s Onity Locks were latent and incapable of
detection by any of the Plaintiffs or Class Members. Thus, Plaintiffs and the Class
Members were not reasonably able to discover the defect and security implications
despite their due diligence, until reports of the defect surfaced on or about July 24, 2012.
109. The applicable statutes of limitations have been tolled by Defendant’s
knowing and active concealment of the material fact of the Locks’ defective design, and
by Defendant’s affirmative representations that the Locks were reliable and secure.
Plaintiffs and the members of the Class remained ignorant of information vital to pursue
their claims, without any fault or lack of diligence on their part. Plaintiffs and the
members of the Class could not reasonably have discovered the fact that their Locks were
defective as described herein.
110. Defendant was and still is under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiffs
and members of the Class defects in the Onity Locks that make them unsafe or unfit for
their ordinary and intended use. Defendant knowingly concealed the security and
reliability of its lock system, including the fact that the Locks could be easily opened.
Plaintiffs and members of the Class reasonably and in good faith relied upon Defendant’s
representations regarding the quality and functionality of the Locks.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 32 of 42
![Page 33: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
111. Based on the foregoing, Defendant is estopped from relying on any statutes
of limitation in defense of this action because it did not repair the defects prior to placing
the Onity Locks in the stream of commerce.
COUNT I – BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
112. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein and further allege as follows.
113. Defendant is a merchant as defined by applicable U.C.C. provisions and
sold Onity Locks directly and indirectly to Plaintiffs and the Class.
114. Defendant expressly warranted that its Onity Locks were free from defects
at the time of delivery.
115. Defendant expressly warranted that its products have “the most reliable
technology.”
116. Defendant expressly warranted that it provides “the most advanced
electronic locking systems in the industry today.”
117. Defendant expressly warranted that if “any” of the products fail to work for
“any” reason, it would either “fix the problem” or “replace it with a new one.” There is
no limitation on this statement.
118. Defendant expressly warranted that the purchasers of its Onity Locks would
receive “guaranteed replacement and repair of system components.”
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 33 of 42
![Page 34: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
119. These express warranties proclaiming advanced technology, reliability, and
a guarantee to fix or repair any problems were a part of the basis of the bargain for
Plaintiffs and the Class.
120. Defendant breached these warranties. Onity Locks were not “the most
reliable” and “the most advanced” products in the industry as Defendant proclaimed. In
fact, Defendant’s Onity Locks were defective and failed to protect from even a simple
bypass tool that is easily assembled by following instructions posted on the internet.
121. Additionally, Defendant has breached its promises to “fix the problem” or
“replace it with a new one” and has refused to offer an acceptable cure. The “solutions”
offered by Defendant are wholly inconsistent with its warranties.
122. The first option of blocking the DC docket with a mechanical cap will
diminish the value of the lock and cause undue burden and expense to Plaintiffs. The
lock would have to be disassembled every time one needs to use the docket for ordinary
purposes, including for emergency access to a guestroom. Furthermore, a physical cover-
up does not “fix” the fundamental defect in the Lock system; it only creates a minor
hurdle that can be bypassed with a normal screwdriver.
123. The second option, which requires the customers to pay for the replacement
of a defective product, does not amount to a “fix” or “replace” as promised; it is equal to
selling a new product to defect victims.
124. Any contractual language contained in Onity’s express warranty that
attempts to limit remedies or the period within which to bring claims is waived by
Onity’s direct representations to the contrary and/or is unconscionable, fails to conform
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 34 of 42
![Page 35: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
to the requirements for limiting remedies under applicable law, causes the warranties to
fail of their essential purpose, and is thus, unconscionable and void. By virtue of the
defective design, Defendant knew or should have known that its Onity Locks were at all
times defective and easily compromised, including at the time Defendant contracted with
Plaintiffs and the Class.
125. Any language in Onity’s warranty that may purport to exclude the exact
types of defect that affects Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ Onity products is
unilaterally imposed in a contract of adhesion that is typically provided after the sale, and
is therefore unconscionable and causes the entire warranty to fail of its essential purpose.
126. Defendant has been put on notice of the breach of express warranties by
Plaintiffs and the Class through notice provided by Plaintiffs and the Class prior to the
filing of this Complaint, Plaintiffs’ attempts to receive fixes from Onity and formal
written notice. Moreover, Defendant has been on notice at least since July 2012 due to
the wide press coverage on this issue. In fact, Defendant updated its website to reflect its
knowledge of the defects in its Locks many times prior to the filing of any Plaintiff’s
complaint.
