Tapang Vs T-Mobile
Tapang Vs T-Mobile
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
9
15
Plaintiff Mr. Carlos Tapang, by and through his counsel, Boris Davidovskiy of Boris
16
Davidovskiy, P.S., complains and alleges based on his personal knowledge with respect to his
17
own acts and on information and belief with respect to all other matters as follows:
18
I. INTRODUCTION
19
1.1 Mr. Carlos Tapang is a current wireless telephone customer of Defendant T-
20
Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”). This is an action for damages and remedies for violations
21
of, inter alia, the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 201, arising in part from T-
22
23 COMPLAINT - 1
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 2 of 19
1 Mobile’s failure to provide reasonable and appropriate security to maintain the security of
4 access to Mr. Tapang’s wireless account and, without his authorization, transferred his
5 number to another carrier. T-Mobile was unable to contain this security breach until the next
7 1.3 As a result of this breach of security, Mr. Tapang’s exchange account was
8 subjected to unauthorized transfers; he was deprived of his use of his cell phone number and
9 required to expend time, energy, and expense to address and resolve this financial disruption
10 and mitigate the consequences; and he also suffered consequent emotional distress.
12 2.1 This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367
13 on the grounds of federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over the state
14 law claims because all the claims are derived from a common nucleus of operative facts and
15 are such that Plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one action.
16 2.2 Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (c). A
17 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred in this
18 District. T-Mobile is also headquartered and has its principal place of business in this
19 District. Wireless services subject of this Complaint were entered into in part in this District.
20 T-Mobile has received compensation as a result of its acts and practices in this District.
21 2.3 Unless this Court permanently restrains and enjoins T-Mobile, T-Mobile will
22 continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint in this District.
23 COMPLAINT - 2
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 3 of 19
3 III. PARTIES
4 3.1 Plaintiff Carlos Tapang is a resident of King County, Washington. Mr. Tapang
6 3.2 Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. is the United States operating entity of T-
8 Telekom AG & Co. K.G. T-Mobile, USA, Inc.’s headquarters and principal place of
9 business in the United States is in Bellevue, Washington, in the County of King, WA. The
10 practices and acts of T-Mobile as alleged in this Complaint have been “charges, practices,
12 3.3 Plaintiff reserves the right to move the Court to convert and certify this action
13 as a class action on behalf of the yet undefined class of individuals residing within
14 Washington and/or elsewhere who were subjected to the same circumstances set forth here.
15 IV. FACTS
16 4.1 T-Mobile markets and sells wireless telephone service through standardized
17 wireless service plans at various retail locations, online sales, and over the telephone. In
18 connection with its wireless services, T-Mobile maintains wireless accounts enabling its
19 customers to have access to information about the services they purchase from T-Mobile.
22
23 COMPLAINT - 3
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 4 of 19
1 4.3 Among other things, T-Mobile’s sales and marking materials state “we have
2 implemented various policies and measures to ensure that our interactions are with you or
3 those you authorize to interact with us on your behalf – and not with others pretending to be
5 4.4 T-Mobile’s sales and marking materials further state that, unless T-Mobile can
6 verify the caller’s identity through certain personal information or a PIN if requested by the
8 4.5 Despite these statements and other similar statements, T-Mobile fails to
11 agents and employees acting without the customer’s permission, can be authenticated and
12 then access and make changes to all the information the legitimate customer could access
13 and make changes to if the customer were so authorized. As set forth in this Complaint, T-
14 Mobile also fails to disclose or discloses misleadingly that its automated processes or human
15 performances often fall short of its express and implied representations or promises.
16 4.6 In or about 2015, Mr. Tapang entered into a service agreement with T-Mobile.
17 4.7 This agreement was for service on four wireless telephones, for Mr. Tapang,
19 4.8 On November 7, 2017, as Mr. Tapang and his family were getting ready to
20 bed, his daughter and wife’s phones restarted, and their phone data were wiped out.
21
22
1
Emphasis added.
23 COMPLAINT - 4
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 5 of 19
1 4.9 Mr. Tapang noticed that his phone also lost connection to T-Mobile.
3 attempts to reach an operator, he was shocked to learn one of T-Mobile’s call centers had
4 cancelled his phone number without his permission and transferred his number to AT&T.
6 control of his phone number to a device under the control of someone else.
