Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BARRETT S. LITT, SBN 45527 E-Mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com RONALD O. KAYE SBN 145051 E-Mail: rok@kmbllaw.com Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP 234 Colorado Boulevard, Suite 230 Pasadena, California 91101 Telephone: (626) 844-7660 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 [Additional counsel for Plaintiffs listed on following page] 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 ALFRED BANKS and SHIRLEY LAWRENCE-BANKS, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, vs. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO: COUNTY OF SAN MATEO AND DOES 1-10, ET AL., Defendants 1. 42 U.S.C. §1983 2. VIOLATIONS OF SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.) 3. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION §§13C AND D 4. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVT. CODE §11135 5. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §52.1 6. VIOLATION OF ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MICHAEL S. RAPKIN, SBN 67220 E-Mail: msrapkin@gmail.com SCOTT B. RAPKIN, SBN 261867 E-Mail: scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com Rapkin & Associates, LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, California 90291 Telephone: (310) 319-5465 Facsimile: (310) 319-5355 CAROL STRICKMAN, SBN 78341 E-mail: carol@prisonerswithchildren.org Legal Services for Prisoners With Children 1540 Market Street, Suite 490 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 255-7036 Facsimile: (415) 552-3150 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 15 /// 16 17 /// 18 19 /// 20 21 /// 22 23 /// 24 25 /// 26 27 28 0 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 42 1 2 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Thousands of San Mateo County jail inmates and their families, most 3 of whom are not convicted but facing charges, are held hostage to grossly unfair 4 and excessive phone charges, forcing them to pay these charges in order to 5 maintain contact with their loved ones who are incarcerated. These charges are 6 nothing but money making schemes by San Mateo County and its jail to force 7 family members desperately trying to maintain contact with their inmate husbands, 8 parents and children to pay for totally unrelated jail expenses or give up their 9 primary lifeline of communication. San Mateo County runs one of the largest jails 10 in the US, and essentially extorts monies from mostly poor and minority families 11 trying to get by and stay in contact with loved ones. It does so by establishing 12 extortionate and outrageous “commissions” to be paid by this vulnerable 13 population to fund the jails. 14 2. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has recently 15 taken decisive action. After many years of deliberation, on October 2, 2015, it 16 reached the decision that it would set standards for ICS rates in order “to rein in the 17 excessive rates and egregious fees on phone calls paid by some of society’s most 18 vulnerable: people trying to stay in touch with loved ones serving time in jail or 19 prison.” FCC Press Release. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-next-big- 20 steps-reducing-inmate-calling-rates. The FCC observed that “contact between 21 inmates and their loved ones has been shown to reduce the rate of recidivism,” but 22 “high inmate calling rates have made that contact unaffordable for many families, 23 who often live in poverty.” Reducing the cost of calls “measurably increases the 24 amount of contact between inmates and their loved ones, making an important 25 contribution to the criminal justice reforms sweeping the nation.” As Federal 26 Communications Commissioner Mignon Clyburn has said, this system “is 27 inequitable, it has preyed on our most vulnerable for too long, families are being 28 1 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 42 1 further torn apart, and the cycle of poverty is being perpetuated.” She further added 2 that the prison phone industry was “the most egregious case of market failure” she 3 has seen in her career. This lawsuit seeks to put an end to this unconscionable 4 practice by San Mateo County. 5 3. On November 5, 2015, the FCC released a “Second Report and Order 6 and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (FCC-136) which establishes 7 rate caps on interstate and intrastate calling rates and either eliminates and restricts 8 the fees inmate telephone providers could charge. 9 4. This action against the County of San Mateo, along with soon to be 10 filed lawsuits against Santa Clara County, Contra Costa County, Alameda County 11 and previously filed lawsuits against Los Angeles County, Orange County, 12 Ventura County, Riverside County and San Bernardino County, specifically 13 concerns the role of local California counties and jails, which collect 14 unconscionable “commissions” as payment for granting the exclusive telephone 15 link through which inmates in their various jails can communicate with the outside 16 world, including family, friends, bailbondsmen, legal counsel and others (hereafter 17 collectively “Call Recipients”). That these counties fully understand the injustice 18 they are inflicting, even while they continue it, is captured by the statement of 19 former Los Angeles County Supervisor, Zev Zaroslavsky, “Everyone’s making a 20 lot of money at the expense of inmates’ families. They’re in jail. They’re paying 21 their debt to society. That doesn’t give us the right to fleece them.” (emphasis 22 added).1 23 5. 24 The phone systems are commonly referred to as an Inmate Calling System (“ICS”), which is the term used by the FCC when addressing them. 25 26 27 28 1 See David Lazarus, Gouging L.A. County Inmates With High Phone Fees, The Los Angeles Times, September 8, 2014. 2 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 5 of 42 1 Counties like the County of San Mateo enter into exclusive contracts granting to 2 telecommunications companies, the most common of which are Global Tel*Link 3 Corporation (“GTL”) and Securus Technologies, Inc. (“Securus”) (hereafter 4 collectively the “telecommunications companies”), the exclusive right to establish 5 a phone system through which inmates – both pretrial and convicted – may 6 communicate with Call Recipients, who have to establish a pre-paid account with 7 the telecommunications companies and are charged unreasonable, unjust and 8 exorbitant rates, the lion’s share of which are in turn paid to the San Mateo County 9 as what are euphemistically referred to as “commissions.” Said 10 telecommunications companies are common carriers within the meaning of the 11 Federal Communications Act. Under this scheme, the County of San Mateo and its 12 jails receive a guaranteed $795,000 annually, which comprises the majority of 13 the collected charges. 14 6. Notably, the State of California provides a stark contrast to the 15 practices of the County of San Mateo. California’s practice establishes that there is 16 no meaningful basis to contend that exorbitant phone rates and commissions are 17 necessary to cover the costs of the service. In August 2007, California began to 18 phase out commissions at its state prisons, ultimately eliminating them in 2010. 19 Prior to August 2007, calls from California's prisons were $1.50 + $.15/minute for 20 local calls, $2.00 + $.22/minute intrastate and $3.95 + $.89/minute interstate. 21 Now, with no commissions, current per minute rates for intrastate and local calls 22 are $0.135 and $0.09, respectively, and the cost of an intrastate 15 minute call is 23 $2.03. Thus, the same 15-minute intrastate call without the commissions is 24 61.70% less than when the State received commissions ($3.27 differential in the 25 post commission fee divided by $5.30 total fee when commissions were used). 26 27 28 7. These payments, euphemistically called “commissions,” are an integral part of a scheme by virtue of which the County of San Mateo and the 3 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 6 of 42 1 telecommunications companies conspire and share in charging Call Recipients 2 unjust, unreasonable and exorbitant rates to communicate with inmates, as well as 3 fees that are illegal under California law. The rates charged to inmates and their 4 families, friends and associates are far greater than those paid for ordinary 5 telephone service. 6 8. These unjust, unreasonable, excessive and unlawful fees work a 7 terrible hardship on inmates, and their family, friends and associates who bear the 8 brunt of the charges. Most inmates of San Mateo County jails are relatively poor 9 and lack significant financial resources; they are disproportionately people of 10 color, especially African-American and Latino; many suffer from serious mental 11 illness. Their families, friends and associates similarly are relatively poor, people 12 of color and lack significant financial resources. The charges at issue in this 13 complaint unlawfully put the burden on inmates’ families, friends and associates of 14 paying for County services and costs that are rightfully the responsibility of the 15 taxpayers and society at large. These practices limit contact between inmates and 16 their families, friends, associates and other Call Recipients due to their exorbitant 17 costs, resulting in greater isolation for inmates and reduced support, and 18 undermining the objective of returning inmates to the community with greater and 19 stronger ties. Many people are forced to limit their contact with inmates far more 20 than they would wish because of the cost. 21 9. Although the Complaint identifies Defendant County of San Mateo, 22 the Sheriff’s Department of San Mateo County is a part of that County and, as the 23 term “County” or “County Defendants” is used in this Complaint, it encompasses 24 the Sheriff’s Department of San Mateo County as well as the County at large. 25 26 10. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief, including refunds of the unlawful sums they paid described in this Complaint. 