Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.
Case Number:
1:11-cv-03041
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
-
February 01, 2017
Sprint Beats Sanctions In Suit Over Tax Charges
A New York federal magistrate judge on Wednesday refused to order sanctions against Sprint in a proposed class action alleging the telecom giant passed on to customers a state excise tax masked as a mandatory tax charge, rejecting the customer-plaintiff's gripe that the company held out on his discovery requests until the last minute.
-
December 09, 2016
Sprint Says Tax Charge Consumer Crying Wolf In Sanction Bid
Sprint on Thursday blasted sanctions-seeking accusations that it didn't preserve evidence relevant to a proposed class action alleging the telecom giant passed on to customers a state excise tax masked as a mandatory tax charge, arguing it was under no obligation to do so until recently and that it's fully complied.
-
November 08, 2016
Consumers Seek Sanctions Against Sprint In Tax Charge Suit
A group of consumers asked a New York federal judge Monday to sanction Sprint for purportedly failing to preserve evidence relevant to their proposed class action, which alleges the telecom giant passed on to customers a state excise tax masked as a mandatory tax charge.
-
September 26, 2016
Consumers Moves for Cert. In Sprint Tax Charge Suit
A group of consumers asked a New York federal judge Friday to grant them class certification in their suit alleging that Sprint passed on to customers a state excise tax masked as a mandatory tax charge
-
September 16, 2016
Sprint Says Customer Loyalty Should Nix Tax Charge Suit
Sprint urged a New York federal court Thursday to toss class allegations that the telecom masked a surcharge it passed on to customers to recoup a state excise tax as a mandatory tax charge, arguing there was no deception and customer ambivalence fatally undermines the suit.
-
July 07, 2016
Citing Spokeo, Judge Keeps Alive Sprint Billing Class Action
A Manhattan federal judge on Thursday denied Sprint's bid to end a putative class action on behalf of wireless customers charged a tax on their phone bills, saying the alleged injury was "real and not abstract," citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Spokeo decision.