Bennet D. Zurofsky
Attorney at Law
17 Academy Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
bzurofsky@zurofskylaw .com
(973) 642-0885
Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
sskal et@findjustice. com
[email protected]
(202) 822-5100
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JULIA ENERSON, JULIA ENERSON &
ASSOCIATES LLC, and all others similarly
situated
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
BERGEN COUNTY: LAW DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs,
Docket No: L-344-13
vs.
VERIZON NEW JERSEY, INC.,
Defendant.
1----------------~~~--------~
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY
DEMAND
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1.
Plaintiffs Julia Enerson and Julia Enerson & Associates LLC, by and through
their undersigned attorneys, for themselves and all others similarly situated, brings this action
against Defendant Verizon New Jersey, Inc. (hereinafter "Verizon"), for compensatory and trebl
damages, injunctive, and other relief arising from Defendant's wrongful conduct as described
herein. Defendant Verizon, a private company providing telecommunications service throughout
the State ofNew Jersey, including Bergen County, has engaged in a deliberate practice of
charging customers for the installation of a network interface jack that is not expressly requested
or, in some cases, not actually installed. That practice violates the requirements of the applicable
tariff. Plaintiffs seek certification of this matter as a class action, and demand a jury trial as to
issues triable by a jury. For their class action complaint against Defendant, Plaintiffs allege as
follows:
THE PARTIES
2.
Plaintiff JULIA ENERSON is an individual who, at the time relevant to this
dispute, operated a business at 201 Railroad Avenue, East Rutherford, NJ.
3.
Plaintiff JULIA ENERSON & ASSOCIATES , LLC ("Company") is a limited
liability company owned by Julia Enerson and her husband, William Spada. At all times
relevant to this dispute, Ms. Enerson has been the managing and majority member of the
Company. She also serves as the registered agent, President, and Secretary of the Company. All
Company profits, losses, decisions, and actions are determined by a majority in interest.
- 2-
4.
Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of the Class of similarly
situated customers, as further defined at paragraph 13 below.
5.
Defendant Verizon was at all relevant times a business corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state ofNew Jersey, with its principal place ofbusiness located at
540 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey. Verizon New Jersey is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Verizon Communications, Inc. ("Verizon Inc."). Verizon Inc. provides local telephone services
in New Jersey, eleven other states, and the District of Columbia.
6.
Defendant Verizon was founded in 1904 as an AT&T company named Delaware
and Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone Company ("D&A T &T"), which served southern New
Jersey. In October 1927, D&A T&T changed its name to New Jersey Bell Telephone Company.
In 1994, New Jersey Bell became Bell Atlantic- New Jersey, Inc. In 2000, New Jersey Bell
became Verizon New Jersey, Inc.
FACTS
7.
Defendant Verizon was at all relevant times engaged in the business of providing
telephone service to residential and business customers.
8.
In New Jersey, the amount which Verizon may charge customers is set by a tariff
(a published schedule of rates filed by a public utility) filed with the New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities C'BPU").
9.
Section 10.1.1 of the tariff in effect at all relevant times provides:
A modular jack used as a Network Interface (NI) is a standard registered jack or
equivalent device. No rates or charges apply to installation whenfurnishedfor
this person except when expressly required by the customer/agent. In those cases
- 3-
appropriate SERVICE CHARGES, and rates equivalent to those specified in D.l
following apply if no other chargeable work is done at the time of installation.
SERVICE CHARGES apply for moves of miniature modular jacks used as an NI.
(emphasis added). The tariff also provides that ·'[n]o unique jack charge applies for jacks reused
in place." See§ 10.1.3(b)(l).
10.
In January 2007, Plaintiff Enerson contacted Verizon to install phone service at
201 Railroad Avenue in East Rutherford, NJ. Plaintiff did not expressly request that a network
interface jack be installed. Verizon generated service order # N 5CZ 17128 in response to
Plaintiffs request. Verizon came to the building on January 31, 2007 and installed the service.
11.
Plaintifflater received a bill from Verizon dated February 2, 2007, which
included a $6.00 charge for the installation of a network interface jack. The charge is listed as a
""[o]ne time cost for services provided" for "2 WIRE CONN BASEBOARD."
12.
In fact, no jack was installed at 201 Railroad Avenue, East Rutherford, NJ on
January 31 , 2007.
13.
V erizon routine! y and deliberate! y charges new customers for the installation of a
network interface jack when no such jack is in fact expressly requested. Additionally, Ve1izon
routinely and deliberately reuses an existing jack and charges the customer for the installation of
a new jack even though no new jack was actually installed.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
14.
This action is brought by Plaintiffs as a class action pursuant to Rule 4:32 of the
New Jersey Court Rules, on behalf of themselves and a class of all other similarly situated
customers. The Class consists of:
-4-
All customers of Defendant Verizon who, at any time from six years prior to the
filing of this complaint through the conclusion of this action, paid for the
installation of a network interface jack that was not expressly requested by the
customer or that was not actually installed.
Specifically excluded from this Class is any person or entity in which Defendant has a
controlling interest, and the officers, directors, employees, affiliates, subsidiaries, legal
representatives, heirs, successors, and their assigns of any such person or entity, together with
any immediate family member of any officer, director, or employee of said companies. Also
excluded from membership in the Class is any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and
members oftheir families within the third degree of relationship.
15.
Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent.
16.
The Class for whose benefit this action is brought is so numerous that joinder of
all members in a single action is impracticable.
17.
There are important questions of law or fact common to the entire Class
including:
a.