7 4.12 T-Mobile admitted to Mr. Tapang that, based on its records, he did not
8 authorize the cancellation and transfer of his phone number to AT&T. T-Mobile was unable
9 to contain this security breach until the next day or so when T-Mobile was finally able to get
12 and appropriate security to prevent unauthorized access to Mr. Tapang’s wireless account,
13 after getting control of Mr. Tapang’s phone number, wrongdoers were able to change Mr.
14 Tapang’s password on one of his cryptocurrency accounts and drain most of the contents—
15 1,000 units of OmiseGo (“OMG”) tokens and 19.6 units of BitConnect coin (“BCC”), which
16 the wrongdoers sold for 2.875 Bitcoin (“BTC”) and then transferred out of his account.
17 4.14 After the incident, BTC price reached more than $17,000.00 per coin.
18 4.15 Before the incident, Mr. Tapang had specifically asked T-Mobile to add
19 additional security measures on his account in part by enabling a PIN to access his account.
20 4.16 Mr. Tapang understood that his PIN would be validated as part of any port out
21 requests (transferring of his T-Mobile number to another carrier), including by the new
22 carrier, here, AT&T, before his number could be ported to another carrier.
23 COMPLAINT - 5
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 6 of 19
1 4.17 On information and belief, T-Mobile failed to comply with Mr. Tapang’s
2 request. Despite having asked T-Mobile for additional security, Mr. Tapang lost his phone
5 that, taken together, fail to provide reasonable and appropriate security to prevent
7 authenticated and then granted access to sensitive customer wireless account data.
11 risk of unauthorized access. As such, at all times material hereto, T-Mobile has failed to
12 ensure that only authorized persons have such access and that customer accounts are secure.
14 a. fails to establish or enforce rules sufficient to ensure only authorized persons have
access to T-Mobile customer accounts;
15
b. fails to establish appropriate rules, policies, and procedures for the supervision
16
and control of its officers, agents, or employees;
17 c. fails to establish or enforce rules, or provide adequate supervision or training,
sufficient to ensure that all its employees or agents follow the same policies and
18
procedures. For example, it is often possible to persuade one of T-Mobile agents
19
to not apply the stated security policy and allow unauthorized access without
20 providing a PIN. Similarly, on information and belief, T-Mobile agents or
employees generally act on their own regardless of what is in the notes of a
21
customer account, failing, among other things, to accommodate customers’
22
security requests;
23 COMPLAINT - 6
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 7 of 19
1 d. fails to adequately safeguard and protect its cusomer wireless accounts, including
that of Mr. Tapang, so wrongdoers were able to obtain access to his account;
2
e. permits the sharing of and access to user credentials among T-Mobile’s agents or
3
employees without a pending request from the customer, thus reducing likely
4 detection of, and accountability for, unauthorized accesses;
f. fails to suspend user credentials after a certain number of unsuccessful access
5
attempts. For example, wrongdoers would call numerous times trying to gain
6
access to customer accounts before they finally got an agent on the line that would
7 authorize access without requiring, for example, a PIN;
g. fails to adequately train and supervise its agents and employees in such a manner
8
that allows its agents or employees, without authorization or approval, to
9
unilaterally access and make changes to customer accounts as if the customer
10 were so authorized;
h. allows porting out of phone numbers without properly confirming that the request
11
is coming from the legitimate customers;
12
i. lacks proper monitoring solutions and thus fails to monitor its systems for the
13 presence of unauthorizes access in a manner that would enable T-Mobile to detect
the intrusion so that the breach of security and diversion of customer information
14
was able to occur in Mr. Tapang’s situation and continue until after his virtual
15
currency account was compromised;
16 j. fails to implement simple, low-cost, and readily-available defenses to identity
thieves such as delaying transfers from accounts on which the password was
17
recently changed or simply delaying transfers from accounts to allow for
18
additional verifications from the customers; and
19 k. fails to build adequate internal tools to help protect its customers against hackers
and account takeovers, including compromise through phone porting and
20
wrongdoing by its own agents or employees acting on their own behalf or on
21
behalf or at the request of a third party.
22
23 COMPLAINT - 7
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 8 of 19
1 4.21 By the security practices and procedures described here, T-Mobile established
4 4.22 On information and belief, T-Mobile has long been aware about the security
5 risks presented by, inter alia, its weak user credential structures or procedures. From prior
6 attacks on customer accounts, T-Mobile has long had notice of those risks. In addition, T-
7 Mobile did not use readily-available security measures to prevent or limit such attacks.
9 gain access to a customer’s account and then use it to gain access to the customer’s sensitive
10 information such as bank accounts or virtual currency accounts, among other things.