27 28 4 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 7 of 42 1 11. Defendant San Mateo County’s wrongful conduct involves relatively 2 small amounts of damages for each class member. Defendants are carrying out a 3 scheme to deliberately collect unlawful but small sums of money from large 4 numbers of Call Recipient Class Members and Inmate Class Members. Call 5 Recipient Class Members are individuals who accept calls from the incarcerated 6 inmate, and set up an account with the third party phone providers. Inmate Class 7 Members are the incarcerated individuals who use the telephone to contact the Call 8 Recipient Class Members. The Defendants conduct unlawfully burdens Class 9 Members’ ability to communicate with loved ones, friends, associates or persons 10 important to their or their loved ones’ legal situation. Each class brings this action 11 on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated. 12 12. The gravamen of this Complaint concerns the County of San Mateo’s 13 liability for 1) violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 (for depriving inmates and their 14 families and associates their First Amendment rights of association, and 15 unconstitutionally conditioning their use of the phones on such outrageous charges 16 in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process and unlawful takings 17 provisions, 2) a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §1, et seq. and 3) 18 various supplemental state law claims, in particular a) that the “commissions”, 19 though denominated as such, are an unlawful tax imposed in violation of Article 13 20 C of the California Constitution; b) that the commissions have an unlawful 21 disparate impact on African-Americans and Latinos in violation of Govt. Code 22 §11135, and c) that the commissions constitute a violation of California Civil Code 23 §52.1 by depriving the Plaintiffs of their rights through intimidation, threat or 24 coercion. 25 13. 26 Plaintiffs anticipate that the Complaint will be amended to add additional Named Plaintiff Class Representatives for the County of San Mateo. 27 28 5 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 8 of 42 1 II. 2 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. Plaintiffs present federal claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 3 15 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. Accordingly, federal jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court 4 by 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are so related to their 5 federal law claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. 6 Accordingly, supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is conferred upon 7 this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1367. 8 9 10 15. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of acts of the Defendants in San Mateo County, located within the Northern District of California. Accordingly, venue is proper within the Northern District of California. 11 16. All Plaintiffs – whether inmates for whom a third party ICS account 12 was in the past or present established, or will in the future be established, and Call 13 Recipients who establish the ICS account (defined more fully in ¶1, supra) – have 14 standing because both inmates and Call Recipients suffered an injury in fact. 15 Inmates, even if they did not pay or contribute to payment for the ICS, were and 16 will be injured because the unlawful conduct alleged herein restricted their 17 practical ability to communicate with the outside world. Call Recipients were 18 injured both because the unlawful conduct alleged herein restricted their practical 19 ability to communicate with inmates and because they paid for unlawful fees and 20 charges. 21 III. PARTIES 22 A. PLAINTIFFS 23 17. Plaintiff Alfred Banks is a male inmate at the Maguire Correctional 24 25 Facility in Redwood City, California, starting in 2016 and continuing to this date. 18. Plaintiff Shirley Lawrence Banks is Alfred Banks’s wife, and directly 26 bears the cost of the charges for telephone calls made by her husband. Therefore, 27 Plaintiff Shirley Lawrence Banks qualifies as the payor of said fees. Mrs. Banks is 28 6 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 9 of 42 1 a resident of San Mateo County. On or about December 16, 2015, Counsel for 2 Plaintiffs submitted a Cal. Govt. Code class § 910 claim to San Mateo County on 3 behalf of Thomas Shireman, Alyssa Crombie, and a class of similarly situated 4 persons who have been and will be affected by the imposition of illegal and 5 unconstitutional telephone related charges as alleged herein. On February 10, 6 2016, the County sent notice that the claim was rejected by the Board of 7 Supervisors on February 9, 2016. Plaintiffs Alfred Banks and Shirley Lawrence 8 are members of that class of similarly situated individuals. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19. Defendant San Mateo County (hereafter “County”) is a public entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department (hereafter “SMCSD”) is a public entity within the meaning of California law, and is an agency of San Mateo County (Defendants San Mateo County and the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department are hereinafter collectively referred to as “County Defendants”). The County is sued in its own right for a County and/or SMCSD policy, practice or custom which caused Plaintiffs’ injuries in violation of one or more federal rights, and is sued as well under California state law for violation of California constitutional guarantees, as well as violations of Civil Code §52.1 and Govt. Code §11135. 20. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will give notice of this complaint, and of one of more DOES’ true names and capacities, when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are responsible in some manner for the damages and injuries hereinafter complained of. Because there are numerous Defendants, each of which may have Doe Defendants that should appropriately be named in the Complaint, ten Doe 27 28 7 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 10 of 42 1 Defendants may be inadequate. Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek leave to add Doe 2 Defendants. 3 21. Individual Defendants from San Mateo County (although not 4 currently named, but who may be named in the future) may at times be referred to 5 herein collectively as the “Individual Defendants.” . 6 22. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs further allege that, at all times 7 relevant herein, the Individual Defendants participated in, implemented, 8 supervised, approved, and/or ratified the unconstitutional or illegal acts undertaken 9 on behalf of the County Defendant with regard to which they are named as 10 11 Individual Defendants. 23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege that, at all 12 times relevant herein, the Individual Defendants, and each of them, were the 13 agents, servants and employees of the County Defendant with regard to which they 14 are named as Individual Defendants, and were acting at all times within the scope 15 of their agency and employment with the knowledge and consent of their 16 principals and employers. At all times herein, Defendants, and each of them, were 17 acting under the color of state law. 18 24. When a County Defendant is named on state law claims, it is named 19 not only under a theory of directly liability, but also as an entity responsible in 20 respondeat superior for the actions undertaken by its agents, servants and 21 employees. Said respondeat superior liability extends to and encompasses, but is 22 not limited to, the ministerial acts of implementing the contracts and ICS charges 23 challenged in this Complaint. 24 25. When the phrase “San Mateo County Defendants” is used in this 25 Complaint, it refers not only to the County Defendants, but to the Doe Defendants 26 and to any Individual Defendants who may be named with regard to that County. 27 28 8 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 11 of 42 1 2 IV. CLAIMS OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES 26. Alfred Banks is African-American. He is currently, and for the 3 foreseeable future will be, incarcerated in the Maguire Correctional Facility. He 4 attempts to stay in close contact with his wife Shirley Lawrence Banks and calls 5 her at least twice a day. However, due to the cost of each call he makes from jail, 6 his wife pays a high price to stay in touch with her husband. Mr. Banks is a 7 member of a class of similarly situated individuals that submitted a claim for 8 damages pursuant to California Government Code §910 et seq. by certified mail on 9 December 16, 2015. Mr. Banks is a Named Plaintiff in all claims asserted in this 10 complaint except that he is not a Named Plaintiff in the federal claims brought 11 under the FCA and 42 U.S.C. §1983 (whether for damages or injunctive relief). 12 Plaintiff Banks brings this suit on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of 13 similarly situated persons, defined elsewhere in this Complaint. 14 27. Shirley Lawrence Banks, Mr. Banks’s wife, is also African-American. 15 Due to the cost of each call, whether through GTL, Securus, or another 16 telecommunications company, she is constantly depositing more and more money 17 into her husband’s prepaid phone account. Mrs. Banks pays between $300 and 18 $350 per month in phone charges. Mrs. Banks was retired up until recently when 19 she began working as a part time cashier at Wal-mart in order to continue to 20 communicate with her husband and pay for the phone calls. The cost of these 21 calls has placed a significant burden upon her. Since Mr. Banks’s imprisonment, 22 Mrs. Banks has paid many hundreds of dollars to Securus. Mrs. Banks is a 23 member of a class of similarly situated individuals that submitted a class claim for 24 damages pursuant to California Government Code §910 et seq. by certified mail on 25 December 16, 2015. Plaintiff Shirley Lawrence Banks brings this suit on her own 26 behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, defined elsewhere in 27 this Complaint. 