Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 1 of 17

1
2
3
4
5
6

U N I T E D S TAT E S D I S T R I C T C O U RT

7

W E S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F WA S H I N G T O N

8

AT TA C O M A

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Bryndon Fisher, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Class Action Complaint
Plaintiff,
v.
James C. Duff, in His Official Capacity
as the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts,
Administrative Office of
the United States Courts,
and

17
18

Case No.

The United States of America,
Defendants.

19
20
21

Upon personal knowledge as to his own acts and status, and based upon his

22

investigation, his counsel’s investigation, and information and belief as to all other

23

matters, plaintiff Bryndon Fisher (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others

24

similarly situated, alleges as follows:

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

—1—

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 2 of 17

1
2

Summary of Action
1.

This is a class action brought on behalf of users of the Public Access to

3 Court Electronic Records system (“PACER”), the system that all all federal district and
4 bankruptcy courts use to provide public access to court records. Based on an extensive
5 investigation into PACER’s billing practices, PACER exhibits a systemic error that
6 overcharges users for accessing docket reports in violation of its stated policies and
7 procedures.
8

2.

The basic problem is simple. PACER claims to charge users $0.10 for each

9 page in a docket report, up to a maximum charge of $3.00 per transaction. Since by
10 default, these docket reports are displayed in HTML format, PACER uses a formula based
11 on the number of bytes in a docket to determine the number of billable pages. One billable
12 pages equals 4,320 extracted bytes.
13

3.

In reality, however, the PACER billing system contains an error. PACER

14 artificially inflates the number of bytes in each extracted page, counting some of those
15 bytes five times instead of just once. As a result, users are systematically overcharged for
16 certain docket reports.
17

4.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (“AO”), which

18 administers and maintains PACER, therefore breached the terms of its contract with
19 Plaintiff and the Class and owes Plaintiff and the Class damages as compensation for the
20 overcharges.
21

5.

The AO improperly collected these overcharge payments from Plaintiff

22 and the Class in contravention of relevant statutes and regulations, including the E23 Government Act of 2002, 28 U.S.C. § 1913 note, and the Electronic Public Access Fee
24

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

— 2—

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 3 of 17

1

Schedule. These overcharge payments, therefore, also constitute an illegal exaction in

2

violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

3
4
5

Jurisdiction and Venue
6.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Little Tucker

6

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

7

1402(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. 1391(e)(1) because the Plaintiff resides in this District.

8
9
10

Parties
7.

Plaintiff Bryndon Fisher (“Fisher”) is a citizen of the State of Washington

11

and a resident of Camas, Washington. During the Class Period, as described infra, Fisher

12

accessed PACER, viewed docket reports in HTML format, and was overcharged for

13

docket reports by the AO. Fisher has not been reimbursed or otherwise compensated for

14

the overcharges.

15

8.

Defendant James C. Duff (“Duff”) is the Director of the Administrative

16

Office of the United States Courts. Duff is being sued in his official capacity. In that

17

capacity, Duff has overall responsibility for the AO’s management and operation,

18

including PACER. Duff, in his official capacity, is responsible for the AO’s conduct that is

19

the subject of this complaint and for the related acts and omissions alleged herein.

20

9.

Defendant Administrative Office of the United States Courts is, and was at

21

all relevant times, an agency of the United States government. The AO administers and

22

maintains PACER.

23
24

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

—3—

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 4 of 17

1

10.

Defendant United States of America (“United States”) includes the

2

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, which administers and maintains

3

PACER, and agents acting at the direction or on behalf of the AO.

4
5

Factual Allegations

6

The PACER System

7

11.

According to the AO’s website, PACER is an electronic public access

8

service that allows users to obtain case and docket information online from federal

9

appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts. PACER is provided by the Federal Judiciary in

10

keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a

11

centralized service.

12

12.

PACER’s mission is to facilitate and improve electronic public access to

13

court information at a reasonable cost, in accordance with legislative and judicial policies,

14

security requirements, and user demands.

15

13.

PACER hosts millions of case file documents and docket information for all

16

district, bankruptcy, and appellate courts. As of 2010, PACER hosted over 500 million

17

documents that were filed in federal courts.

18

14.

The AO’s Programs Division manages the development and maintenance

19

of PACER and, through the PACER Service Center, provides centralized billing,

20

registration, and technical support services for the Judiciary and the public.

21

15.