11 4.24 As such, T-Mobile’s security measures were entirely inadequate to protect its
14 enabled the wrongdoers to access Mr. Tapang’s wireless account, which then enabled the
15 wrongdoers to access his virtual currency account and possibly other sensitive information.
16 4.26 As such, T-Mobile failed the responsibility it owed to Mr. Tapang to protect
17 his account and his phone number. Even if the subject incident was due to an “inside” job or
18 human performance falling short, T-Mobile is responsible for its agents. And, while T-
19 Mobile can outsource customer service functions, T-Mobile cannot transfer accountability.
21 oversight, Mr. Tapang would not have lost his phone number or otherwise been damaged.
22
23 COMPLAINT - 8
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 9 of 19
1 4.28 Making matters worse, Mr. Tapang is not the only T-Mobile customer to
2 suffer as a result of T-Mobile’s failure to ensure adequate security of its customer accounts.
5 “Hackers were able to get access to my account information and phone number due to a
T-mobile security breach from Oct. I was not notified at all as a customer. They added a
6 line to my account without me knowing, then ported my number to their phone, disabled
my network, figured out who my bank account was with, reset my username and
7 password for my bank via text verification that they received and did a bunch of online
money transfers. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE tmobile. If you had a security breach all
8 customers should have been notified to take the necessary precautions. There is a youtube
video on how to hack tmobile SIM cards - ***?! We can't talk to the fraud department,
9 all we can do is speak to a customer service rep to relay the information and I probably
won't ever get a call back about it. I've been a customer for over 10 years. There has to be
10 some sort of responsibility on your part. Because hackers were able to get info through
your systems I have to go through a ton of mess with my bank account and all accounts
11 associated with it. The worst part is, I only found out this originated from tmobile from
my banking specialist. She said there has been so many fraud claims filed due to the
12 tmobile security breach and asked if I was with tmobile. Everything aligned and it all
made sense after she said that. I started looking on the community posts and there are
13 numerous posts about this exact scenario.”
15 “This same thing happened to me just last night and thankfully I caught within a
couple of hours and my bank caught it within an hour and froze my accounts pending
16 verification from me. It frustrates me that I was not notified by Experian or T-Mobile
that my information may have been compromised. I was able to have the number
17 returned to me, and I also added the port validation code for an extra layer of
protection, but quite frankly it's a little too late for that curtesouy [sic] to be offered.
18 Had I been made aware of the situation when it happened and that service had been
offered to me then, then I bet a lot of this fraudulent activity would've been prevented.
19 As a business you should always strive to be proactive versus retroactive.”
21 “I have been a loyal customer with T-Mobile for over eleven years, and I wish they
reciprocated such loyalty and was transparent with their customers in letting them
22 know that some personal information was compromised by hackers a few months
back. I learned my lesson the hard way, when my cellular number attached to my
23 COMPLAINT - 9
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 10 of 19
9 My friend's T-Mobile number got ported out and the fraudulent porting happened with
just his account number and address.”
10
Posted By: thefrostking on September 11, 2017
11
“I just got off the phone with a T-Mobile support rep and a Tech expert did not have
12 answers as to how our accounts can be further secured after the Equifax hack.
13 The Equifax hack is a bigger deal than others because this time names, addresses, SSNs,
and driver licenses were stolen, not simple stuff like emails and credit cards.
14
Nothing is stopping somebody from calling up with up with my name and sovial,
15 switching an active SIM card to one owned by the malicious person and then bypassing
two-factor authentication (on my banks, social networks, etc) because my phone number
16 has been changed to a new device.
19 “A bug disclosed and patched last week by T-Mobile in a Web application interface
allowed anyone to query account information by simply providing a phone number. That
20 includes customer e-mail addresses, device identification data, and even the answers to
account security questions. The bug, which was patched after T-Mobile was contacted by
21 Motherboard's Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai on behalf of an anonymous security
researcher, was apparently also exploited by others, giving them access to information
22 that could be used to hijack customers' accounts and move them to new phones. Attackers
23 COMPLAINT - 10
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 11 of 19
1 could potentially gain access to other accounts protected by SMS-based "two factor"
authentication simply by acquiring a T-Mobile SIM card.