28 9 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 12 of 42 1 V. 2 CLASS ACTION FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 28. The County of San Mateo entered into exclusive contracts with Global 3 Tel*Link (hereinafter referred to as “GTL”) for a period of several years from on 4 or about November 2007 through on or about March 2013 and Securus 5 Technologies, Inc., (hereinafter “Securus”) from on or about April 2013 to the 6 present, to provide pay telephone services from San Mateo County’s jails and other 7 correctional facilities, resulting in a monopoly for GTL and Securus who received 8 the contract. Because these contracts were/are exclusive to GTL and Securus and 9 because inmates are literally a captive market with no ability to choose another 10 telephone company, there are no competitive market forces to constrain the prices 11 set by GTL and Securus.2 12 29. In return for this monopoly power, however, GTL and Securus 13 provide kickbacks, masqueraded as “site commissions,” to the County of San 14 Mateo. Indeed, the County of San Mateo selected GTL and Securus to be the third 15 party phone providers based on the fact that they were the companies that agreed to 16 pay the highest amount in annual commissions. In order to generate these sizable 17 kickbacks, “[f]amilies of incarcerated individuals often pay significantly more to 18 receive a single 15-minute call from prison than for the basic monthly phone 19 service.”3 In addition, GTL and Securus impose unnecessary and unconscionable 20 fees and charges on accounts used for inmate telephone calls, all of which “inflicts 21 substantial and clear harm on the general public,”4 including Plaintiffs. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 See In re Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I, 28 FCC Rcd. 14107, 14129 (F.C.C. Sept. 26, 2013). 3 Id., 28 FCC Rcd. at 14130. 4 In re Rates for Interstate Calling Servs. II, 40, 15929, 15938 (F.C.C. Nov. 21, 2013). 10 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 13 of 42 1 30. Since County Defendant’s commission contract provides a substantial 2 minimum guaranteed fee against an identified percentage of the ICS charges for 3 the County of San Mateo after which Securus still make a substantial profit, it is 4 obvious that, without the commissions, the charges would be substantially lower, 5 and they bear no reasonable relationship to the actual cost of providing the ICS 6 service. 7 31. County Defendants use its annual commissions as provided by Penal 8 Code §4025(c-d), which states that any money or commission collected by a jail 9 for the use of pay phones primarily used by incarcerated inmates shall be deposited 10 in the Inmate Welfare Fund and used first for the benefit, education and welfare of 11 inmates and, to the extent not needed for that purpose, may be used for the 12 maintenance of county jail facilities. Nonetheless, rather than using the money 13 primarily for vocational and educational programs, or other programs designed for 14 the rehabilitation of inmates, much, if not most, of the money deposited in the 15 Inmate Welfare fund is spent on general jails issues, including maintenance, 16 equipment, office furniture, salaries and, in some instances, food. The 17 demographics of the jail population of County Defendants’ jails are highly 18 disproportionate to the demographics of San Mateo County as a whole. While 19 Plaintiffs do not currently have statistical breakdown of San Mateo County, there 20 are readily available statistics available on the demographics of the California 21 prison population which, on information and belief, mirrors that of the County 22 jails. While approximately 29% of the California male prison population is 23 African-American, less than 7% of the California population is African American. 24 In 2013, 4.367 % of all African-American males (4,367 out of every 100,000) in 25 California were imprisoned, compared to .922 % (922 out of every hundred 26 thousand) for Latinos, and .488% (488 out of every hundred thousand) for whites. 27 28 11 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 14 of 42 1 Said another way, African-Americans are imprisoned at almost 10 times the rate of 2 whites, and Latinos are imprisoned at almost twice the rate of whites. 3 32. The jail population is similarly disproportionately composed of 4 persons with mental illnesses or drug addiction, both of which qualify as 5 disabilities. A 2006 study by the U.S. Department of Justice found that more than 6 half of all prison and jail inmates have a mental health problem compared with 11 7 percent of the general population, yet only one in three prison inmates and one in 8 six jail inmates receive any form of mental health treatment. Other data indicate 9 that approximately 20% of incarcerated inmates have a serious mental illness, and 10 30 to 60 % have substance abuse problems. The percentages increase significantly 11 when including broad-based mental illnesses. For example, 50 percent of males 12 and 75 percent of female inmates in state prisons, and 75 percent of females and 63 13 percent of male inmates in jails, will experience a mental health problem requiring 14 mental health services in any given year. 15 A. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 16 33. For a period of several years and continuing through on or about 17 March 31, 2013, the County had a written agreement with GTL to provide ICS for 18 the SMCSD. Pursuant to that agreement, GTL agreed to pay, and did pay, the 19 County a Minimum Annual Guaranty of $620,000, adjusted each year based on the 20 number of inmates housed in the County’s jails. Plaintiffs are currently unaware of 21 the actual commission amounts that GTL has paid to this County for each year this 22 agreement was in effect. 23 34. Effective on or about April 1, 2013, the County began its current 24 agreement for ICS with Securus. The original terms of the current written 25 agreement was for a term of three years, under which the County receives a 26 Minimum Annual Guaranty of $820,000 for the first year, and $795,000 for each 27 28 12 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 15 of 42 1 year thereafter. Upon information and belief, this contract was renewed on the 2 same terms until at least 2017. 3 35. In addition, upon information and belief, the County also has an 4 agreement with GTL, Securus and/or another third party provider, the details of 5 which are currently unknown to Plaintiffs, but which generally involve the sale of 6 prepaid direct call phone cards directly to inmates. As with the GTL and Securus 7 arrangements, the calling cards have unreasonable, unjust and grossly excessive 8 rates, with a connection fee and a rate per minute far exceeding the standard rate 9 for local calls, or those of the San Mateo County region. 10 36. At no time did the County’s residents vote to approve the foregoing 11 commissions paid by GTL or Securus to the County or the rates charged to the 12 inmates and/or Call Recipients pursuant to the County’s agreements with GTL or 13 Securus. 14 VI. 15 CLASS DEFINITIONS 37. The Named Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on 16 behalf of all other persons similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal 17 Rules of Civil Procedure. 18 38. Because there is a race/ethnicity disparate impact claim in the case, 19 and because Plaintiffs’ contention that persons not part of the protected disparate 20 impact categories (i.e., African-American and Latino) are appropriate class 21 members for a disparate impact claim may be disputed, Plaintiffs have defined a 22 sub-class for the disparate impact claims composed of African-Americans and 23 Latinos only. This sub-class would only apply in the event the Court were 24 ultimately to conclude that a) persons who are not African-American or Latino 25 (e.g., white inmates and their families) do not have standing to assert a disparate 26 impact claim, or are not members of a disparate impact class, even though they 27 suffered the same injuries as African-Americans and Latinos, and b) the disparate 28 13 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 16 of 42 1 impact classes must accordingly be limited to African-Americans and Latinos. This 2 alternative sub-class applies only to the disparate impact claims and is referred to 3 as the Limited Disparate Impact Sub-Class. 4 5 39. The Named Plaintiffs for the General Class of San Mateo County are as follows: 6 a. Alfred Banks (current inmate); and 7 b. Shirley Lawrence Banks (Alfred Banks’s wife, who has established 8 and paid for a pre-paid ICS account to allow her to communicate with 9 her husband). 10 11 40. The Proposed Named Plaintiffs for the Limited Disparate Impact Sub- Class of San Mateo County are as follows: 12 a. Alfred Banks (current African-American inmate); 13 b. Shirley Lawrence Banks (African-American wife of Alfred Banks, 14 15 who has established and paid for a pre-paid ICS account). 41. At times in this Complaint the General Class Named Plaintiffs may be 16 referred to collectively by that title. Similarly, at times in this Complaint, the 17 Limited Disparate Impact Sub-Class Named Plaintiffs may be referred to 18 collectively by that title. 19 42. Additionally, at times in this complaint, the General Class and 20 Limited Disparate Impact Sub-Class Named Plaintiffs who were or are inmates are 21 referred to collectively as the “Named Inmate Plaintiffs”, and the General Class 22 and Limited Disparate Impact Sub-Class Named Plaintiffs who were Call 23 Recipients are referred to collectively as the “Named Call Recipient Plaintiffs.” 24 43. Also, the General and Limited Disparate Impact Sub-Class Members 25 who qualify as Call Recipients at times may be referred to collectively as “Call 26 Recipient Class Members,” and the General and Limited Disparate Impact Sub- 27 28 14 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 17 of 42 1 Class Members who qualify as inmates at times may be referred to collectively as 2 “Inmate Class Members.” 3 A. GENERAL CLASS DEFINED 4 44. The General Rule 23(b)(2) Class (referring to the class of people 5 seeking purely injunctive relief) of San Mateo County is generally defined as 6 follows: 7 Those individuals or entities that qualify as either a) a past, present or 8 future San Mateo County Jail inmate for whom a third party ICS account 9 was in the past or present, or in the future will be, established, or b) a Call 10 Recipient, i.e., inmates’ family, friends, bailbondsmen, legal counsel, or 11 others, who in the past or present has established, or will in the future 12 establish, a pre-paid ICS account with a telecommunications company 13 (currently Securus) that has contracted with the San Mateo County to 14 provide third party phone accounts for phone access to County Jail inmates, 15 from which pre-paid accounts the phone charges and administrative or other 16 fees for calls with inmates housed or confined in any San Mateo County Jail 17 Facility are paid, and out of which collected funds the County of San Mateo 18 is paid commissions pursuant to its contract with the telecommunications 19 company. 