127. Plaintiffs and the Class are in privity of contract with Defendant as direct
purchasers, recipients of express warranties, and/or third party beneficiaries. In addition,
Plaintiffs and their agents have entered into written contracts with Defendant for the
purchase and/or repair of Onity Locks.
128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breaches of its express
warranties, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages – an economic loss equal to
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 35 of 42
![Page 36: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
the total purchase price of these unfit products, as well as monies and labor spent and to
be spent to fix or alleviate the defect.
COUNT II – BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
129. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein and further allege as follows.
130. Defendant is a merchant as defined by applicable U.C.C. provisions and
sold Onity Locks directly and indirectly to Plaintiffs and the Class.
131. Defendant impliedly warranted to Plaintiffs and the Class that Onity Locks
were fit for the ordinary purpose of locking doors and preventing unauthorized access.
132. Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability because Onity
Locks are incapable of preventing unauthorized openings. As discussed above in detail,
Onity Locks lack even the basic protective measures and can be compromised by a
simple bypass device, allowing unauthorized access by anyone without any requisite
sophistication whatsoever.
133. Defendant’s Onity Locks failed to conform to the promises or affirmations
of fact made on their label.
134. Plaintiffs and the Class are in privity of contract with Defendant as direct
purchasers, recipients of express warranties, and/or third party beneficiaries. In addition,
Plaintiffs and their agents have entered into written contracts with Defendant for the
purchase and/or repair of Onity Locks.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 36 of 42
![Page 37: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
135. Any language Onity has attempted to include in any contract with Plaintiffs
and the Class that attempts to limit the availability of implied warranties, remedies or the
period within which to bring warranty claims is unconscionable, fails to conform to the
requirements for limiting remedies under applicable law, causes the warranties to fail of
their essential purpose, and is thus unconscionable and void. By virtue of the defective
design, Defendant knew or should have known that its Onity Locks were at all times
defective and easily compromised, including at the time Defendants contracted with
Plaintiffs and the Class.
136. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of implied warranty,
Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages, including an economic loss equal to the
total purchase price of these unfit products, as well as monies spent and to be spent to fix
or alleviate the defect.
COUNT III - VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT,15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 ET SEQ.
137. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein and further allege as follows.
138. The Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act, 15 U.S.C.§§
2301, et seq., provides a private right of action by purchasers of products against
manufacturers or retailers who, inter alia, fail to comply with the terms of an express or
implied warranty. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1). As demonstrated above, Defendant has failed
to comply with the terms of its express and implied warranties with regard to the
defective Onity Locks it has sold.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 37 of 42
![Page 38: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
139. Onity Locks are sold as and are intended to normally operate as any other
door lock, namely, as security devices installed on doors that are designed to prevent
unauthorized entry and that are meant to be opened only with a valid key. Door locks,
including electronic door locks, are consumer products as that term is defined in §
2301(1) of the Magnuson-Moss Act.
140. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are consumers, as that term is
defined in § 2301(3) of the Magnuson-Moss Act.
141. Defendant is a warrantor, as that term is defined in § 2301(5) of the
Magnuson-Moss Act. Defendant offered express and implied warranties on its products
that put Defendant in privity with the Plaintiffs and the Class. In addition, Plaintiffs and
their agents have entered into written contracts with Defendant for the purchase and/or
repair of Onity Locks.
142. Plaintiffs and members of the Class notified Defendant of its breach of
express warranties prior to the filing of this Complaint, including through attempting to
obtain fixes for the defect from Defendant and through formal written notice. Moreover,
Defendant has been on notice at least since July 2012 due to the wide press coverage on
this issue.
143. Defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to cure its failure to comply
with its express and implied warranties. However, Defendant’s “cures” were inadequate
and did not address the defect and injuries complained of herein, either because they did
not fix the problem or because Defendant required its customers to pay for part or all of
the cost of a replacement part and its installation.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 38 of 42
![Page 39: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
144. Plaintiffs and the Class are in privity of contract with Defendant as direct
purchasers, recipients of express warranties, and/or third party beneficiaries. In addition,
Plaintiffs and their agents have entered into written contracts with Defendant for the
purchase and/or repair of Onity Locks.
145. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breaches of the Magnuson-
Moss Act, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages, including economic loss equal
to the total purchase price of these unfit products, as well as monies and labor spent and
to be spent to fix or alleviate the defects.