2
The weakness of the application interface in question, which hosted on wsg.T-
3 Mobile.com, had become so well known to cybercriminals that someone even created a
tutorial video on YouTube showing how to exploit it, as Franceschi-Bicchierai reported.
4 One source told him that the bug had been used in attempts to take over ‘desirable social
media accounts.’”
5
4.30 After the incident, Mr. Tapang sent a letter to T-Mobile explaining the
6
predicament and trying to resolve this matter. T-Mobile has failed to respond to this letter.
7
4.31 Mr. Tapang believed that T-Mobile’s actions were illegal. As such, he sought
8
assistance of counsel.
9
4.32 As a direct consequence of T-Mobile’s actions or inactions, Mr. Tapang has
10
suffered and continues to suffer actual damages, including: (a) lost time; (b) embarrassment
11
and humiliation; (c) aggravation and frustration; (d) fear; (e) anxiety; (f) financial
12
uncertainty; (g) unease; (h) emotional distress, and (i) expenses, including missed work,
13
delayed projects, postage expenses, and attorney’s fees and costs.
14
V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT
15
5.1 Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing allegations and incorporates these allegations
16
by reference as if fully set forth herein.
17
5.2 The FCA regulates interstate telecommunications carriers such as Defendant.
18
5.3 Defendant is a common carrier engaged in interstate communication by wire
19
for the purpose of furnishing communication services within the meaning of section 201(a)
20
of the FCA. As “common carrier,” Defendant is subject to the substantive requirements of
21
sections 201 and 202 of the FCA.
22
23 COMPLAINT - 11
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 12 of 19
1 5.4 Under section 201(b), common carriers may impose only those practices,
2 classifications, and regulations that are “just and reasonable.” And, under section 202(a),
3 common carriers are prohibited from making any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in
5 5.5 Should a common carrier “omit to do any act, matter, or thing in this chapter
6 required to be done,” section 206 dictates that the “common carrier shall be liable to the
7 person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence
8 of any such violation ... together with a reasonable counsel or attorney's fee[.]”
10 section 201(b) and section 202(a). Further, under section 217, Defendant is also liable for
11 the acts, omissions, or failures, as alleged in this Complaint, of any of its offers, agents, or
14 of section 222, which requires every telecommunication carrier to protect, among other
15 things, the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, customers.
17 section 222. On information and belief, Defendant disclosed, without Plaintiff’s approval,
18 Plaintiff’s proprietary information to a third party or parties for reasons other than for
23 COMPLAINT - 12
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 13 of 19
2 6.1 Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing allegations and incorporates these allegations
4 6.2 Plaintiff entered into a contract both express and implied with Defendant.
6 payment for services from Plaintiff. Under the terms of the agreement, Plaintiff was required
7 to pay in full the agreed-to charges submitted to him on his bills. Failure to pay in full would
8 cause a breach of contract and discontinuance of wireless telephone service, among other
9 things. Plaintiff accepted the offer of services from Defendant and performed all the
10 conditions, covenants, promises, and agreements required of him under the terms of the
12 6.4 Among other things, the express and implied terms of the contract were that
14 access to his wireless account or otherwise safeguard and protect Plaintiff’s private and
15 confidential account information and not transfer his phone number to anyone without his
16 express authorization.
17 6.5 Defendant has failed, neglected, and refused, and continues to fail, neglect,
18 and refuse to perform its part of the contract or to tender such performance.
19 6.6 In the absence of such implied and express contract terms, Plaintiff would
20 have acted differently in his purchasing decision or would not have agreed to entered into a
21 contract with T-Mobile. Nor would he have entered into the contract if T-Mobile had
22 properly disclosed to him the true extent of its account security measures or lack thereof.
23 COMPLAINT - 13
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 14 of 19
3 VII. NEGLIGENCE
4 7.1 Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing allegations and incorporates these allegations
6 7.2 Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of, inter alia, care in the handling and
7 safeguarding of his customer account for the purposes of providing wireless services.
13 8.1 Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing allegations and incorporates these allegations
15 8.2 Under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), RCW 19.86 et seq.,
16 “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful.
17 To prevail in a private claim under the Act, a plaintiff must establish five elements: (1)
18 unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) occurring in trade or commerce; (3) public interest
19 impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property; and (5) causation.2
20
21
22
2
Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 780 (1986).
