IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO



Similar documents
CAUSE NO. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION. Greg Abbott, and complains of OLD UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ( Defendant ), and I.

COURT USE ONLY COMPLAINT

STATE OF COLORADO, ex rel. JOHN W. SUTHERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Plaintiff,

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

Case 2:13-cv TOR Document 1 Filed 07/30/13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION. MARIA GODINEZ, an individual,

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,

) CIVIL NO. v. ) WORLD CLASS NETWORK, INC., ) a Nevada corporation; ) COMPLAINT FOR ) RELIEF. DANIEL R. DIMACALE, an individual; )

-1- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO STATE OF COLORADO, ex rel. JOHN W. SUTHERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL

JAIME M. HAWLEY, NAN X. ESTRELLA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i~, I:, ~lsn~ict FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORID CQU?

How To File A Lawsuit Against A Corporation In California

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff State of North Carolina, by and through its Attorney General, brings this action

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII

Case 2:06-cv JF-SDP Document 69 Filed 02/25/2008 Page 1 of 15

05C SEP 2 7 a@ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT R ~ ~ ~! % FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DMSION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

How To Sue A Magazine Publisher In Cocolorado

- "'. --, ,-~ ') " UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Federal Trade Commission,

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

No. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED,

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY

Case 6:14-cv JA-DAB Document 53 Filed 02/25/14 Page 1 of 23 PageID 1974

Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:14-cv RBW Document 21 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

How To Get A Court Order To Stop A Man From Selling A Car To A Woman

APPENDIX A IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

How To Get A Court Order To Stop A Fraudster From Selling Securities In Idaho

13cv8257 Judge Virginia M. Kendall Magistrate Jeffrey T. Gilbert

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

NO. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION. Plaintiff the STATE OF TEXAS, acting by and through the Attorney General of Texas,

APPROVED Movant shall serve copies of this ORDER on

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. CASE NO.: 8:13-cv-1647-T-23TGW ORDER

Case 1:14-cv WGY Document 1 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

4:10-cv TLW Date Filed 03/18/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12

Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4722 How to Comply with the New Home Construction Law Act

STATE OF COLORADO, ex rel. JOHN W. SUTHERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, and LAURA E. UDIS, ADMINISTRATOR, UNIFORM CONSUMER CREDIT CODE, Plaintiffs,

DISTRICT COURT, DENVER COUNTY, COLORADO

CAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff LIFESTREAM PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, LLC. DALLAS COUNTY, T E X A S

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 06/30/15 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case4:15-cv DMR Document1 Filed09/16/15 Page1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Case No

(c) Providing advice or assistance to a buyer with regard to either subdivision (a) or (b) of this paragraph.

Case 3:14-cv M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1

OHIO HOME CONSTRUCTION SERVICE SUPPLIER S ACT I. HISTORY OF THE OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT ( CSPA )

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS KANSAS CITY-LEAVENWORTH DIVISION

Case 4:11-cv Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

CAUSE NO. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION, APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

CONSENT ORDER (As to Respondents North America Marketing, LLC and TM Multimedia Marketing, LLC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF RICHMOND, STATE OF GEORGIA. NOW COMES the named plaintiff, for himse_if and all

Chapter 21 Credit Services Organizations Act

SCREEN SPECIALISTS and RICHARD REUSCH, individually, stipulate that the ultrasound. are prescription devices as cleared for marketing by the

SSM COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission"), for its Complaint against PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPlAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

Case 1:07-cv RPM Document 1 Filed 03/20/2007 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Fraud - Trading Commodity Futures

Case 6:14-cv WSS Document 1-24 Filed 01/13/14 Page 1 of 35 EXHIBIT F

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMPLAINT

COLORADO CREDIT SERVICES ORGANIZATION ACT. Table of Contents COLORADO CREDIT SERVICES ORGANIZATION ACT... 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS. CVS PHARMACY, INC. Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

STATE OF WASHINGTON SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. Attorney General, and Audrey L. Udashen, Assistant Attorney General, brings this action

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY. No.

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 4 Filed: 09/24/10 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:7

JOHN THANH HOANG, individually and ) L0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), for its Complaint alleges:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN TUE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS Division 1. v. Case No. 00 C 1394

CAUSE NO. PLAINTIFF=S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CONSENT ORDER

Transcription:

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. ) CASE NO. ATTORNEY GENERAL ) MICHAEL DEWINE ) JUDGE 30 E. Broad St., 14 th Floor ) Columbus, Ohio 43215 ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) V. ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR VISION SECURITY, LLC ) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, 508 West 800 North ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, RESTITUTION, Orem, Utah 84057 ) AND CIVIL PENALTIES ) DEFENDANT. ) JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff, Ohio Attorney General Michael DeWine, having reasonable cause to believe that violations of Ohio s consumer protection laws have occurred, brings this action in the public interest and on behalf of the State of Ohio, pursuant to the authority vested in him by the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ( CSPA ), R.C. 1345.01 et seq. 2. The actions of the Defendant, hereinafter described, have occurred in the State of Ohio, Franklin County and various other counties, as set forth below, are in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.01 et seq., and the Ohio Home Solicitation Sales Act ( HSSA ), R.C. 1345.21 et seq. 3. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action lies with this Court pursuant to R.C. 1345.04. 4. This Court has venue to hear this case pursuant to Ohio Civ. R. 3(B)(3), in that some of the transactions complained of herein, and out of which this action arose, occurred in Franklin County, Ohio.