COUNT IV - UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Alleged by All Plaintiffs Except Plaintiff Desai)
146. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein and further allege as follows.
147. As described herein, Defendant sold electronic door locks that were
designed so poorly that they were defective and easily bypassed with a simple hacking
device. Defendant sold these Onity Locks to customers who relied on the expensive
locks to maintain the security of the doors upon which they were affixed. By virtue of
their defective design, Defendant knew, or should have known, that its Onity Locks were
at all times easily compromised and essentially worthless.
148. Defendant’s conduct caused Plaintiffs and the Class to purchase Onity
Locks to provide security, without knowing the locks could be easily bypassed and were
therefore useless for their intended purpose.
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 39 of 42
![Page 40: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
149. The money paid by Plaintiffs and the Class to Defendant for Onity Locks
and for fixes for the locks’ defects conferred substantial benefits upon Defendant.
Defendant wrongfully accepted and retained these benefits.
150. Under the circumstances described in this Complaint, it would be
inequitable and unjust for Defendant to retain the benefits conferred upon by Plaintiffs
and the Class. Defendant should return all ill-gotten gains to Plaintiffs and the Class.
151. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to receive equitable relief in the form of
appropriate restitution and disgorgement of all wrongfully obtained earnings, profits,
compensation and benefits obtained by Defendant.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, pray for relief against Defendant as follows:
a. For an order certifying this action as a class action and appointing Plaintiffs
and their counsel to represent the Class;
b. For restitution and disgorgement of all amounts obtained by Defendant as a
result of its misconduct, together with interest thereon from the date of
purchase;
c. For actual damages for injuries suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class;
d. For an order requiring Defendant to immediately cease its wrongful
conduct as set forth above; ordering Defendant to engage in a corrective
notice campaign; and requiring Defendant to implement a full, comparable,
replacement and/or refund program of all Onity Locks;
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 40 of 42
![Page 41: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
e. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs of this action;
f. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and
g. For such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby demand
trial by jury on all issues raised in this Complaint which are triable by jury.
Date: December 19, 2013 ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
s/ Brian C. GudmundsonBrian C. Gudmundson MN 336695J. Gordon Rudd, Jr. MN 2220821100 IDS Center80 South 8th StreetMinneapolis, MN 55402Tel: (612) 341-0400Fax: (612) [email protected]@zimmreed.com
James J. PizzirussoSwathi BojedlaHAUSFELD LLP1700 K Street NW, Suite 650Washington, DC 20006Tel: (202) 540-7200Fax: (202) [email protected]@hausfeldllp.com
Joseph P. GuglielmoHal CunninghamSCOTT+SCOTT,ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLPThe Chrysler Building405 Lexington Avenue, 40th FloorNew York, NY 10174Tel: (212) 223-6444Fax: (212) [email protected]@scott-scott.com
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffsand the Proposed Class
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 41 of 42
![Page 42: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF … · 2013. 12. 19. · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA U.S. Hotel and Resort Management, Inc., et al.,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052001/60139aabbc1e80644c24ff86/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
Daniel L. WarshawBobby PouyaPEARSON, SIMON, &WARSHAW, LLP15165 Ventura BoulevardSuite 400Sherman Oaks, CA 91403Tel: (818) 788-8300Fax: (818) [email protected]@pswlaw.com
Brent HazzardHAZZARD LAW, LLC447 Northpark DriveRidgeland, MS 39157Tel.: (601) 977-5253Fax: (601) [email protected]
Bruce A. HagenBRUCE A. HAGEN, P.C.119 N. McDonough St.Decatur, GA 30030Tel: (404) 522-7553Fax: (404) [email protected]
Manish Hasmukh PatelPATEL & SLEDGE115 East Three Notch StreetAndalusia, AL 36420Tel: (334) 222-2255Fax: (334) [email protected]
E. Kirk WoodWOOD LAW FIRM, LLCP. O. Box 382434Birmingham, Alabama 35238-2434Tel: (205) 908-4906Fax: (866) [email protected]
Additional Counsel for Plaintiffsand the Proposed Class
Blaine C. StevensJohn M. MaddoxSTEVENS & MADDOX, PC203 Jamestown Blvd Ste 2Dothan, AL 36301-6430Tel: (334) 793-6493Fax: (334) [email protected]
Greg L. DavisDAVIS & TALIAFERRO LLC7031 Halcyon Park DriveMontgomery, AL 36117Tel: (334) 832-9080Fax: (334) [email protected]
CASE 0:13-cv-01499-SRN-FLN Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 42 of 42