Postpichal v. Cricket Wireless, LLC

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), including provisions concerning misleading representations and advertisements. They initially sought only injunctive relief—an order requiring a defendant to stop allegedly unlawful conduct. After waiting 30 days, they amended the complaint to add a request for damages.

The CLRA generally requires a consumer to give the defendant written notice at least 30 days before starting an action for damages. The notice must identify the alleged violations and demand that the defendant correct, repair, replace, or otherwise remedy the allegedly unlawful goods or services. The plaintiffs did not allege that they sent Cricket this required notice before amending the complaint to seek damages.

The Notice Requirement

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that starting the lawsuit itself satisfied the notice requirement. It also rejected reliance on a CLRA notice sent to Cricket in 2015 in an earlier lawsuit that was later dismissed. Although the earlier notice involved parallel claims and a claimant who would have been part of the proposed class, the court said it did not satisfy the statutory requirement because it did not involve the consumers bringing the current claims.

The court likewise concluded that general complaints Cricket had received from consumers—including putative class members who were not proposed class representatives—did not satisfy the CLRA’s specific notice requirement. The court acknowledged that Cricket was on actual notice of the alleged conduct but held that the statute’s procedural requirements still had to be followed.

Ruling

The court granted Cricket’s motion to dismiss the CLRA claims and dismissed those claims. It relied on California authority explaining that dismissal for failure to provide notice does not permanently bar the claims; instead, the claims may be dismissed until at least 30 days after the plaintiffs comply with the notice requirement. The court noted that, if the plaintiffs gave notice and filed a new CLRA action, it was unlikely to allow out-of-state plaintiffs to pursue CLRA claims, citing a decision requiring each class member’s consumer-protection claim to be governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the transaction occurred.

The order stated that a further ruling on the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act would follow.