20 45. The General Rule 23(b)(3) Class (referring to the class of people 21 seeking monetary relief in addition to injunctive relief) of San Mateo County is 22 generally the same, but limited to those who suffered monetary harm and so 23 excludes certain future class members, and is defined as follows: 24 Those individuals or entities, through the earlier of the complete 25 cessation of the challenged conduct or the final resolution of this case, that 26 qualify as either a) a past or present San Mateo County Jail inmate for whom 27 a third party ICS account was established, or b) a Call Recipient, i.e., 28 15 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 18 of 42 1 inmates’ family, friends, bailbondsmen, legal counsel, or others, who in the 2 past or present has established, or will in the future establish, a pre-paid ICS 3 account with a telecommunications company (currently Securus) that has 4 contracted with the County of San Mateo to provide third party phone 5 accounts for phone access to County Jail inmates, from which pre-paid 6 accounts the phone charges and administrative or other fees for calls with 7 inmates housed or confined in any County of San Mateo Jail Facility are 8 paid, and out of which collected funds the County of San Mateo is paid 9 commissions pursuant to its contract with the telecommunications company. 10 B. LIMITED DISPARATE IMPACT SUB-CLASS DEFINED 11 46. The Limited Disparate Impact Rule 23(b)(2) Sub-Class (referring to 12 the class of people seeking purely injunctive relief) of San Mateo County applies 13 only in the event the Court determines that a disparate impact class is limited to 14 African-Americans and Latinos. This sub-class is generally defined as follows: 15 Individuals that qualify as either a) a past, present or future County of 16 San Mateo Jail African-American or Latino inmate for whom a third party 17 ICS account was in the past or present, or in the future will be, established, 18 or b) a Call Recipient, i.e., an African-American or Latino inmates’ family, 19 friends, bailbondsmen, legal counsel, or others, who is either African- 20 American or Latino, and who in the past or present has established, or will in 21 the future establish, a pre-paid ICS account with a telecommunications 22 company (currently Securus) that has contracted with the County of San 23 Mateo to provide third party phone accounts for phone access to County of 24 San Mateo Jail inmates, from which pre-paid accounts the phone charges 25 and administrative or other fees for calls with inmates housed or confined in 26 any County of San Mateo Jail Facility are paid, and out of which collected 27 28 16 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 19 of 42 1 funds the County of San Mateo is paid commissions pursuant to its contract 2 with the telecommunications company. 3 47. The Limited Disparate Impact Rule 23(b)(3) Class (referring to the 4 class of people seeking monetary relief in addition to injunctive relief) of San 5 Mateo County is generally the same, but limited to those who suffered monetary 6 harm and so excludes certain future class members, and is defined as follows: 7 Individuals, through the earlier of the complete cessation of the 8 challenged conduct or the final resolution of this case, that qualify as either 9 a) a past or present County of San Mateo Jail African-American or Latino 10 inmate for whom a third party ICS account was in the past or present, or in 11 the future will be, established, or b) a Call Recipient, i.e., an African- 12 American or Latino inmates’ family, friends, bailbondsmen, legal counsel, 13 or others, who is either African-American or Latino, and who in the past or 14 present has established, or will in the future establish, a pre-paid ICS 15 account with a telecommunications company (currently Securus) that has 16 contracted with the County of San Mateo to provide third party phone 17 accounts for phone access to County of San Mateo Jail inmates, from which 18 pre-paid accounts the phone charges and administrative or other fees for 19 calls with inmates housed or confined in any County of San Mateo Jail 20 Facility are paid, and out of which collected funds the County of San Mateo 21 is paid commissions pursuant to its contract with the telecommunications 22 company. 23 VII. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 23 REQUIREMENTS DEFINITIONS 24 A. NUMEROSITY 25 48. Because California is such a large state, many of its jail systems are 26 large compared to the average jail system in the United States. 27 28 17 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 20 of 42 1 49. 2 1,000 inmates. 3 50. The San Mateo County Jail has a jail population numbering around Average jail turnover rate in US jails is 15 times per year. 4 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;NEWECFSSESSION=KnsqVy1h8yKTrl2 5 gyF3g621nyZNJN2nJpXX6DFxznyXyXnh8LJhT!1736751079!- 6 973180750?id=60001115155. 7 8 9 51. While the turnover rate is smaller in large jails, the jail population turns over several times per year. 52. Even assuming that only a small fraction of inmates and their families 10 avail themselves of prepaid ICS accounts, on information and belief, each class for 11 San Mateo County numbers in the thousands. 12 B. COMMON ISSUES OF FACT OR LAW 13 53. The County of San Mateo has a contract with a telecommunications 14 company, the terms of which provide a minimum annual guaranteed payment 15 against a percentage that goes to the County Jail for the exclusive right to provide 16 pre-paid Call Recipient phone accounts to receive inmate calls. 17 18 54. The common issues of fact or law applicable to each class include: a. Are the charges pursuant to which Defendant County of San 19 Mateo receives Contract Funds so excessive, arbitrary and/or 20 unreasonable as to deprive or limit Class Members’ ability to 21 reasonably communicate between Inmate Class Members and 22 their families and loved ones who are Call Recipient Class 23 Members in violation of the First Amendment and/or Due 24 Process clauses of the United States and/or California 25 Constitutions? 26 27 28 b. Are the charges pursuant to which Defendant County of San Mateo receives Contract Funds so excessive, arbitrary and/or 18 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 21 of 42 1 unreasonable as to deprive or limit Class Members’ of due 2 process by virtue of their disproportionate relationship to the 3 reasonable cost to Defendant County of San Mateo of ICS 4 usage? 5 c. Are the charges pursuant to which the Defendant County San 6 Mateo receives Contract Funds so excessive, arbitrary and/or 7 unreasonable as to place unconstitutional conditions on Class 8 Members’ exercise of their Fifth Amendment (and parallel state 9 Constitutional) rights and/or constitute an unlawful taking in 10 violation of Federal and California due process and unlawful 11 takings clauses? 12 13 d. Do the Contract Funds qualify as an unlawful tax under Articles 13 C and/or D of the California Constitution? 14 e. Do the ICS charges that provide the source of the Contract 15 Funds received by Defendant County of San Mateo, and 16 consequently the Contract Funds, have a disparate impact on 17 African-Americans and Latinos, and, if so, a) are the Contract 18 Funds necessary to the operation of the County Jails or 19 otherwise substantially justified, and b) if they are, can they be 20 replaced by an equally effective but less discriminatory 21 alternative? 22 f. If the ICS charges that provide the source of the Contract Funds 23 received by Defendant County of San Mateo, and consequently 24 the Contract Funds, have a disparate impact on African- 25 Americans and Latinos, do persons who are injured by such 26 charges who are not African-American or Latino have standing 27 to receive redress for such unlawful charges? 28 19 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 22 of 42 1 g. Do the ICS Contracts create, or contribute to the creation of, a 2 coercive choice for Class Members between paying unlawful 3 ICS charges (on any of the foregoing grounds) or foregoing 4 spoken communicational between inmates and family, friends 5 or other associates and thereby violate Civil Code §52.1? 6 h. Are presumed damages available to Plaintiffs and the Class 7 Members for their non-economic damages for violation of the 8 federal rights asserted in the complaint? 9 10 55. While there are additional common issues, these issues alone more than establish that there are common issues. 11 C. TYPICALITY 12 56. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the claims of the Named 13 Plaintiffs are typical of each class for which they are named as a class 14 representative. All Named Inmate Plaintiffs were in the custody of San Mateo 15 County Jail when they were subjected to the unlawful conduct alleged in the 16 Complaint, which unlawful conduct applied and applies to all inmates in San 17 Mateo County Jail, who established, or whose family or other associates 18 established, an ICS pre-paid account through Call Recipients. All Named Call 19 Recipient Plaintiffs established a pre-paid ICS account with San Mateo County Jail 20 in order to be able to communicate with an inmate housed in San Mateo County 21 Jail, and were accordingly subjected to the unlawful conduct alleged in the 22 Complaint, which unlawful conduct applied and applies to all Call Recipients who 23 established an ICS pre-paid account through Call Recipients. 24 57. Thus, the Named Plaintiffs for the General Class of San Mateo 25 County and Limited Disparate Impact Classes have the same interests, and have 26 suffered the same type of damages as the Class Members of those classes. Named 27 Plaintiffs’ claims for the respective classes alleged in this Complaint are based 28 20 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 23 of 42 1 upon the same or similar legal theories as the claims of the Class Members. Each 2 class member of the respective classes alleged herein suffered actual damages as a 3 result of the actions of each Defendant applicable to that class. The actual damages 4 suffered by Plaintiffs are similar in type and amount to the actual damages suffered 5 by each class member. 