DEFENDANT 5. Defendant Vision Security, LLC (hereinafter Vision or Defendant ) is a Utah limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 508 West 800 North, Orem, Utah, 84057. 6. Defendant is registered to do business in Ohio with the Ohio Secretary of State. 7. Defendant, as described below, is a supplier as that term is defined in R.C. 1345.01(C) as Defendant was at all times relevant herein, engaged in the business of effecting consumer transactions by soliciting and selling home security systems to individuals in the State of Ohio, Franklin County and various other counties, for purposes that were primarily personal, family or household within the meaning specified in R.C. 1345.01(A) and (D). 8. Defendant, as described below, was at all relevant times hereto a seller engaged in the business of effecting home solicitation sales by soliciting and selling home security systems to buyers at the buyers personal residences in the State of Ohio, Franklin County and various other counties, for purposes that were primarily personal, family or household within the meaning specified in R.C. 1345.21(A) and (E). STATEMENT OF FACTS 9. Defendant was, and has been at all times relevant to this action, engaged in the business of advertising, soliciting, offering and selling home security systems in the State of Ohio, Franklin County and various other counties. 10. Defendant advertises its services via door to door sales at consumer residences. 11. Defendant conducts sales presentations for the sale of home security systems in consumers homes. 2

12. Defendant executed contracts to provide home security systems to consumers in their homes. 13. Defendant s contracts with consumers are typically for sixty months. 14. Defendant made oral misrepresentations to consumers during the home solicitation sales. 15. Defendant made oral misrepresentations regarding the identity of the company during the home solicitation sales. 16. Defendant made oral representations that the monthly monitoring fee would be one price, but the price on the contract was higher than the oral price quoted. 17. Defendant made oral misrepresentations that they were providing an upgrade to the consumer s current home security system, that they had purchased consumer s current home security contract, or that they were otherwise part of/or authorized to continue the monitoring services of the consumer s current home security system. 18. Consumers, believing such representations as described in paragraphs Fourteen through Seventeen (14-17), contracted with Defendant for Defendant s home security systems. 19. Defendant debited an installation fee and a higher monthly monitoring fee from consumers checking accounts or credit cards. 20. Defendant routinely installed the home security systems on the same day the contract was executed. 21. Defendant failed to provide oral notification of the consumers three-day right to rescission. 22. Defendant routinely failed to honor the notice of cancellation when consumers timely mailed, faxed or delivered it to Defendant. 3

23. In some instances when the consumer returned a home security system, or the Defendant promised to pick up a home security system when the consumer was no longer receiving services from Defendant, Defendant continued to bill consumers. PLAINTIFF'S CAUSES OF ACTION: VIOLATIONS OF THE CSPA COUNT I SUBSTANTIATION OF CLAIMS IN ADVERTISING 24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if completely rewritten herein, the allegations set forth in paragraphs One through Twenty-Three (1-23) of this Complaint. 25. Defendant committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A) and the Substantiation of Claims in Advertising Rule, Ohio Admin. Code 109:4-3-10(A), by making false claims in advertising in connection with goods or services, and, causing consumers to believe such claims were true. 26. These types of acts and practices were previously determined by Ohio courts to violate COUNT II FALSE AND MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if completely rewritten herein, the allegations set forth in paragraphs One through Twenty-Six (1-26) of this Complaint. 28. Defendant committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A) by making false and misleading statements that the cost of their monthly fee would be a lower price than the price on the contract, causing consumers to believe such claims were true. 4

29. These types of acts and practices were previously determined by Ohio courts to violate COUNT III UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE CONSUMER SALES ACTS AND PRACTICES 30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if completely rewritten herein, the allegations set forth in paragraphs One through Twenty-Nine (1-29) of this Complaint. 31. Defendant committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A), by making false and misleading statements which consumers relied upon to their detriment. 32. Defendant committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A), by engaging in a pattern or practice of failing to provide prompt refunds to consumers or denying valid request for refunds. 33. Defendant committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A), by providing inadequate and unfair customer service. 34. Defendant committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.02(B)(7), by representing that consumers existing home security systems were in need of replacement or repair, when such is not the case. 35. Defendant committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.02(B)(9), by representing that Defendant had a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation that it does not have. 36. These types of acts and practices were previously determined by Ohio courts to violate 5

