Case: Judd v. AT&T

00-2-17565-5 SEA | Washington state trial court

Filed Date: June 20, 2000

Closed Date: June 21, 2013

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 20, 2000, individual plaintiffs brought this putative class action in the Superior Court of Washington for King County against five telephone service provider companies. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, were recipients of intrastate and interstate collect telephone calls from incarcerated individuals in the State of Washington's prisons, where the six telephone companies provided "0+" operator-assisted service to incarcerated people wishing to call people outside the pris…

On June 20, 2000, individual plaintiffs brought this putative class action in the Superior Court of Washington for King County against five telephone service provider companies. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, were recipients of intrastate and interstate collect telephone calls from incarcerated individuals in the State of Washington's prisons, where the six telephone companies provided "0+" operator-assisted service to incarcerated people wishing to call people outside the prison. The incarcerated people had no other telephone service available to them, nor could the recipients call into the prisons to speak to incarcerated people. According to their complaint, the companies had advised neither the recipients of the calls nor the appropriate state regulatory commission of the rates for the calls (except for post-November 1999, limited advisement as to interstate rates only). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' conduct constituted per se unfair or deceptive trade practices under state law. The plaintiffs sought damages, including treble damages for each instance of violation for each member of the plaintiff class, and injunctive relief to preclude further violations of state law requiring telephone rate disclosures, citing alleged violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs defined the class they sought to represent as all persons who had received a collect call from any person incarcerated in Washington's state prisons since June 20, 1996, except for those individuals who received only interstate collect calls after November 1999, and to whom timely disclosure of rates was offered.

On November 8, 2000, King County Superior Court Judge J. Kathleen Learned ordered several issues of law and fact to be considered by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission through a "primary jurisdiction referral." At that administrative agency, the defendant telephone companies argued that the case should be dismissed as the complainants lacked standing. Specifically, the companies asserted that the plaintiffs were unable to show personal harm from any conduct by the companies, since the calls from prison were carried by two other telephone companies who were exempt from the rule requiring rate disclosure, whereas the defendant companies provided only a connection (i.e., operator service), which did not trigger an obligation to disclose rates. The administrative law judge denied the motions to dismiss, saying that the issue of standing was not within the referral from the Superior Court and that only the referred issues could be addressed, according to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction (under which the court retained jurisdiction over all non-referred issues).

Three of the telephone companies were dismissed because they were found to be local exchange companies, and were thereby exempt from the disclosure requirements. The Washington Court of Appeals and Washington Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Judd v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 116 Wash. App. 761, 66 P.3d 1102 (2003), aff'd, 152 Wash. 2d 195, 95 P.3d 337 (2004).

A telephone company-defendant returned to the King County Superior Court and filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the plaintiffs lacked standing. In orders dated September, 7, 2005, and October 4, 2005, King County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey M. Ramsdell granted the summary judgment motion and found the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims against the two telephone companies that remained in the lawsuit as defendants. On October 17, 2005, Judge Ramsdell rescinded the primary jurisdiction referral to the state's administrative agency. That agency, in turn, ruled on October 28, 2005, that, because the court had dismissed the complaint for the plaintiffs' lack of standing and had rescinded the primary jurisdiction referral to the agency, the agency no longer had any basis upon which it could justify jurisdiction. Accordingly, it dismissed the administrative proceedings at the request of one of the telephone companies.

The plaintiffs appealed the order granting summary judgment, and on December 18, 2006, in an unpublished opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the plaintiffs "presented one disputed issue of material fact and one mixed question of fact and law which survive summary judgment." The disputed fact issue was whether the alleged telephone calls actually occurred, and the open question of law was whether the carriers were required to disclose rate information. Judd v. AT&T, 136 Wash. App. 1022 (2006). The Washington Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeals' decision.

As summarized by Prison Legal News, "after more than a decade of litigation before the state superior, appellate and supreme courts, and before the state utilities commission, the case boiled down to T-Netix and AT&T arguing over which company was responsible for providing notice to the call recipients. On April 21, 2010, the utilities commission held it was AT&T." The commission also concluded that AT&T violated the disclosure regulations. AT&T and T-Netix sought judicial review of the commission's decision in the Thurston County Superior Court, which confirmed that AT&T was an operator service provider but reversed and remanded the question whether AT&T and T-Netix violated disclosure regulations, back to the commission. On February 12, 2012, AT&T filed a motion in the King County Superior Court to terminate and withdraw the court's primary jurisdiction referral to the commission. The motion was granted, and the remaining issue of whether AT&T and T-Netix violated the rate disclosure regulations was to be decided by the King County Superior Court. 

