Prison Phone Justice

,"

;------------

-

I certify under penalty of peljury under the laws of
the State of Washington that on August 1,2000,1
served a copy of this document on all counsel of

CLiENT'S COpy

_.
!

I

I

=b:d.==ft7" at tit. addresses listed on I.. .
2

~,~~_.J

l_Si_gned_:_f'_'

HON. ]. KATHLEEN LEARNED

3
4

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

5
6

7

SANDY JUDD, TARA HERIVEL and
ZURAYA WRIGHT, for themselves, and
on behalf of all similarly situated persons,

NO. 00-2-17565-5 SEA

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10

11
12
13
14

15

FIRST Alv1ENDED COMPLAINT
-CLASS ACTION

v.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH COMPANY; GTE
NORTHWEST INC.; CENTURYTEL
TELEPHONE UTILITIES, INC.; NORTHWFST TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
d/b/a PTI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
U,S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
T-NETIX, INC.,

16

Defendants.

17

18

19

I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

Plaintiff Sandy Judd is a resident of Snohomish County,

20

Washington. She has received and paid for intrastate long-distance collect calls from

21

Washington State prison inmates.

22

2.

Plaintiff Tara Herivel is a resident of King County, Washington.

23

She has received and continues to receive and pay for intrastate long-distance collect

24

calls from Washington State prison inmates.

25

26

FIR5f AMENDED COMPLAINf

-CLASS AcnON -1

..

SIRIANNI &: YOUTZ
7D1 FIFrH AVENUE. sum 3410
SEATIU!,. WASHINGTON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0303

3.
2
3
4

5
6

7

Plaintiff Zuraya Wright1S a resident of Lake Worth, Florida. She

received and paid for interstate long-distance collect calls from a Washington State
prison inmate before rate disclosure was first offered to her in November of 1999.
4.

Jurisdiction is appropriate in this court because the defendants do

business in the state of Washington, and because the amount in controversy exceeds
$300.00. Venue is proper because the non-resident defendants have been served in
King County, Washington.

8
9

II. NATURE OF CASE

5.

Since at least 1992, the Washington State Department of

10

Corrections has contracted with private"operator service providers," also known as

11

"alternate operator services companies," to provide "0+" operator services on the

12

payphones used by prison inmates incarcerated in the State of Washington. Prison

13

inmates are required to use the "0+" operator service provider assigned by contract to

14

the prison from which the call is placed, and may place only collect calls.

15

6.

Since at least 1988, telecommunications companies acting as or

16

contracting with operator service providers have been required by state law to assure

17

appropriate disclosure of rates charged to consumers for services provided while

18

connecting both intrastate and interstate long-distance telephone calls. However, the

19

defendants, all telecommunications companies and operator service providers, have

20

failed to assure appropriate disclosure of rates to the plaintiffs and others similarly

21

situated, and continue to fail to do so for intrastate long-distance telephone calls. The

22

defendants have provided disclosure of rates for at least some interstate calls from

23

Washington prison inmates only since November of 1999.

24
25
26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
-CLASS AcnON - 2

.,

SIRIANNI & YOUTZ
701 FImi AVENUE. SUITE 3410
SEA1TLE, W ASHINGrON 98104-7032

(206) 223-0303

III. CLASS ACTIOfrALLEGATIONS
2

7.

Definition of Class. The class consists of all individuals who have

3

received or will receive one or more long-distance intrastate or interstate collect calls

4

from o.ne or more Washington State prison inmates since June 20/ 1996, except for

5

those individuals who have received only interstate collect calls from Washington

6

State prison inmates after November of 1999, and to whom timely disclosure of rates

7

was offered.

8

8.

Class Representatives. Named plaintiff Sandy Judd has received

9

and paid for intrastate long-distance collect calls from Washington State prison

10

inmates. Named plaintiff Tara Herivel has received and continues to receive and pay

11

for intrastate long-distance collect calls from Washington State prison inmates.

12

Named plaintiff Zuraya Wright received and paid for interstate collect calls from a

13

Washington State prison inmate between June 20/ 1996 and November of 1999.

14

9.

Size of Class. There are approximately 14,000 prison inmates

15

currently incarcerated in the State of Washington. Inmate are generally allowed access

16

to prison payphones during daytime hours. Every person who is or has been called

17

by any incarcerated person since July 20, 1996 is a potential class member, including

18

family, friends, attorneys and news organizations. The class is expected to number in

19

the tens or hundreds of thousands and is so large that joinder of all members is

20

impracticable.

21

10.

Common Questions of Law and Fact.

This action requires a

22

determination of whether the defendants have assured appropriate rate disclosure to

23

the class member recipients of inmate-initiated intrastate and interstate long-distance

24

collect telephone calls as required by RCW §80.36.520 and RCW §80.36.530.