In 2015, PACER surpassed over two million user accounts. Users include

22

licensed attorneys; state and local governments, including city, state, and federal

23

employees; educational institutions, including students, educators, and staff; journalists

24

and media organizations; judges and court staff; and the general public.

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

— 4—

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 5 of 17

1
2
3
4

PACER Prescribes User Fees
16.

As mandated by Congress, PACER is funded through user fees set by the

Judicial Conference of the United States (“Judicial Conference”).
17.

The Judicial Appropriations Act of 1992, PUB. L. 102–140, title III, § 303,

5

105 Stat. 810 (1991), as amended by the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–347, title

6

II, § 205(e), 116 Stat. 2915 (2002), provides:

7

Court Fees for Electronic Access to Information

8

(a) The Judicial Conference may, only to the extent necessary, prescribe
reasonable fees, pursuant to sections 1913, 1914, 1926, 1930, and 1932 of
title 28, United States Code, for collection by the courts under those
sections for access to information available through automatic data
processing equipment. … The Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts, under the direction of the Judicial Conference of the
United States, shall prescribe a schedule of reasonable fees for electronic
access to information which the Director is required to maintain and make
available to the public.

9
10
11
12
13
14

(codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 1913 note) (emphasis added).
18.

Congress expressly limited the AO’s ability to charge user fees for access to

15

electronic court information by substituting the phrase “only to the extent necessary” in

16

place of “shall hereafter” in the above statute. E-Government Act of 2002, § 205(e).

17
18

19.

In accordance with this statute, the Judicial Conference prescribed user

fees for electronic public access to court records:

19

Fees for Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)

20
21

(1) Except as provided below, for electronic access to any case document,
docket sheet, or case-specific report via PACER: $0.10 per page, not to
exceed the fee for thirty pages.

22

Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, 28 U.S.C.A. 1914 (effective December 1, 2013),

23

https://www.pacer.gov/documents/epa_feesched.pdf (emphasis added).

24

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

—5—

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 6 of 17

1

20.

The exceptions, inter alia, concern fee exemptions for users who have not

2

yet incurred $15.00 in a quarterly billing cycle; discretionary exemptions for indigents, pro

3

bono attorneys, and nonprofit organizations; judicial opinions; and parties and attorneys

4

in a case who receive one “free look.” None of these exceptions apply here.

5

21.

PACER’s user fees are contained in PACER’s “Policies and Procedures,”

6

which are linked from the home page of PACER’s website. These Policies and Procedures

7

state:

8
9
10
11
12
13

Fee Information
There is no registration fee. However, the Judicial Conference of the
United States has established a fee for access to information in PACER. All
registered users will be charged as follows:
* Use of the PACER system will generate a $.10 per-page charge.
PACER Policies and Procedures, https://www.pacer.gov/documents/pacer_policy.pdf.
22.

The AO directly communicates the amount of these fees to users when

14

they sign up for a PACER account. When a user accesses the “Registration Wizard,” the

15

system presents the following information to the user:

16
17
18
19
20

There is no registration fee. However, the Judicial Conference of the
United States has established a fee for access to PACER. All registered
agencies or individuals will be charged the fee. Access to PACER systems
will generate a $0.10 per page charge.
If you would like to try PACER before registering, visit our free training
site. More detailed information about how to use PACER is available in the
PACER User Manual.

21

PACER Case Search Registration, https://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/pscof/regWizard.jsf

22

(emphasis and links in original).

23
24

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

—6—

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 7 of 17

1

23.

This language describing the “$0.10 per page charge” includes a “tooltip”

2

that displays additional explanatory text when a user hovers her mouse pointer over it. See

3

below:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

24.

This “tooltip” explains that “[a] formula determines the number of pages

15

for an HTML-formatted report. The information extracted, such as data used to create a

16

docket sheet, is billed using a formula based on the number of bytes extracted.”

17
18

25.

The PACER Service Center’s public help pages contain similar language.

In the billing area, PACER presents a frequently-asked questions section that asks:

19
20
21
22
23
24

PACER Billing, https://www.pacer.gov/billing/.

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

—7—

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 8 of 17

1
2

26.

The PACER User Manual, which the Registration Wizard references and

links to, explains this formula in greater detail:

3

Dockets, Case Reports, and Search Results

4

Docket reports are generated with the number of pages for a docket sheet
before the document is reformatted as a webpage.

