Millicorp v Global Tel Link Fl Complaint Inmate Phone Service Interference 2009

Type: Complaints, Phone Litigation • Topics: Telephones

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 1 of 47
FILED by

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

f?GS"
J?G5

D.C.

14
OCT 14 2009
STEVEN M. LARiMORE
CLERK U. S. DiST. CT.
S. D. of flA. - MIAMI
'm:!?'!MIl''O'" !:t?tt'U"'in"Jt:
IE:JI(GI:!III••
=.n.uI&Dft',- .p
'1l:Jlti:l:!lr'I'~&D'f'UJ;;··p·.m:t"'%'l'In:-lt?ttD"'in"ll:

Case No.
MILLICORP, a Florida corporation,
d/b/a ConsCaIIHome.com,

09-2~3()
09- 2~3

Plaintiff,
vs.
GLOBAL TEL *LINK CORPORATION, a
TEL*LINK
Delaware corporation; SECURUS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Texas corporation;
T-NETIX TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES, INC., a Texas corporation;
EVERCOM SYSTEMS, INC. a Texas
corporation; jointly and severally,

'I TORRES

Defendants.
;

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Millicorp, d/b/a ConsCallHome.com, by and through undersigned
counsel, sues Global Tel*Link Corporation; Securus Technologies, Inc.; T-·Netix
Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. (hereinafter
collectively as "Defendants"), and alleges:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This is an action for damages arising out of Defendants' violations of

the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 2 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

amended, 47 U.S.C. §201 et. seq. ("Telecommunications Act"), Defendants'
common law tortious interference with Plaintiff's advantageous business
relationships, civil conspiracy to commit tortious interference, and Defendants'
violations of various state Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts / Consumer
Protection Acts including Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
("FDUTP A"). This is also an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under
("FDUTPA").
various state Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts / Consumer Protection
FDUTP A.
Acts including FDUTPA. This court has subject matter jurisdiction based on 28
U.S.C. §§1331, 1332 and 1367(a), and 47 U.S.C. §207.

There is a complete

diversity of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
2.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)

because the Defendants transact business in this judicial district and a substantial
part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in this
district.
THE PARTIES

Plaintiff Millicorp ("Millicorp"), d/b/a ConsCallHome.com, is a

Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Myers, Florida.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 3 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

Tel *Link
Defendant Global Tel*Link Corporation ("GTL") is a Delaware

corporation with its principal place of business in Mobile, Alabama. This Court
has in personam jurisdiction over GTL because GTL conducts substantial business
activity within the state of Florida and carries on its business within the state of
Florida. GTL provides telecommunications services in Florida and throughout the
United States.
5.

Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. ("Securus") is a Texas

corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. This Court has in
personam jurisdiction over Secunls because Securus conducts substantial business

activity within the state of Florida and carries on its business within the state of
Florida. Securus, through its operating companies, provides telecommunications
services in Florida and throughout the United States.
6.

Defendant T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. ("T-Netix") is

a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. This
Court has in personam jurisdiction over T-Netix because T-Netix conducts
substantial business activity within the state of Florida and carries on its business
within the state of Florida.

T-Netix provides telecommunications services in

Florida and throughout the United States.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 4 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

Defendant Evercom Systems, Inc. ("Evercom") is a Texas corporation

with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. This Court has in personam
jurisdiction over Evercom because Evercom conducts substantial business activity
within the state of Florida and carries on its business within the state of Florida.
Evercom provides telecommunications services in Florida and throughout the
United States.
8.

Securus is a holding company which owns 100% of its operating

companies, T-Netix and Evercom. T-Netix and Evercom each hold certifications
as telecommunications carriers throughout the United States.

T-Netix and

Evercom conduct business through a division known as Correctional Billing
Services.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Millicorp is a nationwide interconnected voice over internet protocol

("VOIP") provider based in Fort Myers, Florida. It is registered with the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC") (FRN 0018930511). VOIP is an internet
application typically used to transmit voice communications over a broadband
internet connection, rather than traditional landlines. Millicorp provides a range
of VOIP services, including services for small/medium-size businesses such as IP-

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 5 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

based fax services under the "Millifax" brand and online PBX offerings under the
"Millitalk" brand, as well as its current most popular offering and the subject of
this Complaint, a VOIP offering designed to serve the needs of the friends and
families of correctional facility inmates, known as ConsCallHome ("CCH").
Millicorp currently provides its services in 47 states, including but not limited to
Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina.
10.

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL provide inmate phone service

("IPS") via payphones located primarily in state and local confinement facilities
throughout the United States, including within this judicial district.

Securus,

through T-Netix and Evercom (hereinafter at times collectively referred to as
"Securus"), and GTL are the two dominant IPS providers in this country, having
approximately 70-80% of the IPS contracts to serve state and local confinement
facilities in the United States.

IPS providers must comply with all state and

federal regulations applicable to telecommunications common carriers, as well as
meet the penological and security needs of the correctional facilities that they
serve.
11.

As IPS providers, Securus and GTL provide two basic different

inmate services - local collect or prepaid call service and long distance collect or

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 6 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation. et al.
Complaint

prepaid call serVIce. GTL and Securus provide these serVIces pursuant to a
contract with an inmate confinement facility. These contracts require GTL and
Securus to deploy equipment inside prison walls that gives the inmate confinement
facilities' employees the ability to monitor or record any call made by an inmate,
as well as the ability to add or delete phone numbers on a daily basis from the
phone numbers that each inmate is permitted to call.
12.

These contracts also typically require Securus and GTL to pay the

inmate confinement facility a percentage of their billed IPS service gross revenues,
as much as sixty percent (60%) in some cases. The prices that Securus and GTL
charge friends and family of inmates who use their IPS services are extraordinarily
high as the result of commissions paid to confinement facilities. IPS providers
such as Securus and GTL charge an average of $3.95 per call for the local set-up
and service and an average of $.90 per minute for long distance services.
13.

Millicorp offers friends and family members of inmates a more

economical alternative. Through its CCH service offering, Millicorp provides a
legitimate, secure, and very popular technological solution to Securus' and GTL's
high prices.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 7 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation. et at.
Complaint

14.

Millicorp's interconnected VOIP CCH service offering uses IP-based

technology and infrastructure, similar to that provided by other interconnected
VOIP providers, such as Vonage, Google Voice, Magic Jack, and Skype, and
provides the friends and family of inmates with reliable and secure services with
significant savings.

Millicorp provides its CCH customers with a telephone

number local to the same local exchange rate center as the relevant confinement
facility and routes the call to the CCH customers' designated location via its IPbased network. The calls that Millicorp's CCH customers receive from inmates
are at telephone numbers assigned to these customers as a part of the CCH service
offering. The inmate confinement facility, through the IPS payphone provider,
pre-approves all telephone numbers submitted for an inmate's calling list,
including the customer's name and billing address, and has the ability to monitor
and record all calls to Millicorp' s CCH customers.
15.

Millicorp's CCH service does not allow CCH customers to receive

collect call service from any IPS provider serving an inmate confinement facility.
Instead, Millicorp's CCH service provides pre-paid interconnected VOIP service
to its CCH customers through the local dial number in the community where the
inmate with whom that customer wants to communicate is incarcerated. Millicorp

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 8 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

recovers all of its costs for the service in the price it charges its customers for its
service, and the Millicorp CCH customer must have a separate pre-paid account
with the selected IPS provider, such as Securus or GTL, to cover the local call
charges assessed for the call by the inmate payphone provider as required by the
applicable confinement facility.
16.

Securus and GTL realize that Millicorp is a legitimate business

competitor offering alternative services to families and loved ones of inmates at
reduced rates, as do other legitimate VOIP providers such as Vonage and Google
Voice. As a consequence of Millicorp's CCH service offering, Securus and GTL
do not receive long distance call revenues for the local calls made to Millicorp' s
CCH customers. Thus Securus and GTL desire to eliminate Millicorp and its CCH
service offering from the marketplace as a competitor.
17.

In late 2008, Securus and GTL began to program their inmate

payphone equipment located inside confinement facility walls to block Millicorp' s
services by rejecting calls to the local phone numbers that Millicorp had assigned
to its CCH customers. Securus and GTL also have directed their representatives to
not permit calls to customers served by Millicorp' s CCH service offering due to
Millicorp's use of telephone numbers local to the prison or jail at issue. Securus

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 9 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

and GTL block calls to all Millicorp's CCH customers if the particular CCH
customer's telephone number assigned by Millicorp for its service does not
correspond with a rate center in the same location as the customer's billing
address, or if the Securus or GTL representative learn that ConsCallHome is the
provider of the customer's telephone number. Securus and GTL have engaged in
these actions in numerous states, including but not limited to, Florida, Texas,
California, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina.
18.

Initially, Securus and GTL blocked serVIce to only a few of

Millicorp's CCH customers, but soon began blocking service to the majority of the
CCH customers, including some who were long-term customers in good standing.
By the beginning of 2009, GTL blocked service to nearly all Millicorp customers
who subscribe to Millicorp's interconnected VOIP offering, and Securus has now
reached the same level of blocking ofMillicorp customers as GTL as of July 2009.
Since December 1, 2008, Millicorp has actually lost a minimum of 4,000
customers due to blocking by Securus and GTL. Many of these customer losses
appear to be Millicorp CCH customers that were targeted specifically by GTL and
Securus due to the customer's historically high monthly usage of his or her
Millicorp CCH telephone number.

As a direct result of blocking of calls to

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 10 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

Millicorp's CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant portion of its
customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (500/0-70%) average monthly
revenue loss, as well as significant damage to Millicorp' s reputation and loss of
goodwill. Securus and GTL have engaged in these actions in numerous states,
including but not limited to, Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia and
North Carolina.
19.

Securus' and GTL's purported justification for the blocking of calls

based on security concerns has no merit. No legitimate security issues exist with
regard to Millicorp's service. Securus and GTL have all of the information (or the
ability to request from Millicorp or its customer) needed to maintain security of
communications from inmates to Millicorp's customers.
20.

Inmate confinement facilities also have the complete and unhindered

ability to monitor all calls to Millicorp customers and to regulate the recipients of
all inmate calls to Millicorp customers. Each phone number that an inmate desires
to call must be pre-approved by the inmate confinement facility before the IPS
provider programs the inmate phone system to accept calls placed to that number.
In most cases, an inmate desiring to include a new number on the inmate's call list
must supply certain information to the inmate's counselor, including the address

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 11 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

where the number rings and the name of the person to whom the number at that
address is registered.

The inmate confinement facility is authorized to delay

adding the new number to the inmate's call list until after it confirms that the
number rings at the location reported by the inmate, and that no one at that address
is in any of the categories of people to whom calls are barred, such as judges or
prosecuting attorneys.
21.

Securus and GTL have further sought to justify call blocking on

grounds that Millicorp provides its services to its customers in a manner that
violates inmate confinement facility security requirements because Securus
allegedly does not know the identities of the Millicorp customers and therefore the
calls are "not traceable". As a result, GTL and Securus claim that the inmate
confinement facility cannot properly screen the Millicorp customer before an
inmate calls from a confinement facility to a Millicorp customer.

GTL and

Securus have made these representations as it pertains to all of its facilities
including, but not limited to, Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia and
North Carolina.
22.

This claim of an inability to identify Millicorp customers or Millicorp

itself could not be further from the truth. In addition to providing Securus, GTL

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 12 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

and the relevant inmate confinement facility with the Millicorp customer's local
phone number, Millicorp's customers are required by Securus and GTL to provide
the full billing name and address of Millicorp's customer, as well as the name of
their local service provider, such as Millicorp/ConsCallHome.

All parties

therefore know the precise identity of the Millicorp CCH customer and Millicorp
as the local service provider, as the Millicorp customer must also setup an account
with Securus or GTL to use the local number provided with Millicorp's service.
This fact is verified by Securus' and GTL' s own conduct because Securus and
GTL representatives are asking for the name of the local provider and are blocking
calls when the customer identifies his or her local provider as ConsCallHome.
Securus and GTL have clearly instructed their representatives to simply block
most, if not all, calls from Millicorp's CCH customers. GTL and Securus have
made these representations and engaged in these actions in numerous states,
including but not limited to Florida, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia and
North Carolina. This conduct has damaged Millicorp.
23.

All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been met,

satisfied or otherwise been waived.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 13 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

24.

As a consequence of Securus' and GTL's conduct, Millicorp has been

forced to retain undersigned counsel to protect its rights and seek the remedies
alleged herein. Millicorp has agreed to pay undersigned counsel a reasonable fee
for their services.

COUNT I
VIOLATIONS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
47 U.S.C. §201
25.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
26.

This is a claim for damages against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and

GTL under 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 as a consequence of Securus, T-Netix,
Evercom and GTL violating 47 U.S.C. §201.
27.

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL do not have the legal authority

to block calls to Millicorp customers. It is the intent of Congress as manifested in
Title 47 United States Code, and is now the policy of the FCC, to encourage
competition as a matter of policy under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. By
blocking calls to Millicorp's customers, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are
engaging in unlawful conduct to stop such competition. This unlawful conduct

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 14 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

m
has occurred In vanous states, including but not limited to Florida, Texas,
California, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina.
28.

47 U.S.C. §201(a) states in pertinent part:

(a) It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate
or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such
communication service upon reasonable request therefor; ....
29.

The blocking of telephone calls from inmates in confinement

facilities to Millicorp's customers violates 47 U.S.C. §201(a) because by blocking
Millicorp's calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL, as telecommunications
common carriers, have failed to provide their common carrier payphone service
upon reasonable request of Millicorp through its customers.
30.

m
Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged In a rampant,

consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to
Millicorp's CCH customers. Such a practice directly conflicts with the common
carrier obligations of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under 47 U.S.C.
§201 (a)
§201 (a) to " ... furnish such communication service upon reasonable request
therefor ..
therefor.... ".

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have systematically and

routinely denied service to Millicorp and its CCH customers when presented with

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 15 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

Millicorp CCH telephone numbers in confinement facilities where Securus, TNetix, Evercom or GTL provide inmate payphone services.

This unlawful

conduct has occurred in various states, including but not limited to Florida, Texas,
California, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina.
31.

The blocking of telephone calls from inmates

confinement

facilities to Millicorp's CCH customers also violates 47 U.S.C. §201(b).

U.S.C. §201(b) requires that all practices for a common carrier be "just and
reasonable" and any practice that is "unjust and unreasonable is declared to be
unlawful. "
unlawful."
32.

Denying an interconnected VOIP provider such as Millicorp and its

customers, in this case the friends and family of inmates, the right to receive a call
from a common carrier payphone provider is an unjust and unreasonable practice
and a failure of fulfillment of an IPS provider's common carrier obligation as a
payphone provider to inmate confinement facilities.
33.

Under 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207, Millicorp is authorized to bring this

private cause of action and Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are liable to
Millicorp for the full amount of damages sustained as a consequence of violating
47 U.S.C. §201(a) and (b).

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 16 of 47

al.
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its
behalf and

against

Defendants

Global

Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
Systems, Inc., for compensatory and consequential damages, attorneys' fees and
costs under 47 U.S.C. §206, interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
COUNT II
VIOLATIONS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
47 U.S.C. §202

34.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
35.

This is a claim for damages against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and

GTL under 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 as a consequence of Securus, T-Netix,
Evercom and GTL violating 47 U.S.C. §202.
36.

47 U.S.C. §202(a) states:

(a) Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or

unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications,
regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 17 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or
device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to
subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
37.

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are providing like access to IPS
T-Netix,

services at confinement facilities nationwide to other VOIP providers such as
Vonage and Google Voice, but meanwhile blocking the calls of Millicorp's CCH
customers. This conduct is an unjust and unreasonable discrimination practice by
Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL providing these carriers with an undue and
unreasonable preference and advantage and thereby causing an undue and
unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage to Millicorp. Such conduct violates 47
U.S.C. §202(a) and is actionable under 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207. Therefore,
Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are liable to Millicorp for the full amount of
damages sustained as a consequence of violating 47 U.S.C. §202(a).
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its
behalf and

against

Defendants

Global

Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 18 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

Systems, Inc., for compensatory and consequential damages, attorneys' fees and
costs under 47 U.S.C. §206, interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.

COUNT III
COMMON LAW TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
38.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
39.

This is a claim for damages against Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and

GTL for common law tortious interference.
40.

Millicorp has advantageous business relationships with its CCH

customers by which Millicorp provides economical VOIP communications
services to friends and family members of inmates throughout the United States.
41.

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have knowledge of Millicorp's

advantageous business relationships with its customers.
42.

Securus,

T-Netix,

Evercom

and

GTL

are

intentionally

and

unjustifiably interfering with Millicorp' s advantageous business relationships by
blocking calls to Millicorp's CCH customers and thereby causing Millicorp to lose
the business of these customers.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 19 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

43.

These actions of interference by Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL

have resulted in damages to Millicorp.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its
behalf and

against

Defendants

Global

Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies, Inc., T -Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
T-Netix
Systems, Inc., for compensatory and consequential damages, punitive damages,
costs, interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT IV
FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
ACTION FOR DAMAGES
44.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
45.

This is a claim for actual damages under §§501.204(1) and

501.211(2), FIa.Stat.

46.

By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix,

Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of
competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of
trade and commerce, in violation of §501.204(1), FIa.Stat.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 20 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

47.

Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection

FDUTP A.
under FDUTPA.
48.

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant,

consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to
Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to
encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and
substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers.
49.

As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of

calls to Millicorp's CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant
portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (50%-70%)
average monthly revenue loss.

Consequently, Millicorp has suffered actual

damages.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its
behalf and

against

Defendants

Global

Tel *Link
Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
Systems, Inc., for actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs under§501.2105,

Fla.Stat., interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 21 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

COUNT V
FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
50.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
51.

This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under §501.211(1), Fla.Stat.
52.

By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix,

Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection

FDUTP A.
under FDUTPA.
54.

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant,

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 22 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

Millicorp' s
substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers. By blocking
Millicorp's CCH customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are
engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and
unconscionable practices under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, specifically §501.204, Fla.Stat.
55.

Pursuant to §501.211(1), Fla. Stat., Millicorp seeks a declaratory

judgment from this Court that Securus', T-Netix', Evercom's and GTL's conduct
§501.204(1),
violates §50 1.204(1), Fla.Stat.
56.

Pursuant to §501.211(1), Fla. Stat. , Millicorp also seeks injunctive

relief to permanently enjoin Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL from violating
and continuing to violate §501.204(1), Fla.Stat. Such an injunction will not only
protect Millicorp' s rights, but will also protect the rights of the friends and family
members of inmates as the consuming pUblic.
public.
57.

The granting of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. To

the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under FDUTPA
and the Telecommunications Act.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this
Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 23 of 47

ai,
Millicorp v, Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
v.
Complaint

Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
Systems, Inc. is in violation of §501.204(1), Fla. Stat. and for a judgment for
permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against Defendants
Global

Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies,

Inc.,

T-Netix

Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them
from violating §501.204(1), Fla.Stat. and requiring them to comply with the
provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs
under§501.2105, Fla. Stat. , and for such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT VI
TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES - CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT
ACTION FOR DAMAGES

58.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
59.

This is a claim for economic damages under §§17.46(b) and 17.50

Bus,
Texas Bus. & Com. Code.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 24 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

60.

By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls and disparaging the

services or business of Millicorp by false and misleading representations of fact,
Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and willfully engaging in
unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices
§ 17 .46(b)
in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of §17.46(b) Texas Bus. &
Com. Code.

61.

Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection

under Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act.
62.

T-Netix,
Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant,

consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to
Millicorp's CCH customers and are disparaging the services or business of
Millicorp by false and misleading representations of fact. Such conduct offends
established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH
customers as consumers.
63.

As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of

calls to Millicorp's CCH customers and knowingly disparaging the services or
business of Millicorp by false and misleading representations of fact, Millicorp

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 25 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

has actually lost a significant portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to
seventy percent (50%-70%) average monthly revenue loss.

Consequently,

Millicorp has suffered actual damages.
64.
m
III

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered

Tel *Link
its behalf and against Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus

Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
Systems, Inc., for economic damages, actual damages pursuant to§ 17.50(h) Texas
l7.50(h)
§l7.50(b)(1)
Bus. & Com, treble damages for acting knowingly under §17.50(b)(l) Texas Bus.
& Com. Code, attorneys' fees and costs under §17.50(d) Texas Bus. & Com. Code,
§l7.50(d)

interest, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VII
TEXAS
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
65.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
66.

This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under §17.50(b) (2) Texas Bus. & Com.
§l7.50(b)
Code.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 26 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

67.

By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls and disparaging the

services or business of Millicorp by false and misleading representations of fact,
Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in
unfair methods of competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices
17 .46(b)
in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of § 17.46(b) Texas Bus. &
Com. Code.

68.

Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection

under Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act.
69.

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant,

consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to
Millicorp's CCH customers and have been disparaging the services or business of
Millicorp by false and misleading representations of fact. Such conduct offends
established public policy to encourage competition and is immoral, unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH
customers as consumers. By blocking Millicorp' s CCH customers' calls and
disparaging the services or business of Millicorp by false and misleading
T-Netix,
representations of fact, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are engaged in unfair
methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and unconscionable

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 27 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

practices under Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act,
§ 17 .46(b)
specifically §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code.
70.

Pursuant to §17.50(b) (2) Texas Bus. & Com. Code, Millicorp seeks a

declaratory judgment from this Court that Securus', T-Netix', Evercom's and
GTL's conduct violates §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code.
71.

Pursuant to §17.50(b) (2) Texas Bus. & Com. Code, Millicorp also

seeks injunctive relief to permanently enjoin Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL
from violating and continuing to violate §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code. Such
an injunction will not only protect Millicorp's rights, but will also protect the
rights of the friends and family members of inmates as the consuming public.
72.

The granting of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. To

the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under Texas'
Deceptive

Trade

Practices

Consumer

Protection

Act

and

the

Telecommunications Act.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this
Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus
Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
§ 17 .46(b)
Systems, Inc. is in violation of §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code and for a

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 28 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

judgment for permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against
Tel *Link
T -Netix
Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus Technologies, Inc., T-Netix
Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them
§ 17 .46(b)
from violating §17.46(b) Texas Bus. & Com. Code and requiring them to comply
with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs
under § 17 .SO( d) Texas Bus. & Com. Code and for such other relief as this Court
deems just and proper.

COUNT VIII
CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
ACTION FOR DAMAGES
73.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
74.

This is a claim for actual damages under §§ 17200 and 17204 Cal.

Bus. & Prof. Code.
75.

By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix,

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 29 of 47

al.
Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

76.

Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection

under California's Unfair Competition Law.
77.

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged

III

a rampant,

As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of

calls to Millicorp' s CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant
portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (50%-70%)
average monthly revenue loss.

Consequently, Millicorp has suffered actual

damages and injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of such unfair
competition.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its
behalf and

against

Defendants

Global

Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
Systems, Inc., for actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and such
other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 30 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

COUNT IX
CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

79.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
80.

This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under §17203 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.
81.

By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix,

Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection

under California's Unfair Competition Law.
83.

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant,

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 31 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

substantially injurious to Millicorp' s CCH customers as consumers. By blocking
Millicorp's CCH customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are
engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and
unconscionable practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, specifically
§17200 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.
§ 17200
84.

Pursuant to § 17203 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Millicorp seeks a

declaratory judgment from this Court that Securus', T-Netix', Evercom's and
§ 17200
GTL's conduct violates §17200 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.
85.

Pursuant to §§ 17203 and 17204 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Millicorp

also seeks injunctive relief to permanently enjoin Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and
GTL from violating and continuing to violate § 17200 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.
§17200
Such an injunction will not only protect Millicorp's rights, but will also protect the
rights of the friends and family members of inmates as the consuming public.
86.

The granting of an injunction will not dis serve the public interest. To
disserve

the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under
California's Unfair Competition Law and the Telecommunications Act.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this
Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 32 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
Systems, Inc. is in violation of § 17200 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code and for a judgment
for permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against Defendants
Global

Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies,

Inc.,

T-Netix

Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them

§§ 17200
from violating §§ 17200 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, and requiring them to comply
with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs
and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT X
WISCONSIN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
ACTION FOR DAMAGES
87.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
88.

This is a claim for actual damages under §100.20 Wisconsin Stat.
§ 100.20

89.

By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix,

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 33 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

90.

Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection

under Wisconsin's Unfair Trade Practices Act.
91.

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant,

As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of

calls to Millicorp' s CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant
portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (50%-70%)
average monthly revenue loss.

Consequently, Millicorp has suffered actual

damages.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its
behalf and

against

Defendants

Global

Tel *Link
Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
Systems, Inc., pursuant to § 100.20 (5) Wisconsin Stat. for twice the amount of
actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and such other relief as this
Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 34 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

COUNT XI
WISCONSIN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
93.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
94.

This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under § 100.20 Wisconsin Stat.
§100.20
95.

By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix,

Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of
competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of
§ 100.20
trade and commerce, in violation of §100.20 Wisconsin Stat.
96.

Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection

under Wisconsin's Unfair Trade Practices Act.
97.

Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant,

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 35 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers. By blocking
Millicorp's CCH customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are
engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and
unconscionable practices under Wisconsin's Unfair Trade Practices Act,
§ 100.20
specifically §100.20 Wisconsin Stat.
98.

Millicorp seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court that Securus',

T-Netix', Evercom's and GTL's conduct violates §100.20 Wisconsin Stat.
99.

Millicorp also seeks injunctive relief to permanently enjoin Securus,

T-Netix, Evercom and GTL from violating and continuing to violate §100.20
Wisconsin Stat. Such an injunction will not only protect Millicorp's rights, but

will also protect the rights of the friends and family members of inmates as the
consuming public.
100. The granting of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. To
the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under
Wisconsin's Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Telecommunications Act.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this
Tel *Link
Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus
Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 36 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

§ 100.20
Systems, Inc. is in violation of §100.20 Wisconsin Stat, and for a judgment for
permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against Defendants
Global

Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies,

Inc.,

T-Netix

Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them
§ 100.20
from violating §100.20 Wisconsin Stat, and requiring them to comply with the
provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs, and for
such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT XII
VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
ACTION FOR DAMAGES
101. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
102. This is a claim for actual damages under §§59.1-200 and 59.1 - 204
VA Stat.

103. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix,
Evercom and GTL are knowingly and willfully engaging in unfair methods of

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 37 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of
trade and commerce, in violation of §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat.
104. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection
under Virginia's Consumer Protection Act.
105. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant,
consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to
Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to
encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and
substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers.
106. As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of
calls to Millicorp' s CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant
portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (50%-70%)
average monthly revenue loss.

Consequently, Millicorp has suffered actual

damages.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its
behalf and

against

Defendants

Global

Tel *Link
Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
Systems, Inc., for actual damages, treble damages under §59.1-204 (A) VA Stat.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 38 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

attorneys' fees and costs under §59.1-204 (B) VA Stat, interest, and such other
relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XIII
VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
107.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
108. This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against
Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under §59.1-205 VA Stat.
109. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix,
Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of
competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of
trade and commerce, in violation of §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat.
110. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection
under Virginia's Consumer Protection Act.
111. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant,
consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to
Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 39 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and
substantially injurious to Millicorp' s CCH customers as consumers. By blocking
Millicorp's CCH customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are
engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and
unconscionable practices under Virginia's Consumer Protection Act, specifically
§59.l-200 (14) VA Stat.
§59.1-200
112. Pursuant to §59.1-205 VA Stat, Millicorp seeks a declaratory
judgment from this Court that Securus', T-Netix', Evercom's and GTL's conduct
violates §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat.
113. Pursuant to §59.l-205 VA Stat, Millicorp also seeks injunctive relief
§59.1-205
to permanently enjoin Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL from violating and

Stat..
continuing to violate §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat.. Such an injunction will not only
protect Millicorp' s rights, but will also protect the rights of the friends and family
members of inmates as the consuming public.
114. The granting of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. To
the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under
Virginia's Consumer Protection Act and the Telecommunications Act.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 40 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this
Tel *Link
Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus
Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
Systems, Inc. is in violation of §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat, and for a judgment for
permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against Defendants
Global

Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies,

Inc.,

T-Netix

Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them
from violating §59.1-200 (14) VA Stat, and requiring them to comply with the
provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs
under§59.1-204 (B) VA Stat, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT XIV
NORTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
ACTION FOR DAMAGES
115. Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
116. This is a claim for actual damages under §§75 - 1.1 and 75 - 16, NC
Stat.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 41 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

117. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix,
Evercom and GTL are knowingly and wilfully engaging in unfair methods of
competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of
trade and commerce, in violation of §75 - 1.1, NC Stat.
118. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection
under North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act.
119. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant,
consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to
Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to
encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and
substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers.
120. As a direct result of Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL blocking of
calls to Millicorp' s CCH customers, Millicorp has actually lost a significant
portion of its customer base with an actual fifty to seventy percent (50%-70%)
average monthly revenue loss.

Consequently, Millicorp has suffered actual

damages.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests that judgment be entered in its
behalf and

against

Defendants

Global

Tel*Link
Tel *Link

Corporation,

Securus

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 42 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
Systems, Inc., for actual damages, treble damages under § 75 - 16, NC Stat,
attorneys' fees and costs under § 75 - 16.1, NC Stat, interest, and such other relief
as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XV
NORTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
DE CLARA
ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
121.

Millicorp adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 and 27 through 32, as if fully set forth
herein.
122. This is a claim for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against
Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL under §75 - 1.1 and 75 - 16, NC Stat.
123. By blocking Millicorp's CCH Customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix,
Evercom and GTL are knowingly and willfully engaging in unfair methods of
competition, and unfair and unconscionable acts and practices in the conduct of
trade and commerce, in violation of §75 - 1.1, NC Stat.
124. Millicorp is a legitimate business enterprise entitled to protection
under North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 43 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et at.
Complaint

125. Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL have engaged in a rampant,
consistent, and willful blocking of calls from inmates in confinement facilities to
Millicorp's CCH customers. Such conduct offends established public policy to
encourage competition and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and
substantially injurious to Millicorp's CCH customers as consumers. By blocking
Millicorp's CCH customers' calls, Securus, T-Netix, Evercom and GTL are
engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable and unfair acts, and
unconscionable practices under North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act,
l.1,
specifically §75 - 1.1, NC Stat.
126. Millicorp seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court that Securus',
l.1,
T-Netix', Evercom's and GTL's conduct violates §75 - 1.1, NC Stat.
127. Millicorp also seeks injunctive relief to permanently enjoin Securus,
l.1,
T-Netix, Evercom and GTL from violating and continuing to violate §75 - 1.1, NC

Stat.

Such an injunction will not only protect Millicorp's rights, but will also

protect the rights of the friends and family members of inmates as the consuming
public.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 44 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, et al.
Complaint

128. The granting of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. To
the contrary, it will protect the public's interest in fair competition under North
Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Telecommunications Act.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Millicorp requests a declaratory judgment from this
Court that the conduct of Defendants Global Tel*Link Corporation, Securus
Tel *Link
Technologies, Inc., T-Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom
Systems, Inc.

m
IS In

75
violation of §75 - 1.1, NC Stat, and for a judgment for

permanent injunctive relief to be entered in its behalf and against Defendants
Global

Tel*Link

Corporation,

Securus

Technologies,

Inc.,

T-Netix

Telecommunications Services, Inc. and Evercom Systems, Inc. enjoining them
from violating §75 - 1.1, NC Stat, and requiring them to comply with the
provisions of the Telecommunications Act, for attorneys' fees and costs under §75
- 16.1, NC Stat, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 45 of 47

Millicorp v. Global Tel*Link Corporation. et at.
Complaint

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

FedR.Civ.P.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 38, Millicorp demands a jury trial as to all issues
so triable by right of a jury.
Dated: October /

,2009

Respectfully submitted,
STEVEN M. KATZMAN, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 375861
smk@kwblaw.com
CHARLES J. BENNARDINI, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 694241
cjb@kwblaw.com
KATZMAN, WASSERMAN
BENNARDINI & RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
7900 Glades Road, Suite 140
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Pho~(5 1) 477-7774
Fi~: (56) 477-7447 _______

JEFE . BROWN, ESQ.
L
ALLE, BROWN, RONAN & MULLINS, PA
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
750 South Dixie Highway
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
jbrown@lavallebrown.com
Tel: 561-395-0000
Fax: 561-395-9093

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 46 of 47
(~.ev.:. 2/08)
CIVIL COVER SHEET

"J~ 4~.

of pleadings ~~~~r:~~;~~~~~=
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or ~~~~e;~~~~~:~~::
required
u"
by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is re9uired for the ul'
St~tes
the civil dor-kct sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVE~SE OF THE F~.R.~.) "'_", NOTICE: Attorneys MliIST Indi'late
REVE~SE
F~.R.~.) "._'"
MUST Indicate

(a)

U"
U'

PLAINTIFFS

MILLICORP, a Florida
(b)

DEFENDANTS

GLOBAL TEL *LINK CO
T-NETIX TELECOMM

County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

.;:L;:..:ee;:..:ee::.. ;:C;;;o;;;u;::n:.;,ty:.yL-.______
L; ; :. :C:;,;o:;,;u: ;n ;.t "'

County of Residence of First List

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(c)

Attorney's (Firm

S',

(IN U.S.

IN LAND CONDEMN""AT""I"'ON';;;C:';'A;;-;'S;":E~!..:;

NOTE:
NOTE:

Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

LAND INVOLVED.

ATT ACHED
SEE ATTACHED
Attorneys (If Known)

CIV:GRAHAM
Check County Where Action Arose:

(d)

n.
11.

MIAMI·
.h MIAMI- DADE

BASIS OF JURISDICTION

0 MONROE

,:J BROWARD

(Place an "X" in One Box Only)

0 PALM BEACH

0 MARTIN

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

uovernment
U.S. Government
Defendant

,f0 4

0 INDIAN RIVER

,fit:ORRES .
· RES

0 OKEECHOBEE
HIGHLANDS
HIGHLi\NDS

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff
PARTIES(Place.n
(For Diversity Cases Only)

o I
LJI

0 ST. LUCIE

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

fit:
, 1;1.: 'n
I;i.: .I.'

and One Box for Defendant)

·>

PTF
I

.If

PTF
4

DEF
:::J
::J 4

,fo

Citize:l of Another State

DIversity
Diversity

a
0
::J

PlaceIncorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

.fa

Citizen or Subject ofa

'.'J 2

Citizen of This State

Foreign NatIOn

LJ
0

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

Place.lf
Incorporated 01' PrinCipal Place
Thi~
of Business In This State

Forei n Countr

IV. NATURE OF SUIT
ONTRACT
CONTRACT

(Placr an "X"in One Box Only)
IPlacran"X"inOneBoxOnlv\
TORTS
T R.TS

::J 120 Marine
.:J
Miller
:J 130 M iller Act
:J
Negotitlble
::J 140 Negotiable Instrument
ISO Reco\rfrY ofU",erpayment
::::J 150 Recovny ofUverpayment
Enfurl'ement
& EnfuTl'ement of Judgment
.'J
Medic:lrc
~'J 151 Medic'lre Act
'J 152 Re~·oveTY of Defauh-=d
1)2 Re~·overy
Loan!.
Student Loan!>
(Excl. Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
R~co\'ery ofOverpa~ment

elerau's
of V eterau's l3enefits
::::J 160 Stockholders' ~uits
:J
~uus

i::J 315 Airplane Product

Slander
::::J 330 federal Employers'
33tl
Liability
o 340 Marine

"J
PTOduct
'] 345 Marine PlOduct
LiabiWy
.:J
;:J .150 Motor Vehicle
C1 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability

:J 195 Contrclct Product liability

:J 360 Other Personal
.:J 36U
Injury

196 Franchise
Franchise-

CIVIL RIGHTS

REAL
R.EAL PROPERTY
,:)
CJ 210 Land Condemnation
::J 220 Foredosure

o
o

Liability

:J 320 Assault, Libel &

::J 190 O!her Contract
Olher

U
o

310 Airplane

441 Voting

:J 442 Employment

Lea!;e
230 Renl Lea\;e & Ejectment
240 Torts 10 I.e-nd
I "nd

443 Housing!
ACl'ornmodations
ACl'ornmodatiol1s
l'J 444 Welfar-=
LJ
o 445 Amer. w/Dis~biIities
w/Dis~bilities
C
Employment

FORFEITURE/PENALTY
FOR.FEITURE/PENALTY

610 Agriculture

CJ 422 Appeal 28 USC
[')

Person,,1
362 Personal Injury Med. Malpractice
365 Persona' Injury Product liability

368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Pr'Jduct
Liability

'j
':J

620 Other Food & Drug
625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 8S1
of Property 21 USC 8St
630 Liquor Law,La"",640 R.R. & Truck
650 Airline Regs.
660 Occupational
Safety/Health

o
~

':J

,,\
290 /\ II Other Real Property

(je'leral
530 Ge'leral
Pt"nslty
535 Death Penslty

540 Mandamus & Other ::J
J

550 Civil Rights

.f'J
.fJ

ORIGIN

1 Original

Proc~cding
Proceeding

Right!.
440 Other Civil Right!>

(Place an "X" in One Box Only)
(Place.w

2 Remo\l'd from

Re-filcd0 3 Re-filed-

State Coun

CASE(S).

L-__________-ID
~:J::W:lEUD:R:Wii.'ii:=jO
~ D "'UT~
':J
1-_J:P':.I1.!'''nL,pl:Jij,'''DI1'.1'T'.L·V''I1''.l.\.i.·'''WUT..1l~·'---I':J

0 820 Copyrights
Copynghts
0 830 Patent
0 840 Trademark

0
LJ
U

(see VI helow)

l)OO
Fe:- D~'ermlll,ltion
::::J lJOO Appeal of Fe:' D~lermlllation
tInder Equ:.d An;es-.; to Jusllc(;
Under Eqll:.d An;ess 10 Justice:

Corpus-Alien
~~~a~ll:l:eas Corpus Alien
4

G
.:J

95U Cons,itutionality nf Stale
9SU Con:"itutiondlity

Statu1.-;"S
Statu1.';"s

4 Reinstated or
Reopened

Transferred froll'
5 another district
(specify)

Multidistrict
MuItidistrict
Litigatio'1

Appeal to District
Judge from

7 Magistrate
Jud ment

DYES
b) Related Cases DYES QJNO

~See

instruC"tions
instrurtions
second page):

Antitrust
410 AntItrust
Bankmg
430 Banks and Banking
450 C(lmlrerce
450 Commerce
460 DeportatIOn
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Organl.(allOn~
Corrupt OrganlLalion!'>
4NO
4l'l0 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sal TV

462 Naturalization
App!il:atioll
App!il-atioH

YES
a) Re-filed Case 0 YES .jJ NO
VI. RELA TED/RE-FILED

4PO State Rcapponionrn!?:nt
4(lO Stale RrapPorlinnrnt"nt

423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157

555 Prison Condition

Other

:.J

2b USC 7609

:J
o

OTHER STATUTES

15~

.J
J
PERSONAL PROPERTY
L.:0,,-.::6:;:.9::.0.;;O:.:.th~e::.r
-I-__..,..
~ rJ
o 370 Other Fraud
.,:0::.....:6:.;;9.:;0..:O;,;t;.;.he:.:r-:-:==-_ _ _....._='""'=,...,,====_~ 0 810 Selectl\'e Service
810 Selectn·e Service
CJ
371 Truth in Lending
1-_~_~L"A~Bi!;O~.llR._~ ............+---"S~O'-lC.Il.:A~L
Ri!.iIUT"'YL...._-1
85 0 Securitie,;C
........... _ _....!L"AUB~O~R_ _ _ _+-.....:lSi.l.O!.lC.JIu:AULiI...I!S.!lE.l.C~Ui.!' !loI!.JT!..VI-_-1 0 850 Securities/C ommod ities:
.
.....\lS.!lEcl.C.lU'-i'R
o 710 Fair Labor Standards
0 861 HIA (139511)
Exchange
o 380 Other Personal
Act
0 862 Black Lung (923)
CJ ~75 Customer Challenge
Custnmer
Property Damage
o
(405(gli
3411}
0
Labor!Mgmt.
12 U~C 3410
o 385 Property Damage o 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
o
SSIO
Act!')n,:..
o 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting 0 864 SSID Title XVI
•
H90 Other Statutory Act!')n:0
Product Liability
",O,,-8~6~5:..R~':;:.~I:';(1::4.::0;;:5(i;lig~))~..,.. _-1 CI 89 I Agricultural Acts
& Disclosure Act
1-0",-~86:,:;5;:...:;:R;.!.~.!..I!.:(4:,::0:;;5l!(g;,:))I..-_ _ _-l 0
PRISONER PETITIONS :J
I-....!.F.!E~D~E'-!R~A!U;:L..!TWA~X~S~UL!I.!.T..!!S'--I
~ I) 2 E co nom iI: S 1a b il il.atifl n i\ C
1-..)'!:.E!<.!lD:!E:.!:R!-,A~L!;:..lT.!A~X~Scl.UC!.I.!.T2S_-lCJ ~92 Economic SlabiliL.atifln Actl
PRISQNER.P£TITIONS 0 740 Railway Labor Act
o
I)
EnVIronmental MaHI!TS
0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
IJ S93 Environmental Ma1tl:rs
510 Motions to Vacate
i:J
o 510MotionstoVacate 0 790 Other Labor Litigation
o H94 Energy Allo",atlOn Act
Allo"atlOn
or Defendafit)
0
Sentence
0 791 Empl. Ret. lnc. Securit
Tne.
·0
o
P<trty
0 871 IRS Third P<l.rty
CJ K95 Freedom of (uformation ,\;:1
Act
Habea'i Corpus:
Free-dllm
(lIfOrmatlon

::J 446 Amer. w/Disabilities
::J ~~~erAmer. 'oN/Disabilities

::::J
Turt
:::J 245 Tort Product Liability

BANKR PTCY
BANKRlIPTCY

PERSONAL INJURY

110 Insurance
I 10 InsuTance

DOCKET NUMBER

JUDGE

the
Citz thc U.S. Civil Statute under which you arc filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless
diversity).
diversity):
VII. CAUSE

ACTION

47 U.S.C 201 et seq; 28 U.S.c. 1331, 1332 and 1367 /iolations of Communications Act of 1934 and
Telecommunications Act of 1996

LENGTH OF 1 RIAL via ~_ day~ estimated (for b
_ _ _ _ _ _-.L:.:~:.::-::::.~~~=:;:;..:Z,;:===..;,::~=::_::::_='O"=::'::.:...:.==----~~.:-;;-;-;;:::-;;---;-:-;::-:=--__;_;_:::_:=---·-----:~=-=:-~:.::-=~~:.:::-:-:~=:-=~==..:.:..:.:..r.:;:_:;;;::_;;:_.::.....---.:...--~~~;:;-;;-:::;::-:;::;:::::::;:::;-:::-::::::---.-VIII. REQUESTED IN
0
EMAND $
CHECK YES only ifdcmandcd in complaint.
if demanded
COMPLAINT:

75,000.00-+

j;r,"':r. ~EUeF

JURY DEMAND:

Yes

No
Nil

DATE

ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT T
THE BEST OF MY Kc"lOWLEDGE
K.c"lOWLEDGE

/6
Y
F?IJ OFFICE USE Oi'L V
AMOUN¥"
i\MOl)NJI"

.,50.170
'750."0

RECEIPT #

10/000t6

IFP

(o!I'1 lJ 1.

Case 1:09-cv-23093-DLG Document 1

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2009 Page 47 of 47

Civil Action Cover Sheet (continued)
I.(c)
Attorney's (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number)

JeffM. Brown, Esq.
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
Lavalle, Brown, Ronan & Mullins, P.A.
750 South Dixie Highway
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Tel: 561-395-0000
Fax: 561-395-9093
j brown@lavallebrown.com

STEVEN M. KATZMAN, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 375861
smk@lnvblaw.com
CHARLES J. BENNARDINI, ESQ.
BENNARDINI~
Florida Bar No. 694241
cjb@kwblaw.com
KATZl\1AN, WASSERMAN
BENNARDINI & RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
7900 Glades Road, Suite 140
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Phone: (561) 477-7774
(56])
Fax: (561) 477-7447