Whether Verizon knowingly charged customers for the installation of network
interface jacks that were not expressly requested or actually installed;
b.
Whether it is a breach of contract to charge Plaintiffs a fee for the installation of a
network interface jack that was not expressly requested or actually installed;
c.
Whether Verizon violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. § 56:81, et seq., by its conduct and, if so, the proper measure of damages and treble
damages;
-5-
d.
Whether Defendant's actions were sufficiently wrongful to entitle Plaintiffs to
punitive damages; and
18.
The important questions common to the members of the Class, including those
identified in the previous paragraph, predominate over any questions unique to individual
members of the Class.
19.
The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of other members of the Class.
Like all members of the Class, Plaintiffs paid for the installation of a network interface jack that
was not expressly requested or actually installed.
20.
There are no conflicts between the interests of Plaintiffs and those ofthe Class,
and on information and belief, there are no defenses unique to any of them.
21.
The Class is readily identifiable through records kept by Defendant in the
ordinary course of business.
22.
Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the Class in
a.
Plaintiffs are represented by experienced and able class action counsel; and
b.
Plaintiffs have no conflicts of interest with the other members of the Class.
23.
Defendant Verizon has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
that:
the Class, thereby making damages and final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief
appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.
24.
A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication ofthe controversy, in that:
-6-
a.
The Class is identifiable from Defendant's business records;
b.
The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create a
risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and incompatible standards of
conduct;
c.
This Court is the appropriate forum for all of the claims of the Class because
Verizon is headquartered in New Jersey, Plaintiffs and their beneficiaries are
located in or near this forum, and the conduct complained herein occurred in and
was orchestrated and conducted from New Jersey;
d.
Many members of the Class may be unaware ofthe existence of their claims
without the notice provided by a class action;
e.
Given the complexities of the issues and the expenses of litigation, the claims of
many or most individual members of the Class may be too small, as a practical
matter, to justify separate actions against Defendant; and
f.
A class action will conserve administrative and judicial resources by avoiding
unnecessary multiplication of claims and litigation.
COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT
25.
The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
26.
Verizon' s misconduct constitutes a material breach of contract and a breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
-7-
27.
The tariff filed with the BPU that sets the fees that Verizon may charge customers
constitutes a term of contract for service between Verizon and the Class.
28.
Verizon breached its contract with Plaintiff and the Class by charging for the
installation of jacks that were not expressly requested or actually installed.
29.
Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have been damaged as a
consequence of V erizon' s misconduct and breach of contract.
COUNT II
CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
30.
The factual allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
31.
Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class are "persons" within the meaning of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S .A. § 56:8- 1, et seq. ("CFA").
32.
Defendant's activities as described herein constituted "sales" of"merchandise,"
including goods and services, within the meaning of the CFA.
33.
Defendant's conduct, as described above, was an unconscionable commercial
practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, and/or the knowing
concealment, suppression, or omission of material facts with intent that others rely upon such
concealment, suppression, or omission, all in violation of the CF A, § 56:8-2. Such conduct, as
described above, includes but is not limited to routinely and deliberately charging customers in
violation of the tariff for the installation of network interface jacks that were not expressly
requested and also routinely and deliberately charging customers for the installation of network
interface jacks that were not actually installed.
-8-
34.
Plaintiffs have sustained ascertainable loss in that they were charged for the
installation of networks jacks that were not express! y requested and/or not actually installed. As
a result of the Defendant' s wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs sustained damages and claims all
damages, including treble damages, provided under§ 56:8-19.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the following relief
against Defendant Verizon:
a.
enter an order pursuant to Rule 4:3 2 ofthe New Jersey Court Rules permitting
this action to be maintained as a class action on behalf of the Class as defined
herein, appointing Plaintiffs as the representative of the Class and Plaintiffs'
counsel as counsel for the class;
b.
enter an order requiring Defendant to bear the costs of the notice required by Rule
4:32-2(b);
c.
enter an order requiring Defendant to inspect its record of network interface jacks
for which it charged consumers a fee in order to identify Class members;
d.
enter a compensatory judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class against
Defendant in an amount to be proved at trial;
e.
award Plaintiffs and the Class treble damages pursuant to § 56:8-19;
f.
award Plaintiffs and the Class pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
-9-
g.
award Plaintiffs and the Class their costs and expenses in this litigation, including,
but not limited to, expert fees and reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to § 56:819 and other applicable law;
h.
order Defendant to disgorge its illegal profits to Plaintiffs and the Class;
1.
order an accounting of the amount of money illegally obtained by Defendant;
J.
enjoin Defendant from future charging of customers for the installation of
network interface jacks unless such a jack is expressly requested and a new jack is
actually installed;
k.
award punitive damages to Plaintiffs and the Class; and
I.
award such fu11her relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby demand ttial by jury of all issues properly triable thereby.
NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ACTION
A copy of this complaint will be mailed to the Attorney General of the State of New
Jersey within ten days after the filing with the Court, pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 56:8-20.
It
I /f7 /,J
l C~A~~(~fH
ois j
Bennet D. Z
y
Attorney at ~
L
17 Academy Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
bzurofsky@zurofskylaw .com
(973) 642-0885
Date: April 9, 2014
- 10-
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TOR. 4:5-l(c)
Bennet D. Zurofsky, Esq. is hereby designated as trial counsel in this matter.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOR. 4:5-1
I hereby certify in accordance with New Jersey Court Rule 4:5-1 that to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief the instant matter in controversy is not the subject of any
other action pending in any court or of a pending arbitration proceeding and no other persons
must be joined as parties.
- 11-