5
6
7

Billable pages for docket reports, case reports, and search results are
calculated using a formula based on the number of bytes extracted (4,320
bytes = 1 billable page).

8

PACER User Manual for ECF Courts (Updated September 2014), https://

9

www.pacer.gov/documents/pacermanual.pdf.

10

27.

Based on PACER’s stated policies and procedures, including incorporated

11

disclosures on its web site and in the PACER User Manual, a user would expect to be

12

charged $0.10 for each 4,320 bytes extracted from a docket report.

13
14
15

PACER Overcharged Plaintiff Fisher for Access to Court Dockets
28.

Plaintiff Bryndon Fisher registered for access to the PACER system and

16

agreed to be charged $0.10 per page for access to court dockets, based on the formula

17

contained in the PACER User Manual.

18

29.

Over the past several years, Fisher accessed numerous court dockets and

19

documents, always accessing court dockets in HTML format using PACER’s default

20

options. Fisher was charged and paid for that access, and his docket access did not qualify

21

for the exceptions or exclusions listed in the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule.

22
23

30.

During the past two years, Fisher accessed 184 court docket reports using

PACER and was charged and paid a total of $109.40 to the AO for this access. These

24

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

— 8—

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 9 of 17

1

charges do not include access to the individual PDF documents, only access to the docket

2

reports.

3

31.

Over this two-year period, based on the formula contained in the PACER

4 User Manual, Fisher should have been charged $72.40, representing an overcharge of
5 $37.00 or approximately 51%.
6

32.

Fisher has not been reimbursed or otherwise compensated for these

7 overcharges.
8
9
10

PACER Exhibits a Systemic Billing Error That Overcharges Users
33.

PACER’s overcharges to Fisher are not an isolated incident. On the

11 contrary, based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s investigation, PACER systematically overcharges
12 users for access to court dockets in breach of its stated policies, including the PACER
13 User Manual.
14
15

34.

To discover why and how PACER overcharges users, Plaintiff’s counsel

retained expert consultants with advanced degrees in computer science and substantial

16 experience in the field. These consultants conducted an investigation into the
17 overcharges, including who is affected, when and under what circumstances the
18 overcharges manifest, and the nature of the underlying error in the PACER system.
19

35.

Based on this investigation, PACER exhibits a systemic billing error that

20 affects the vast majority of users who access docket reports in the default HTML format.
21 For these docket reports, PACER uses a formula based on the number of bytes extracted,
22 purporting to charge users $0.10 per 4,320 bytes. But the PACER system actually
23 miscalculates the number of extracted bytes in a docket report, resulting in an overcharge
24 to users.

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

—9—

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 10 of 17

1

36.

Plaintiff’s investigation determined that the source of this overcharge lies

2

in the case caption, the portion of a docket report that contains basic information about a

3

case (e.g., the case number, parties, and attorneys of record). Instead of counting the

4

number bytes in the case caption once, PACER actually counts these bytes approximately

5

five times.

6

37.

If a user accesses an HTML docket report, and the case caption for that

7

docket is more than 850 characters, the systemic billing error manifests itself. This is

8

because, when the caption contains 850 or more characters, the caption contains enough

9

bytes that, when overcounted by five times, it triggers at least one additional $0.10 charge

10

to the user. An exception to this rule applies when the docket is so large that users will

11

have already reached the $3.00 maximum charge regardless of any overcounting of bytes

12

in the case caption.

13

38.

This systemic billing error for docket reports affects the PACER system

14

that is used in all U.S. District Courts, U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, and the U.S. Court of

15

Federal Claims.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Class Action Allegations
39.

Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated as members of a proposed Class defined as follows:
All PACER users who, within the last six years, accessed a U.S.
District Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, or the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims and were charged for at least one docket report in HTML
format that included a case caption containing 850 or more characters.
Expressly excluded from the Class are PACER users who have been
damaged in excess of $10,000 as a result of the conduct alleged herein.

24

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

— 10 —

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 11 of 17

1

40.

The United States government and the agencies and officers thereof and

2

any judges, justices, or judicial officers presiding over this matter, the members of their

3

immediate families, and their judicial staff are also excluded from the Class.

4

41.

This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action

5

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This action satisfies the numerosity,

6

ascertainability, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority

7

requirements of these rules.

8
9

42.