6 58. The economic losses suffered by each class member (whether General 7 or Limited Disparate Impact Sub-Class) are commonly determined by the amount 8 paid by that class member for the ICS charges paid by or on behalf of that class 9 member, plus interest to be determined. 10 D. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION 11 59. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the Named Plaintiffs will 12 fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests of the Named 13 Plaintiffs are consistent with and not antagonistic to the interests of each class. 14 15 60. Similarly, class counsel are experienced class action litigators who will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each class. 16 E. PREDOMINANCE AND SUPERIORITY 17 61. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1)(A), prosecutions of 18 separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk that 19 inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the 20 class would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing 21 the class. 22 62. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1)(B), prosecutions of 23 separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of 24 adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that would, as a 25 practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of the other members 26 of the class to protect their interests. 27 28 21 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 24 of 42 1 63. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs are 2 informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants have acted on grounds 3 generally applicable to the class. 4 64. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), the questions of law 5 or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions 6 affecting only individual members, and this class action is superior to other 7 available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy between 8 the parties. The interests of Class Members in individually controlling the 9 prosecution of a separate action is low in that most Class Members would be 10 unable to individually prosecute any action at all. The amounts at stake for 11 individuals are such that separate suits would be impracticable in that most 12 members of the class will not be able to find counsel to represent them on an 13 individual basis. It is desirable to concentrate all litigation in one forum because all 14 of the claims arise out of the same basic pattern of conduct, the legality of which is 15 subject to class wide determination. It will promote judicial efficiency to resolve 16 the common questions of law and fact in one forum rather than in multiple courts. 17 Because the unlawful conduct alleged herein is systemic, it is particularly well 18 suited to resolution on a class basis, as the critical questions in the case may be 19 answered on a class wide basis. Indeed, in this case, there are no individualized 20 issues at all regarding liability. Either the charges are lawful under the legal 21 theories implicated by this Complaint or they are not. 22 65. The claims raised herein are susceptible to common proof. Defendant 23 County of San Mateo has a contract under which it receives a minimum fee against 24 a percentage of certain proceeds in exchange for its grant of exclusive ICS rights. 25 The phone charges and related fees that Class Members pay are uniform across 26 Class Members, and are discoverable from the contracted telecommunications 27 company computerized records. The race and ethnicity of Class Members for the 28 22 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 25 of 42 1 disparate impact claims are discoverable from jail and phone records, either 2 because they directly contain such information or because they can be determined 3 from statistical analyses based on those records (including from census information 4 based on addresses). 5 66. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the 6 management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 7 The class action is superior to any other available means to resolve the issues 8 raised on behalf of the classes. The class action will be manageable because 9 computerized records systems exist from which to ascertain the members of the 10 class and to ascertain some of the proof relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Liability can 11 be determined on a class-wide basis based on class wide evidence because the 12 Plaintiffs complain of systemic and widespread policies and practices that are 13 uniform for Defendant County of San Mateo, based on their particular contract 14 with the relevant telecommunications company. Named Plaintiffs and the Class 15 Members are entitled to economic damages under federal and state law, and to 16 such other damages as may be determined by the Court or the trier of facts; to 17 statutory damages under Civil Code § 52.1; and, in any event, individualization or 18 variability in damages is not a bar to a liability certification based on common 19 liability issues. 20 67. In the event that a determination is made that the disparate impact 21 claim is limited only to African-Americans and Latinos (a proposition that 22 Plaintiffs contest), those Class Members who are African-Americans and Latinos 23 can be identified through a combination of available records and self-identification. 24 68. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of the Class Members. The 25 identities of the Class Members are ascertainable from a combination of San Mateo 26 County Jail and the County’s contracted telecommunications company records. 27 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the foregoing computer 28 23 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 26 of 42 1 records reflect the identities, including addresses and telephone numbers, of the 2 persons who qualify as Class Members, and the charges incurred, and that it is 3 possible to ascertain from those records who qualifies as a class member of each 4 class. 5 69. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), Class Members must 6 be furnished with the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including 7 individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. 8 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the telecommunications company computer 9 records and County Jail records for Defendant County of San Mateo contain a 10 current or last known address for Class Members, as well as the billing information 11 pertinent to each class member. 12 VIII. APPROPRIATENESS OF EQUITABLE RELIEF 13 70. Inmate Plaintiffs and Class Members currently incarcerated, and Call 14 Recipient Plaintiffs and Class Members with current and operating ICS accounts, 15 are and will continue to be, subject to the unlawful ICS phone charges addressed 16 in this Complaint. 17 71. Defendant County of San Mateo’s continuing violations of law under 18 applicable United States and California constitutional and statutory provisions 19 causes Plaintiffs and Class Members continuing, sweeping and irreparable harm. 20 72. Because no adequate remedy at law exists for the injuries alleged 21 herein, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under both federal and state law, including 22 restitution in amounts to be determined at trial based on the unlawful payments 23 plus interest. 24 25 IX. DAMAGES 73. As a result of San Mateo County Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 26 Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, 27 compensable damages in amounts to be determined at trial, including economic, 28 24 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 27 of 42 1 physical and emotional distress damages, in amounts according to proof at trial. 2 The economic damages and/or refund/restitution/disgorgement are susceptible to 3 class wide proof based on the computerized records of the applicable 4 telecommunications company, the San Mateo County Jail, and the applicable 5 documents and records memorializing and documenting the ICS charges 6 complained of herein. 7 8 74. Plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to statutory damages under state law, and to presumed damages under federal law. 9 75. San Mateo County Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently or 10 oppressively, and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ 11 rights, thereby entitling Plaintiffs and the Class to an award of punitive damages 12 from all Defendant individuals except the County Defendants or any governmental 13 entity. 14 X. 15 CLAIMS A. VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. §1983 [BY ALL PLAINTIFFS (OTHER THAN ALFRED BANKS) AGAINST SAN MATEO COUNTY DEFENDANTS] 76. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this 16 17 18 19 Complaint into this claim. 77. Defendant County of San Mateo is a local government entity 20 susceptible to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983. All of the conduct alleged herein was 21 done under color of state law, pursuant to a governmental policy, custom or 22 practice. Each of the contracts alleged herein was approved by, and entered into 23 under the authority of, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. 24 78. The conduct alleged herein violates and unduly burdens the Class 25 Members’ rights of association and meaningful personal communication with 26 family, friends, associates and other Call Recipients in violation of the First 27 Amendment to the United States Constitution. 28 25 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 28 of 42 1 79. The conduct alleged herein violates the Fifth Amendment to the 2 United States Constitution. Both Call Recipients and Inmate Plaintiffs’ and Class 3 Members’ ability to speak to loved ones, friends, and counsel is unconstitutionally 4 conditioned on ICS payments that unreasonably burden the exercise of Fifth 5 Amendment rights to just compensation, unreasonably forces Plaintiffs and the 6 classes alone to bear public costs that should be borne by the public as a whole, 7 and additionally bear no reasonable nexus or rough proportionality to the required 8 payments and the cost to, or burden or effect on, the County of San Mateo by 9 allowing the provision of such calls. Plaintiffs and Class Members’ rights to due 10 process of law were unlawfully abridged, as explained above, and their rights to 11 equal protection of the laws were denied in that the conduct complained of herein 12 was arbitrary and capricious. 