Cooper v. Charter Communications Entertainments I, LLC
760 F.3d 103
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Four Massachusetts residents (Cooper, Romito, Baker, Thompson) sued Charter after an October 2011 storm interrupted cable/internet/phone service; plaintiffs seek class relief for customers who lost service.
- Plaintiffs allege Charter violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 166A §5(1) (and identical municipal licensing terms) by failing to provide pro rata credits for interruptions of 24+ consecutive hours and that Charter must issue credits without a customer request.
- After suit began, Charter issued account credits to Cooper, Romito, and Baker; Charter says these credits fully compensated them. Thompson’s damages claim remained unresolved.
- