The lead plaintiff didn’t sufficiently allege he’d be harmed again by T-Mobile’s conduct, Judge M. James Lorenz wrote for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
The Ninth Circuit has held that a single incident is insufficient to establish a likelihood of future injury.
The court gave him 21 days to amend his complaint to address its concerns.
Patrick Ames sued T-Mobile under California consumer law after he gave the company his personal information to get a quote for telephone services. He decided not to buy a phone from the company but says the company charged him $46 for phone services.
He alleged the company had a practice of soliciting personal information from potential customers and using it to open unauthorized cell phone service accounts.
T-Mobile moved to dismiss because Ames sought only injunctive relief and didn’t allege he was likely to be harmed again.
The court agreed. Ames didn’t explain how he personally was likely to be injured again by the actions of the company, it said.
“It is just as likely that the debt levied against plaintiff was simply a clerical error or one bad-acting customer service representative, rather than an intentional, system-wide policy,” the court said.
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C. represented Ames.
Alston & Bird LLP represented T-Mobile.
The case is Ames v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2019 BL 30453, S.D. Cal., No. 3:17-cv-1666, 1/30/19.
To read more from Class Action News pleaseOR Request Trial