13 80. ICS charges are especially vulnerable to the type of coercion that the 14 unconstitutional conditions doctrine prohibits because the government often has 15 broad discretion to control inmates’ access to the outside world, and therefore 16 government entities can pressure and coerce Class Members into paying hugely 17 disproportionate and unreasonable phone charges in order to be able to 18 communicate with loved ones and others herein referred to as Call Recipients. 19 81. Even if the San Mateo County Defendants could deny inmate phone 20 calls altogether, that is not what has occurred. Once ICS phone calls are allowed, it 21 cannot condition that benefit by infringing and burdening Fifth Amendment rights 22 by forcing Plaintiffs and Class Members to pay funds that are unreasonable and 23 substantially disproportionate to the cost to, or burden or effect on, San Mateo 24 County Defendants for allowing ICS calls. 25 82. Accordingly, San Mateo County Defendants’ actions violate 26 Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ Fifth Amendment rights, and/or place 27 unconstitutional conditions on their exercise, thereby violating the Fifth 28 26 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 29 of 42 1 Amendment’s prohibition on unconstitutional conditions and taking private 2 property without just compensation. 3 83. As a direct and proximate result of San Mateo County Defendants’ 4 violations, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have been damaged in amounts to be 5 determined at trial. 6 84. As a direct and proximate result of San Mateo County Defendants’ 7 violations, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to injunctive relief, 8 including restitution, in amounts to be determined at trial based on the unlawful 9 payments plus interest. 10 B. VIOLATION OF SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT [BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST SAN MATEO COUNTY DEFENDANTS] – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ONLY 85. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Complaint into this claim. 86. For purposes of this cause of action, the relevant market is Inmate Phone Services within San Mateo County jails. Because inmates and call recipients, including Plaintiffs, are a captive market in that they have no access to phone services other than those offered by the County Defendants, inmate phone services constitute a distinct market from phone services provided outside jails and prisons. Indeed, there are companies, such as GTL and Securus, which compete against each other solely in the inmate phone service market. 87. Rather than using their market power to obtain the most competitive phone prices for its consumers (inmates and call recipients), including Plaintiffs, through a typical bidding process, or by allowing more than one company to provide inmate phone services, the County Defendants did the opposite. They used their market control over the jails to enrich themselves at the expense of the phone services end consumers (inmates and call recipients), entering into an exclusive 27 28 27 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 30 of 42 1 agreement with the phone company willing to pay the highest kickback to the 2 County. 3 88. By providing GTL and Securus exclusive access to a captive market, 4 the County Defendants allow GTL and Securus to prey on Plaintiffs and the class 5 they seek to represent by charging exorbitant rates, without any competitive 6 pressures. In addition, by awarding the contract to GTL based on GTL agreeing to 7 pay the County at least $620,000 per year and in 2013 awarding the contract to 8 Securus based on Securus agreeing to pay the County at least $820,000 for the first 9 year and $795,000 per year thereafter, County Defendants functionally require 10 GTL and Securus to take advantage of its the exclusive market power granted it by 11 the County Defendants to charge rates far in excess of the rates that would prevail 12 in a competitive market. 13 89. On the other hand, if the County Defendants permitted more than one 14 company to provide phone services within its jails and/or selected an exclusive 15 provider based on which company offered the most competitive pricing for end 16 consumers rather than the highest kickback to the County, consumers like 17 Plaintiffs would receive the benefits of such market competition, including lower 18 prices and increased quality and selection. 19 90. County Defendants’ conduct not only thwarted competition for inmate 20 phone services within County Defendants’ jails, but totally eliminated competition 21 except competition as to who would provide the County Defendants the greatest 22 benefit in exchange for grant of the exclusive contract. 23 91. The direct, proximate, and foreseeable result and effect of the 24 agreement between County Defendants and GTL, and more recently Securus, was 25 that competition for inmate phone services within County Defendants’ jails 26 provided no market choice to the ultimate consumer of inmate phone services. 27 28 28 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 31 of 42 1 Consumers of inmate phone services, like Plaintiffs, must pay supra-competitive 2 prices for their phone calls. 3 92. The exclusive provider agreements described herein between the 4 County of San Mateo and GTL and more recently Securus, (hereinafter referred to 5 as the “Agreement”) constitutes an unreasonable, vertical agreement in restraint of 6 trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The 7 anticompetitive effects of the Agreement are not overridden or justified by any 8 procompetitive benefits stemming from the Agreement. The charges paid by 9 consumers to use inmate telephone services are significantly above the actual cost 10 of providing the telephone services. Further, there are no safety concerns that 11 require such monopolistic arrangements, and certainly no requirements that the 12 County receive such substantial kickbacks, or any kickback at all. To the extent 13 that any procompetitive benefits result from the Agreement, they could be 14 achieved by less restrictive means. 15 93. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the foregoing 16 agreement, Plaintiffs have been injured by being charged supra-competitive prices 17 for use of inmate phone services within the County’s jails. 18 94. County Defendant possesses monopoly power over the relevant 19 market (previously defined). It has the power to both control prices by requiring 20 large commissions and the power to exclude competition by allowing only one 21 inmate phone provider access to the market. It controls 100% of the relevant 22 market. It has used its monopoly power to foreclose competition and gain a 23 competitive advantage in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 24 U.S.C. § 2. 25 95. County Defendant and GTL, and more recently Securus, have entered 26 into the previously described contract and agreement with the full knowledge and 27 intent to restrain trade, including trade among the various states; have injured 28 29 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 32 of 42 1 competition, and caused an antitrust injury resulting from that anti-competitive 2 conduct to the end consumers (inmates and call recipients) who avail themselves of 3 inmate phone services. 4 5 6 96. GTL and Securus are not named as a Defendants herein but are unnamed co-conspirators. 97. GTL is a nationwide company that engages in commercial activities 7 throughout the United States. GTL describes itself on its website as “the leading 8 provider of integrated corrections technology for facilities across North America.” 9 GTL lists on its website facility specific information for correctional facilities in 10 California, Illinois, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Indiana. Career opportunities 11 applications for anywhere in the United States are handled through its Human 12 Resources offices in Mobile, Alabama. GTL provides a single contact number to 13 its correctional facilities clients throughout the United States, available on its 14 website. GTL integrates its technology on a national basis and consumer inquiries, 15 wherever based, are handled through a single, integrated Service Center. On 16 information and belief, GTL orders equipment used for its service from the stream 17 of interstate commerce, and many of the members of the Call Recipient class are 18 outside the state of California. Similarly, Defendant County and its County jails 19 regularly do business with companies throughout the United States, and regularly 20 orders products, including the products used for the foregoing contracts, from the 21 stream of interstate commerce. Similarly, Securus is also a nationwide company 22 that engages in commercial activities throughout the United States. Securus was 23 founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Securus describes itself on 24 its website as a technology company that provides “leading edge civil and criminal 25 justice technology solutions that improve public safety and modernize the 26 incarceration experience.” Securus lists on its website that it serves approximately 27 3,400 correctional facilities and more than 1.2 million inmates across 48 states, 28 30 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 33 of 42 1 including California. Securus integrates its technology on a national basis and 2 consumer inquiries, wherever based, are handled through a single, integrated 3 Service Center. On information and belief, Securus orders equipment used for its 4 service from the stream of interstate commerce, and many of the members of the 5 Call Recipient class are outside the state of California. Similarly, Defendant 6 County and its County jails regularly do business with companies throughout the 7 United States, and regularly orders products, including the products used for the 8 foregoing contracts, from the stream of interstate commerce. Thus, the conduct 9 challenged herein has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. 