Fuentes v. Dish Network L.L.C.

Background

Narciso Fuentes, who speaks Spanish, received a Spanish-language postcard advertising Dish satellite television service for $19.99 per month for 12 months. During a later phone call, Dish employee Paulina Nunez explained that the offer required a 24-month contract, that the promotional price lasted for the first year, that the monthly price would then increase, and that early termination would result in a charge of $20 for each remaining month. Fuentes agreed to the terms by phone.

A Dish technician later installed the service at Fuentes’ home and presented him with an English-language electronic version of the Digital Home Advantage Plan Agreement. Fuentes testified that he could not read the document, saw references to 24 months, did not want to sign, and signed after the technician told him to do so and contact Dish afterward. The technician could not provide a Spanish version. Fuentes later called Dish but could not change the contract term. He terminated the subscription in August 2017.

Fuentes asserted claims under California’s Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA), Translation Act (CTA), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which asks whether the undisputed evidence requires judgment as a matter of law.

Evidentiary requests

The court took judicial notice of the existence of certain filings and the fact that statements were made in them, but did not treat disputed facts in those filings as established. It sustained Dish’s objection to Fuentes’ reliance on a statement in a brief from another case and denied Dish’s request to judicially notice portions of the HSSA’s legislative history.

Home Solicitation Sales Act claim

The HSSA requires covered home-solicitation contracts to include information about the buyer’s cancellation rights and to be written in the same language as the oral sales presentation. The parties agreed that Fuentes’ written agreements did not comply with those requirements, but disputed whether the transaction fell within the statute.

The court held that it did. Dish argued that the contract was formed during the August 6, 2015 telephone call, while Fuentes argued that it was formed when he signed the tablet at home. Under California law, an oral telephone contract is made where the offeree accepts. The court concluded that Fuentes was the offeree because Nunez supplied the terms Dish was offering, and Fuentes accepted them at home. The court stated that the result would be the same if the contract was not formed until Fuentes signed the tablet at home. The court therefore granted Fuentes’ motion and denied Dish’s motion on the HSSA claim.

Translation Act claim

The court agreed that Dish did not provide the Spanish translation required by the CTA. However, it rejected Fuentes’ argument that the Digital Home Advantage Plan Agreement was a retail installment contract covered by the California Unruh Act and therefore subject to the CTA’s translation requirement.

The court reasoned that the agreement did not require Fuentes to pay a deferred total price in installments. He paid monthly for services, could not defer payment of a monthly bill, and did not incur an underlying debt for the full contract term. The court also found that the first-year price was a discount rather than an amount deferred to the second year, and that Dish’s credit check did not establish that the agreement was a retail installment contract. The court granted Dish’s motion for summary judgment on the CTA claim.

Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim

Fuentes alleged two CLRA violations. First, he claimed Dish represented that the contract was final and binding even though the HSSA gave him a right to cancel. Because this claim depended on the HSSA claim, the court granted Fuentes’ motion and denied Dish’s motion on this part of the CLRA claim.

Second, Fuentes claimed Dish inserted an unconscionable contract provision by negotiating in Spanish but providing only an English written agreement. The court held that this theory did not identify a particular unconscionable term as required by the statutory language. It also found that, although the circumstances showed some procedural unconscionability, Fuentes had not shown substantive unconscionability. Substantive unconscionability concerns whether contract terms are excessively one-sided or harsh. The court therefore granted Dish’s motion on this part of the CLRA claim.

Unfair Competition Law claim

Fuentes argued that Dish’s conduct was unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair. The UCL claim partly depended on his HSSA, CTA, and CLRA claims. Because the court ruled for Dish on the CTA claim and part of the CLRA claim, it granted Dish judgment in part on the UCL claim. Because it ruled for Fuentes on the HSSA claim and part of the CLRA claim, it also granted Fuentes judgment in part on the UCL claim. The court found that both parties were entitled to judgment under the UCL’s unlawful-practices theory and did not reach whether Dish’s conduct was also unfair or fraudulent.

Disposition

The court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Dish’s motion for summary judgment, and granted Fuentes’ motion for summary judgment. It ordered the parties to appear for a status conference on December 9, 2022, and to submit a joint status report by December 2, 2022.