Numerosity Under Rule 23(a)(1). The Class is so numerous that the

individual joinder of all members is impracticable. While the Class’s exact number is

10

currently unknown and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, PACER

11

currently has over two million users. This is more than sufficient to satisfy the numerosity

12

requirement. Each of these Class Members can also be ascertained by referencing the

13

AO’s business records, which include the contact information for Class Members.

14

43.

Commonality Under Rule 23(a)(2). Common legal and factual questions

15

exist that predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. These

16

common questions, which do not vary among Class Members and which may be

17

determined without reference to any Class Member’s individual circumstances, include,

18

but are not limited to:

19

A.

20

Whether the AO owed a duty to Plaintiff and the Class to
accurately bill them for access to PACER docket reports;

21

B.

22

Whether PACER contains a systemic error that miscalculates the
charges to Plaintiff and the Class for accessing docket reports;

23

C.

24

Whether the AO systematically overbilled Plaintiff and the Class
for access to docket reports in breach of its contract;

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

— 11 —

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 12 of 17

1

D.

Whether the AO’s conduct constituted an illegal exaction by

2

unnecessarily and unreasonably charging PACER users more than

3

the AO and the Judicial Conference authorized under Electronic

4

Public Access Fee Schedule and the E-Government Act of 2002;

5

E.

6
7

Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged by the wrongs
alleged and are entitled to compensatory damages.

44.

Each of these common questions is also susceptible to a common answer

8

that is capable of classwide resolution and will resolve an issue central to the validity of

9

the claims.

10

45.

Adequacy of Representation Under Rule 23(a)(4). Plaintiff is an adequate

11

Class representative because he is a Class Member, and his interests do not conflict with

12

the Class’s interests. Plaintiff has retained counsel who are competent and experienced in

13

prosecuting class actions. Plaintiffs and his counsel intend to prosecute this action

14

vigorously for the Class’s benefit and will fairly and adequately protect the Class’s

15

interests.

16

46.

Rule 23(b)(2) Injunctive Class. The Class can be properly maintained

17

under Rule 23(b)(2). Through a systemic billing error, the AO has overcharged and

18

continues to overcharge each Class Member for accessing docket reports. Defendants,

19

therefore, have acted or refused to act, with respect to some or all issues presented in this

20

Complaint, on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final

21

injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole.

22

47.

Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance and Superiority. The Class can be properly

23

maintained under Rule 23(b)(3), because the above common questions of law and fact

24

predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. A class action is

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

— 12 —

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 13 of 17

1

also superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this

2

litigation because individual litigation of each Class Member’s claim is impracticable.

3

Even if each Class Member could afford individual litigation, the court system could not.

4

It would be unduly burdensome if thousands of individual cases were to proceed.

5

Individual litigation also presents the potential for inconsistent or contradictory

6

judgments, the prospect of a race to the courthouse, and the risk of an inequitable

7

allocation of recovery among those with equally meritorious claims. Individual litigation

8

would increase the expense and delay to all parties and the courts because it requires

9

individual resolution of common legal and factual questions. By contrast, the class-action

10

device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefit of a single

11

adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

12
13

First Claim for Relief

14

Breach of Contract

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

48.

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, incorporates by reference

all of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
49.

As part of the process to register and access PACER, Plaintiff and the Class

entered into a contract with the AO, which had actual authority to bind the United States.
50.

This contract incorporated the terms provided to Plaintiff and the Class

during the registration process for PACER, including the PACER User Manual.
51.

Plaintiff and the Class performed their duties under the contract or were

22 excused from doing so by waiver, impossibility, impracticability, and/or prevention or
23 hindrance of the contract through a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
24

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

— 13 —

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 14 of 17

1

52.

All conditions required by the contract for Defendants’ performance have

2

occurred or were excused by waiver, impossibility, impracticability, and/or prevention or

3

hindrance of the contract through a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

4

53.

Under the terms of the contract, Defendants were required to charge

5

Plaintiff and the Class $0.10 per page for accessing docket reports. The contract’s terms

6

defined pages in a docket report accessed in HTML format as 4,320 extracted bytes.

7

54.

By charging Plaintiff and the Class more than $0.10 per page for accessing

8

docket reports in HTML format by miscounting the number of extracted bytes in each

9

docket, Defendants violated the express terms of the contract. As a result, Defendants

10
11
12

breached their contract with Plaintiff and the Class.
55.

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ breach of the contract,

Plaintiff and the Class were harmed and are owed compensatory damages.