10 98. Although Defendant County of San Mateo is a political subdivision of 11 the State of California, the conduct challenged herein has not been taken pursuant 12 to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy, and the State of 13 California did not affirmatively contemplate that Counties and County jails would 14 displace competition and has not delegated to Counties or County jails the 15 authority to act anti-competitively in setting fees or commissions. Enactment of 16 the limitations on local or state government’s authority to impose assessments, fees 17 or taxes by virtue of Articles 13 C and D to the California Constitution makes clear 18 that local authorities are not authorized to establish fees of any kind that are not 19 reasonably related to their costs, which necessarily by its terms include 20 anticompetitive fees and charges. See Cause of Action XI(D), infra. 21 99. The Named Plaintiffs and the members of each class who do 22 currently, or may in the future, use or avail themselves of the inmate telephone 23 service provided by GTL and Securus, will suffer irreparable harm, and there is no 24 adequate remedy at law, unless the Court grants injunctive relief as is further 25 described in the Prayer for Relief section of this complaint. 26 27 28 31 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 34 of 42 1 2 3 4 C. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLES 13C AND 13D [BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST SAN MATEO COUNTY DEFENDANTS]. 100. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint into this claim. 5 101. The commissions received by the San Mateo County Defendants in 6 exchange for their grant of exclusive rights to establish an inmate call system in 7 their jails, although denominated as a commission, in fact constitute a tax under 8 California law, and, as such, were not approved by the voters of the respective 9 counties in which the tax was established, as required by Articles 13C and 13D of 10 11 the California Constitution. 102. As evidenced by the fact that the commissions are required by 12 California Penal Code §4025 to be used in the first instance for a jail’s inmate 13 welfare fund, the primary purpose of the commissions is to raise revenue for 14 governmental services. 15 103. The commissions far exceed the reasonable cost to the County of San 16 Mateo or San Mateo County Jail of providing services necessary to the activity for 17 which the fee is charged, here the provision of a calling service for inmate calls. 18 104. Pursuant to Article 13C §1 of the California Constitution, a tax 19 “means any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government” 20 with certain specified exceptions. 21 105. The first two relevant exceptions are charges “imposed for a specific 22 benefit conferred or privilege granted” or for “a specific government service or 23 product provided” in each of which situations the charge may “not exceed the 24 reasonable costs to the local government” of “conferring the benefit or granting the 25 privilege” or “providing the service or product.” Because the charges here exceed 26 the reasonable cost of the benefit, privilege, service or product, these exceptions 27 are inapplicable. 28 32 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 35 of 42 1 106. The third relevant exception is charges “imposed for the reasonable 2 regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing 3 investigations, inspections, and audits” and other inapplicable activities. Because 4 the charges here do not constitute regulatory activities and, in any event, exceed 5 the reasonable cost for the grant of the activity, this exception is inapplicable. 6 107. The last relevant exception is a “charge imposed for entrance to or use 7 of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government 8 property.” Because the commission has never been characterized as, and is not, a 9 charge for the limited use of government property, this exception is inapplicable. 10 The Commission is in fact a fee unrelated to the use of government property, and 11 that bears no rational relationship to the cost or value of whatever limited 12 governmental access in involved in the transaction. The purpose of this exception 13 is to allow government owned property that is leased or bought to do so at a 14 reasonable market value, which is inapplicable here. 15 108. Regardless of whether any of the exceptions under Article 13C §1 16 applies, the commissions nonetheless constitute an unlawful tax. Under Article 17 13C, the local government in all situations bears the burden of proving by a 18 preponderance of the evidence that “a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, 19 that the amount is not more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the 20 government activity, and that the manner in which costs are allocated to a payor 21 bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burden on, or benefits received 22 from, the governmental activity”. This applies to all governmental levies, charges 23 or exactions. It was added by Proposition 26, enacted in 2010, and applies to all of 24 the enumerated exceptions under Article 13C §1. Thus, even if the commission 25 constitutes a charge for the use of government property, it still must be reasonably 26 related to the benefit conferred or benefit received, and, for the reasons previously 27 stated, it does not. 28 33 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 36 of 42 1 109. Accordingly, none of the exceptions under Article 13C §1 of the 2 California Constitution apply, and in any event the commissions at issue here are a 3 tax for which each Plaintiff class and its members are entitled to a refund, 4 measured from the date of the first filing of a Govt. Code §910 claim applicable to 5 that class until such time as the tax ceases to operate. 6 110. As a direct and proximate result of San Mateo County Defendants’ 7 violations, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have been damaged in amounts to be 8 determined at trial. 9 111. As a direct and proximate result of San Mateo County Defendants’ 10 violations, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to injunctive relief, 11 including restitution in amounts to be determined at trial based on the unlawful 12 payments plus interest. 13 14 VIOLATION OF GOVT. CODE §11135 ET. SEQ. [BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST SAN MATEO COUNTY DEFENDANTS] 15 112. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this 16 17 D. Complaint into this claim. 113. Both Inmate Class Members and Call Recipient Class Members are 18 disproportionately African-American and Latino compared to the overall 19 population of San Mateo County. They also disproportionately suffer from mental 20 illness and drug addiction. 21 114. Regardless of whether Inmate Class Members and Call Recipient 22 Class Members are disproportionately African-American and Latino, or 23 disproportionately suffer from mental illness or drug addiction, they are perceived 24 as such. 25 115. To the extent that Inmate Class Members and Call Recipient Class 26 Members are not African-American and Latino, or do not suffer from mental 27 illness or drug addiction, they are, for purposes of the ICS charges, inextricably 28 34 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 37 of 42 1 associated with such Class Members, and suffer the same injuries as Class 2 Members. 3 116. Defendant County of San Mateo and its Sheriff’s Department and 4 County Jail within San Mateo County, receive a significant amount of money from 5 the State of California. In fact, over 70 % of all state spending is for local 6 government assistance, of which, on information and belief, a substantial share, 7 amounting to many millions of dollars, go to fund various activities of the County 8 of San Mateo, including its county jail. For example, the State Controller’s Office 9 Community Corrections 2014-2015 Subaccount allocation for San Mateo County 10 exceeded $14 Million. See http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD- 11 Payments/localcomcorremit_1415_dofletter.pdf “Across the state, county officials 12 are laying claim to billions in state funding to refurbish old jails and build new 13 ones.” https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/02/california-s-jail-building- 14 boom. It is anticipated that the State of California will distribute approximately 15 $4.4 Billion to the counties by 2016-2017 for realignment costs. 16 http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child- 17 page/443444/doc/slspublic/SCJC%20Money%20full%20report.pdf. Thus, the 18 County of San Mateo qualifies as having received, and continuing to receive, state 19 funds, both generally and for the jail. 20 117. Further, under realignment, the State of California is paying funds to 21 local counties, including Defendant County of San Mateo, for housing state 22 prisoners. See http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_812MLR.pdf. 23 118. There is no reasonable necessity or substantial legitimate justification 24 for the imposition of the ICS charges, and, in any event, they can be replaced by an 25 equally effective but less discriminatory alternative (e.g., a reasonable fee, or a 26 general tax or fee not aimed specifically at the disproportionately African- 27 28 35 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 38 of 42 1 American and Latino population that currently pays the ICS charges out of which 2 Defendant County of San Mateo receives the lion’s share. 3 119. As a direct and proximate result of San Mateo County Defendants’ 4 violations, Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to injunctive relief, including 5 restitution in amounts to be determined at trial based on the unlawful payments 6 plus interest. 7 E. 8 120. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this 9 10 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §52.1 [BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST SAN MATEO COUNTY DEFENDANTS]. Complaint into this claim. 