23 COMPLAINT - 14
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 15 of 19
1 8.3 Even minimal or nominal damages constitute “injury” under the CPA.3 No
2 monetary damages need be proven and that non-quantifiable injuries, such as loss of
5 this Complaint, constitute unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business acts or practices within
7 8.5 Defendant, by and through its agents, employees, policies, and procedures has
8 engaged in deceptive acts and practices, unfair acts and practices, and unfair methods of
9 competition that have caused “injury,” as that term is defined in the relevant caselaw,
10 including actual and statutory damages, to Plaintiff who is meant to be protected under the
12 8.6 Defendant’s violations include but are not limited to falsely advertising
13 security measures Defendant did not honor and failing to provide adequate reasonable and
15 8.7 Making matters worse, Defendant’s business practices had the capacity to
16 affect members of the public and occurred in the course of its business. Additional plaintiffs
17 may have been injured in the same manner as Plaintiff in this case.
18 8.8 But for Defendant’s violations of the CPA, Plaintiff would not have the
19 established injuries.
20 //
21
22 3
Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 166 Wn.2d 27, 57 (2009).
4
Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos, 107 Wn.2d 735, 740 (1987).
23 COMPLAINT - 15
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 16 of 19
2 9.1 Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing allegations and incorporates these allegations
4 9.2 At all times material hereto, Defendant’s agents, officers, and employees,
6 phone number to another carrier were under Defendant’s direct, supervision, and control.
7 9.3 Defendant further assumed this duty by holding its officers, agents, and
10 and supervised its agents and employees when Defendant knew or should have known they
11 posted a security threat. Defendant knew or should have known that its agents or employees
12 would allow unauthorized access its customer accounts, including that of Plaintiff.
14 and supervised its agents and employees so they committed the wrongful acts complained of
15 herein against Plaintiff and other members of the public. On information and belief,
16 Defendant failed to properly control and supervise them to ensure customer account safety.
17 9.6 It was foreseeable to Defendant its agents and employees would compromise
18 customer account safety or engage in other acts complained of here. Despite this knowledge,
19 Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to supervise or control its agents and
20 employees. On information and belief, Defendant engaged in the acts alleged herein and/or
21 condoned, permitted, authorized, and/or ratified the conduct of its agents and employees.
22
23 COMPLAINT - 16
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 17 of 19
4 10.1 Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing allegations and incorporates these allegations
6 10.2 Defendant could foresee that its actions would harm Plaintiff.
9 10.5 Defendant made false and material misrepresentations regarding its security
10 measures and failed to establish and implement reasonable policies and procedures
11 governing the creation and authentication of user credentials for persons accessing
14 including by inducing Plaintiff to select Defendant’s services, promising to keep his wireless
15 account secure, but transferring his phone number to another carrier without his permission,
17 10.7 Defendant’s actions have resulted in severe emotional distress and/or garden
18 variety emotional distress for Plaintiff, and Defendant’s reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 COMPLAINT - 17
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 18 of 19
2 11.1 A plaintiff may seek injunctive relief for violations of the CPA.5
5 11.3 Plaintiff also seeks an Order enjoining Defendant from the above-described
7 11.4 Plaintiff has reason to believe these actions make up a pattern and practice of
9 11.5 Injunctive relief is necessary to prevent further injury to Plaintiff and to the
10 general public.
11 11.6 Accordingly, the Court should issue the requested injunctive relief.
16 12.3 Treble damages under RCW 19.86.090, calculated from the damages
18 12.4 Award of reasonable attorney fees and reimbursement of all costs for the
21
22 5
RCW 19.86.090.
6
Scott v. Cingular Wireless, 160 Wn.2d 843, 853 (2007).
23 COMPLAINT - 18
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222
Case 2:18-cv-00167 Document 1 Filed 02/04/18 Page 19 of 19
3 12.8 Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
4 TRIAL BY JURY
5 Under the seventh amended to the Constitution of the United States of America,
8
BORIS DAVIDOVSKIY, P.S.
9
/s/ Boris Davidovskiy
10 ____________________________
Boris Davidovskiy, WSBA #50593
11 Boris Davidovskiy, P.S.
6100 219th Street SW, Suite 480
12 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
Telephone: (425)582-5200
13 Fax: (425)582-5222
E-mail: [email protected]
14 Attorney for Plaintiff
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 COMPLAINT - 19
24
6100 219th Street, Suite 480 T: 425.582.5200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 F: 425.582.2222