On February 23, 2012, the King County Superior Court ruled on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, holding that class certification was warranted against AT&T only. Judd v. AT&T, 2012 WL 6761791 (Wash. Super. Feb. 23, 2012). The court held that because the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence that any of them had received local collect calls from the facilities that T-Netix served during the class period, the court would not certify a class of claimants for local collect calls or a class of claimants for any claims against T-Netix. Id. The court certified two classes against AT&T of individuals who, between June 20, 1996 and December 31, 2000, accepted one or more intrastate calls from inmates housed in a Washington Department of Corrections facility. Each of the certified classes related to specific Washington Department of Corrections facilities impacted by the issue.

On October 15, 2012, claims against T-Netix were resolved through a settlement agreement for $1,412,500.

On June 21, 2013, claims against AT&T were resolved through a settlement agreement for $45 million. After payment of claims submitted by class members, attorneys’ fees, case contribution awards, and expenses, a residual fund of about $20 million was expected to be available for cy pres distributions (distributions to non-profit organizations that would advance the interests of the class and people similarly situated). At least 25% of that amount was to be awarded to the Legal Foundation of Washington, with the remaining amount to be awarded to the Legal Foundation or other designees who have a direct or indirect relationship to the objectives of the underlying litigation or otherwise promote the substantive or procedural interests of members of the certified class.

On January 5, 2023, President Joe Biden signed the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022, clarifying the FCC’s authority to regulate in-state phone calls and video calls placed from correctional facilities. The Act would allow the FCC to cap the amount telecommunications companies may charge for in-state phone calls and video calls. The Act was predicted to be implemented sometime in the latter half of 2024.

Summary Authors

Mike Fagan (5/5/2008)

David Cho (12/28/2014)

Related Cases

Wright v. Corrections Corporation of America, District of Columbia (2000)

In re Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services / Wright Petition II, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (2012)

State of Oklahoma v. FCC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (2016)

Securus Technologies v. FCC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (2016)

In the Matter of Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services / Wright Petition I, No Court (2003)

People


Judge(s)

Infante, Edward A. (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Gryphon, Marie E. (Washington)

Meier, Jonathon P. (Washington)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Andrus, Beth M. (Washington)

Douglas, Robert A. (Ohio)

Judge(s)

Infante, Edward A. (California)

Rendahl, Ann E. (Washington)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

00-2-17565-5 SEA

42022

Utilities and Transport Commission Docket

No Court

Feb. 27, 2012

Feb. 27, 2012

Docket

00-2-17565-5 SEA

Docket

Oct. 30, 2014

Oct. 30, 2014

Docket

00-2-17565-5 SEA

First Amended Complaint - Class Action

Aug. 1, 2000

Aug. 1, 2000

Complaint

48075–8–I

Opinion

Judd v. American Telephone and Telegram Company

Washington state appellate court

April 14, 2003

April 14, 2003

Order/Opinion

66 P.3d 66

73966–8

Opinion

Judd v. American Telephone and Telegram Company

Washington state supreme court

July 29, 2004

July 29, 2004

Order/Opinion

95 P.3d 95

UT-042022

Protective Order

Judd v. AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc.

March 18, 2005

March 18, 2005

Order/Opinion

42022

Order Denying T-Netix’s Motions for Summary Determination and to Stay Discovery []

Judd v. AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc.

July 18, 2005

July 18, 2005

Order/Opinion

UT-042022

Order Granting T-Netix's Motion to Dismiss; Dismissing Complainants' Action

Judd v. AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc.

Oct. 28, 2005

Oct. 28, 2005

Order/Opinion

57015-3-I

Unpublished Opinion

Judd v. American Telephone and Telegram Company

Washington state appellate court

Dec. 18, 2006

Dec. 18, 2006

Order/Opinion

136 Wash. App. 136

00-2-17565-5 SEA

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

Judd v. American Telephone and Telegram Company

Feb. 23, 2012

Feb. 23, 2012

Order/Opinion

2012 WL 2012

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 1:39 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Washington

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Prison Legal News

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 20, 2000

Closing Date: June 21, 2013

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Any person who, between June 20, 1996 and December 31, 2000, accepted one or more intrastate, interLATA or intraLATA collect calls from an inmate housed in one of several specified Washington Department of Corrections facilities.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Amount Defendant Pays: $46,412,500

Issues

General:

Phone

Type of Facility:

Government-run