121. By their conduct, San Mateo County Defendants have interfered by 11 12 threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation, 13 or coercion of Plaintiffs’ rights as secured by the First and Fourteenth 14 Amendments to the United States Constitution and of the rights secured by the 15 Constitution and laws of the state of California, including but not limited to 16 California Constitution, Articles 13C, 13D and Art. I, sec. 7, and the federal and 17 state statutory protections guaranteed to individuals based on race, including those 18 statutes that prohibit policies resulting in a disparate impact against a particular 19 race. 20 122. San Mateo County Defendants’ conduct in entering into contracts that 21 condition Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ First Amendment right to communicate 22 with loved ones, family, friends and associates who are incarcerated (at least once 23 the benefit is granted) on payments of funds that bear no reasonable nexus or rough 24 proportionality to the cost to, or burden or effect on, Defendant County of San 25 Mateo, or are otherwise unlawful, is a coercive act separate and apart from the 26 imposition of the unlawful charges themselves. The contracts at issue in this 27 Complaint authorize, require and force Plaintiffs and Class Members to make the 28 36 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 39 of 42 1 coercive choice of paying the ICS charges challenged in this Complaint or 2 foregoing their ability to communicate with family, friends and associates. 3 123. ICS charges are especially vulnerable to the type of coercion that the 4 unconstitutional conditions doctrine prohibits because Defendant County of San 5 Mateo has the ability to control inmates’ access to the outside world, and therefore 6 can pressure and coerce Class Members into paying hugely disproportionate and 7 unreasonable phone charges in order to be able to communicate with loved ones, 8 family, friends and associates. 9 124. There was, and is, no lawful justification for San Mateo County 10 Defendants to threaten, intimidate or coerce any of the Plaintiffs, or to attempt to 11 use threats, intimidation, or coercion to interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights to speak on 12 the telephone by conspiring with third party providers, such as GTL and Securus, 13 to charge illegal, unreasonable, excessive, substantially disproportionate, and 14 prohibitive rates and fees. San Mateo County Defendants’ actions were taken with 15 malice and oppression to deter and/or prevent Plaintiffs from exercising their 16 protected constitutional and statutory rights. 17 125. As a direct and proximate consequence of San Mateo County 18 Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered, and continue to suffer, a loss of their 19 constitutional rights, pain and suffering, including stress and anxiety, financial 20 losses, and are entitled to all damages authorized by Civil Code §52.1 and all other 21 applicable laws. In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief, including 22 restitution in amounts to be determined at trial based on the unlawful payments 23 plus interest and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civ. Cod. §52.1(h). 24 25 26 27 28 F. ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION [BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST SAN MATEO COUNTY DEFENDANTS]. 126. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint into this claim. 37 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 40 of 42 1 127. The conduct alleged in this Complaint violate Plaintiffs’ and Class 2 Members’ rights of free speech and association under Articles 2 and 3 of the 3 California Constitution, their right to due process of law under Article 7 of the 4 California Constitution (including the right not to have unconstitutional conditions 5 imposed in exchange for access to a government benefit), their right to equal 6 protection of the law under Article 7 of the California Constitution and their right 7 to just compensation for a public use under Article 19 of the California 8 Constitution. 9 128. As a direct and proximate result of San Mateo County Defendants’ 10 violations, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have been damaged in amounts to be 11 determined at trial, and claim such damages directly under the above 12 Constitutional provisions to the extent permitted by law. 13 129. As a direct and proximate result of San Mateo County Defendants’ 14 violations, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to injunctive relief, 15 including restitution in amounts to be determined at trial based on the unlawful 16 payments plus interest. 17 XI. 18 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members 19 they seek to represent, request monetary and injunctive relief against each 20 defendant as follows: 21 1. General and special damages according to proof; 22 2. A refund/disgorgement/restitution of the monies paid by Class 23 Members that, in turn, were used to pay the contracted commissions to County 24 Defendants the amounts contracted for in connection with the inmate calling 25 agreements of each with telecommunications companies. 26 27 28 3. Economic, physical and emotional distress damages (in addition to the damages sought in the preceding paragraph, or to the extent not covered or 38 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 41 of 42 1 awarded pursuant to that paragraph), and physical and emotional distress and other 2 damages according to proof. 3 4. Temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting 4 Defendant County of San Mateo from continuing to engage in the unlawful 5 practices complained of herein as follows: 6 a. Prohibiting the Defendants from renewing, or entering into 7 new, ICS contracts under which it receives commissions or fees 8 except exceeds the reasonable cost of providing the service of 9 allowing telephone access cost after determination of such 10 amounts by the court; 11 b. Prohibiting the Defendants, while the current challenged 12 contract remains in effect, from using the commissions it 13 receives under the contract for any purpose other than 14 placement in a court supervised fund for any purpose other than 15 ultimately restoring such funds back to the class members who 16 paid charges from which said commissions were taken to the 17 extent of said commissions. 18 5. Temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring 19 Defendant County of San Mateo to provide refunds/disgorgement/restitution of the 20 monies paid or to be paid by Class Members as a form of equitable relief. 21 6. Class wide presumed damages for non-economic damages for class 22 members on the federal claims, as well as statutory damages as allowed by law 23 under California Civil Code §§52 and 52.1. 24 7. Attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. §1988, 15 U.S.C. § 26, 25 California Civil Code §§ 52(b)(3), 52.1(h); California Code of Civil Procedure 26 §1021.5, and whatever other statute or law may be applicable. 27 28 8. Grant any other relief that this Court may deem fit and proper. 39 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 42 of 42 1 2 DATED: August 8, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, 3 KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP 4 5 6 By: /s/ Barrett S. Litt Barrett S. Litt Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 10 11 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 12 13 14 Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of the Class, demand a jury trial to the extent available under applicable law. 15 16 17 18 19 20 DATED: August 8, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT LLP RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP By: /s/ Barrett S. Litt Barrett S. Litt Attorneys for Plaintiffs 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 40 Case 4:16-cv-04455-YGR Document 1-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 2 San Mateo 42 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §1983; VIOLATIONS OF SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.) TBD 07/16) Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM S-CAND 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The S-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the ?lings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint ?led. The attorney ?ling a case should complete the form as follows: I. a) b) c) II. IV. VI. VII. Date Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, ?rst, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an of?cial within a government agency, identify ?rst the agency and then the of?cial, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case ?led, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the ?rst listed plaintiff resides at the time of ?ling. In US. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the ?rst listed defendant resides at the time of ?ling. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the ?defendant? is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the ?rm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section ?(see attachment)? Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. (1) United States plaintiff Jurisdiction based on 28 USC 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and of?cers of the United States are included here. (2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its of?cers or agencies, place an in this box. (3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the US. is a party, the US. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. (4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. Nature of Suit. Place an in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is suf?cient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Of?ce to determine the nature of suit. If the cause ?ts more than one nature of suit, select the most de?nitive. Origin. Place an in one of the six boxes. (1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts. (2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. (3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the ?ling date. (4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the ?ling date. (5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. (6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. (8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is ?led in the same district as the Master MDL docket. Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: US. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an in this box if you are ?ling a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jug Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: ?the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.? and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.