This case was last updated from PACER on 09/10/2021 at 19:17:38 (UTC).

Palumbo v. AT&T Inc et al

Case Summary

On August 4, 2021, Steven Palumbo (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood, filed a personal property fraud lawsuit against AT&T, Inc. and ABC Corps 1-10 (collectively, “AT&T” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief, among other reliefs, for the Defendant’s alleged engagement in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices by allegedly marketing a reward card program but failing to ensure that consumers actually receive a valid reward card. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas with Judge David C. Godbey presiding. 

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Plaintiff received an offer for bundled television and telecommunications services from AT&T on May 15, 2020. The offer specifically stated that there would be a $200 gift card reward if Plaintiff purchased a bundle.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Like most consumers, Plaintiff is a price-conscious shopper who considers all promotions and discounts when making purchases. As such, induced by AT&T’s $200 reward card offer Plaintiff signed an agreement for bundled television and internet services with an AT&T representative on May 16, 2020, through communications with the AT&T representative over the telephone and through email.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Plaintiff paid for his services at the time of agreeing to the bundled services and was told to expect to receive his Reward Card in the mail in a few days. Plaintiff did not receive his Reward Card until on or about January 7, 2021. The card had expired in December 2020. Plaintiff thereafter contacted AT&T Customer Service and asked them to replace his expired Reward Card but they refused to do so.”

 

The Plaintiff lists out four claims for relief. The first claim is for alleged violation of Florida’s Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.). The second claim is for alleged negligent misrepresentation. The third claim is for alleged unjust enrichment. The fourth claim is for declaratory relief. The Plaintiff alleged that in the course of their business, the Defendant ran a promotional campaign that enticed consumers to sign up for service bundles in order to receive a $200 Reward Card. However, after accepting the Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ money, the Defendant allegedly sent the Plaintiff and the Class Members Reward Cards that had already expired, thereby depriving the Plaintiff and the Class Members of receiving the specific benefit they were offered in exchange for signing up for the bundled services. The Defendant thus allegedly violated FDUPTA by, at a minimum, allegedly employing deception, deceptive acts or practices, misrepresentations, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale of television service bundles. 

 

In his prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court for an order certifying this action as a class action, defining the Class as requested herein, and finding that the Plaintiff is a proper representative of the Class requested herein, and for an order requiring Defendant to pay the costs involved in notifying Class Members about the judgment and administering the claims process. Further, the Plaintiff requested the Court to order compensatory, general, special and treble damages according to proof; restitution and disgorgement according to proof; injunctive relief against the Defendant to prevent future wrongful conduct; prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate; costs of the proceedings; and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.



Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:21-CV-01818

  • Filing Date:

    08/04/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

  • Courthouse:

    Texas Northern District

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

David C Godbey

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Steven Palumbo

Defendants

AT&T, Inc.

AT&T Inc

ABC Corps 1-10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

William B Federman

Attorney at Federman & Sherwood

212 W Spring Valley Road

Richardson, TX 75081

 

Court Documents

#5

(#5) Summons Issued as to AT&T, Inc. (ndt) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

#3

(#3) Request for Clerk to issue Summons filed by Steven Palumbo. (Federman, William) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

#2

(#2) ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to #1 Complaint,,,, by Plaintiff Steven Palumbo. (Federman, William) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

#4

(#4) New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Ramirez). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

1 #1

Cover Sheet Cover Sheet

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against AT&T, Inc. filed by Steven Palumbo. (Filing fee $402; Receipt number 0539-12111681.) Plaintiff will submit summons(es) for issuance. In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet Cover Sheet) (Federman, William) Modified to add receipt number on 8/5/2021 (ndt). (Entered: 08/04/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/05/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) Summons Issued as to AT&T, Inc. (ndt) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Request for Clerk to issue Summons filed by Steven Palumbo. (Federman, William) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to #1 Complaint,,,, by Plaintiff Steven Palumbo. (Federman, William) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Ramirez). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against AT&T, Inc. filed by Steven Palumbo. (Filing fee $402; Receipt number 0539-12111681.) Plaintiff will submit summons(es) for issuance. In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet Cover Sheet) (Federman, William) Modified to add receipt number on 8/5/2021 (ndt). (Entered: 08/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where AT&T Corp. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer William Bernard Federman