COUNT IV UNCONSCIONABLE CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES 37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if completely rewritten herein, the allegations set forth in paragraphs One through Thirty-Six (1-36) of this Complaint. 38. Defendant committed unconscionable practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.03(A), by providing inadequate and unfair customer service. 39. Defendant committed unconscionable practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.03(A), as set forth in R.C. 1345.03(B)(6), by making false and misleading statements upon which consumers were likely to rely to their detriment. 40. These types of acts and practices were previously determined by Ohio courts to violate VIOLATIONS OF THE HSSA COUNT I FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE OF THREE DAY RIGHT OF RESCISSION 41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if completely rewritten herein, the allegations set forth in paragraphs One through Forty (1-40) of this Complaint. 42. Defendant violated the HSSA, R.C. 1345.23(A) and R.C. 1345.23(B), by failing to give proper notice to consumers of their right to cancel their contract by a specific date. 43. These types of acts and practices were previously determined by Ohio courts to violate 6

COUNT II INSTALLING SECURITY SYSTEMS DURING THREE-DAY RIGHT TO CANCEL 44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if completely rewritten herein, the allegations set forth in paragraphs One through Forty-Three (1-43) of this Complaint. 45. Defendant committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the HSSA, R.C. 1345.22 and the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A) by installing home security systems and related security and monitoring services during the three-day cancellation period. 46. These types of acts and practices were previously determined by Ohio courts to violate COUNT III MISREPRESENTING THE RIGHT TO CANCEL 47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if completely rewritten herein, the allegations set forth in paragraphs One through Forty-Six (1-46) of this Complaint. 48. Defendant committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the HSSA, R.C. 1345.23(D)(3), the CSPA, 1345.02(A) and the Direct Solicitations Rule, Ohio Admin. Code 109:4-3-11(5), by misrepresenting the buyer s right to cancel the contract for the home security system and related security and monitoring services. 49. These types of acts and practices were previously determined by Ohio courts to violate COUNT IV FAILURE TO HONOR NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if completely rewritten herein, the allegations set 7

forth in paragraphs One through Forty-Nine (1-49) of this Complaint. 51. Defendant committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the HSSA, R.C. 1345.23, when Defendant refused to accept timely notice of cancellations from consumers. 52. These types of acts and practices were previously determined by Ohio courts to violate PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court: 1. ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT declaring that each act or practice described in Plaintiff s Complaint violates the CSPA, R.C. 1345.01 et seq., and the HSSA, R.C. 1345.21 et seq., in the manner set forth in this Complaint. 2. ISSUE PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, pursuant to R.C. 1345.07, enjoining Defendant Vision Security, LLC their agents, servants, representatives, salespeople, employees, successors or assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, directly or indirectly, from engaging in the acts or practices of which Plaintiff complains and from further violating the CSPA, R.C. 1345.01 et seq., and the HSSA, R.C. 1345.21 et seq. 3. ORDER Defendant Vision Security LLC, liable for reimbursement to all consumers found to have been damaged by the Defendant s unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices, including, but not limited to, making restitution to consumers who 8

entered into contracts with Defendant for a higher price than orally represented during the sales presentation. 4. ASSESS, FINE AND IMPOSE upon Defendant, Vision Security, LLC, a civil penalty of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) for each separate and appropriate violation described herein, pursuant to R.C. 1345.07(D). 5. ORDER, that all contracts entered into between Defendant and Ohio consumers by unfair, deceptive or unconscionable acts or practices, be rescinded, with full restitution to the consumers; 6. ORDER, as a means of insuring compliance with this Court s Order and with the consumer protection laws of Ohio, Defendant to maintain in their possession and control for a period of five (5) years, all business records relating to Defendant s solicitation and sale of home improvement goods and/or services in Ohio and to permit the Ohio Attorney General or his representative, upon reasonable twenty-four (24) hour notice, to inspect and/or copy any and all records. 7. PROHIBIT Defendant, as a means of insuring compliance with this Court s Order and with the consumer protection laws of Ohio, from engaging in consumer transactions in this state until such time as Defendant has satisfied all monetary obligations due. 8. GRANT the Ohio Attorney General his costs in bringing this action. 9. ORDER Defendant to pay all court costs. 10. GRANT such other relief as the Court deems to be just, equitable and appropriate. 9

Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL DEWINE Attorney General /s/ Teresa A. Heffernan TERESA HEFFERNAN (0080732) Associate Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Section 30 East Broad Street, 14 th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3428 (614) 466-8831 (614) 466-8898 (facsimile) Teresa.Heffernan@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov Counsel for Plaintiff 10