25
26

SIRIANNI & YOUTZ

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
-CLASS AcnON -3

701 F1FrH AVENUE. SUITE 3410
SEAnu;. WASHINGION 981()4.7032
(206) 22J..03OO

11.
2
3
4

5
6

7
8
9
10

11
12

Class.

Defendants Have Acted11n Grounds Generally Applicable to the

The defendants complete inmate-initiated collect telephone calls to call

recipients, and have consistently failed to make proper disclosures. The defendants
have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class. Certification is therefore
proper under CR 23(b)(2).

12.

Questions of Law and Fact Common to the Class Predominate

Over Individual Issues. The claims of many individual class members are too small to
justify filing and prosecuting the claims separately. Thus, any interest that individual
members of the class may have in individually controlling the prosecution of separate
actions is outweighed by the efficiency of the class action mechanism. This action can
be most efficiently prosecuted as a class action in King County Superior Court, where
the defendants do business. Issues as to the defendants' conduct towards members of

13

the class predominate over questions, if any, unique to members of the class.

14

Certification is therefore additionally proper under CR 23(b)(3).

15

16

13.

Class CounseL

competent class counsel.

17
18

Plaintiffs have retained experienced and

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

14.

The defendants are telecommunications companies. On March 16,

19

1992, all of the defendants except for T-Netix, Inc. contracted with the Washington

20

Department of Corrections to provide operator services for inmate payphones. The

21

parties have extended this contract through four amendments.

22

amendment, which went into effect in March of 1999, adds T-Netix, Inc. as an operator

23

service provider at some facilities.

24

25

15.

The fourth

Throughout the Oass period, family members, attorneys and

other persons have been unable to speak to Washington State prison inmates by

26

FIRSf AMENDED COMPLAINT

-CLASS ACrION - 4

.,

SIRIANNI Be Yourz
101. FIFTH AVENUE. SUITE 3410

SEATIl.E. WASHINCION 98104-7032
(206) 223-0303

-.

telephone, except as recipients of operator-assisted collect calls. Recipients are billed
2
3
4

5
6

7
8
9
10

for these calls by the operator service provider assigned by contract to the prison from
which the call originates.
16.

Rates for intrastate long-distance collect calls are not made

available to recipients over the phone prior to the receipt of an inmate-initiated call,
nor are recipients given a separate number to call in order to learn the rates charged.
17.

Rates for at least some interstate calls have been made available

over the phone starting sometime in November of 1999. Prior to that time, recipients
of inmate-initiated interstate calls could not access rates prior to receipt of the call, and
also were not provided with any information on how to obtain the applicable rates.

11
12
13
14
15
16

17
18
19

20
21

22
23

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM-VIOLATION OF THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, RCW 19.86 et seq.

18.

Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 16, above.

19.

The defendants' repeated violations of RCW §80.36.520 constitute

per se violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW §19.86 et seq.,
pursuant to RCW §80.36.530.

engage in, unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce in violation of the
Washington State Consumer Protection Act. Such conduct affects the public interest,
and has caused injury to the named plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' class.
20.

Plaintiffs and the plaintiff class are entitled to damages as defined

in RCW §80.36.530, and treble damages under RCW §19.86.090, along with costs of
suit and attorney fees.
SECOND CLAIM-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

24

25

The defendants have engaged in, and continue to

21.

Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 19, above.

26
SIRIANNI Ie Yourz
FIRSf AMENDED COMPLAINT ..
-CLA$ ACTION - 5

701 FIFrH AVENUE. SUITE 3410
SEATI1.E, WASHINGTON 98104-7032

(206) 223-0303

-.

22.
2

3

Plaintiffs and the plaintnrclass are entitled to an injunction under

RCW §19.86.090, under the common law, and under any other applicable laws, to
enjoin further violations of RCW §80.36.520.

4

~.

DEMAND FORREUEF

5

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court:

6

1.

Enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the plaintiff class for

7

damages in an amount to be proven at trial due to the defendants' failure to assure

8

appropriate disclosure of rates charged under RCW §80.36 et seq. and RCW §19.86 et

9

seq., including presumed damages under RCW §80.36.530 for each violation, and

10

11

treble damages up to $10,000 to each class member for each violation;
2.

Enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the plaintiff class, and

12

against the defendants, enjoining the defendants from further violations of

13

RCW §80.36.520;

14

3.

Award plaintiffs and the plaintiff class their attorney fees; and

15

4.

Award such other relief as is just and proper.

16

DATED: Augustl,2000.

17

SIRIANNI & YOUTZ

~7~

18

ctms~il8i)

19

Jonathan P. Meier (WSBA #19991)
Marie E. Gryphon (WSBA #29242)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20
21
22

23

24
25
26

SIRIANNI &: Yourz
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ~
-CLASS ACrION - 6

701 FIFni AVENUE. 5UrrE3410
SEATI1.E. WASHINGTON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0303