13
14

Second Claim for Relief

15

Illegal Exaction

16
17
18

56.

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, incorporates by reference

all of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
57.

Defendants improperly collected user fees from Plaintiff and the Class in

19

excess of those authorized by Congress under the E-Government Act of 2002, 28 U.S.C.

20

2002 note, and in excess of those authorized by the AO and the Judicial Conference under

21

the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule.

22

58.

The E-Government Act of 2002 provides that “[t]he Judicial Conference

23

may, only to the extent necessary, prescribe reasonable fees … for collection by the courts

24

… for access to information available through automatic data processing equipment” and

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

— 14 —

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 15 of 17

1

that “[t]he Director of the [AO], under direction of the Judicial Conference … shall

2

prescribe a schedule of reasonable fees for electronic access to information ….” 28

3

U.S.C.A. 1913 (emphasis added).

4

59.

The Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule only authorizes fees of $0.10

5

per page, not to exceed the fee for thirty pages, for electronic access to any case

6

document, docket sheet, or case-specific report.

7

60.

By miscalculating the number of bytes in a page, Defendants collected

8

charges from Plaintiff and the Class in excess of $0.10 per page for accessing electronic

9

docket sheets, in direct contravention of the E-Government Act’s mandate that the

10

Judicial Conference “may, only to the extent necessary, prescribe reasonable fees.”

11

Overcharging Plaintiff and the Class for these charges was both unnecessary and per se

12

unreasonable under the Act.

13

61.

Defendants also collected charges from Plaintiff and the Class in excess of

14

the $0.10 per page fee for accessing electronic docket sheets in direct contravention of the

15

Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, as well as further policies and procedures

16

promulgated by the AO in the PACER User Manual.

17

62.

By necessary implication, the E-Government Act of 2002, the Electronic

18

Public Access Fee Schedule, and other related policies and procedures promulgated by

19

the AO provide that the remedy for their violation entails a return of money unlawfully

20

exacted. By directly prescribing the limits on fees charged by the AO and the Judicial

21

Conference to Plaintiff and the Class, these laws lead to the ineluctable conclusion that

22

they provide a monetary remedy for fees charged in excess of the prescribed limits.

23
24

63.

Plaintiff and the Class are intended beneficiaries of the E-Government Act

of 2002, the AO, and the PACER system, as PACER’s “mission is to facilitate and

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

— 15 —

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 16 of 17

1

improve electronic public access to court information at a reasonable cost, in accordance

2

with legislative and Judiciary policies, security requirements, and user demands.”

3
4
5
6

64.

Defendants have retained the funds they unlawfully collected from Plaintiff

and the Class and have not reimbursed or otherwise compensated Plaintiff and the Class.
65.

Plaintiff and the Class seek return of all funds improperly paid, exacted, or

taken from them in contravention of federal statutes and regulations.

7
8
9
10

Prayer for Relief
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, requests that the Court order the
following relief and enter judgment against Defendants as follows:

11

A.

An order certifying the proposed Class under FED. R. CIV. PROC. 23;

12

B.

An order appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Class;

13

C.

A finding that Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff and the

14
15

Class;
D.

16

A finding that Defendants illegally exacted money from Plaintiff and the
Class in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment;

17

E.

An order permanently enjoining Defendants from their improper conduct;

18

F.

A judgment awarding Plaintiff and the Class compensatory damages and

19

any other damages authorized by law in amounts to be proven at trial;

20

G.

Prejudgment and postjudgment interest at the maximum allowable rate;

21

H.

Attorneys’ fees and expenses and the costs of this action; and

22

I.

All other relief, including equitable and injunctive relief, that this Court

23

deems necessary, just, and proper.

24

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

— 16 —

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220

 Case 3:15-cv-05944-BHS Document 1 Filed 12/29/15 Page 17 of 17

1

Dated: December 29, 2015

Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
B Y:

2
3

/s/ Beth Terrell
Beth Terrell

Beth Terrell
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
936 N 34th Street Ste 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Ph: 206.816.6603
Fx: 206.319.5450
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

4
5
6
7

Robert C. Schubert, pro hac vice pending
Noah M. Schubert, pro hac vice pending
Miranda P. Kolbe, pro hac vice pending
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
Three Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111-4018
Ph: 415.788.4220
Fx: 415.788,0161
rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com

8
9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case No.

— 17 —

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Ph: 415.788.4220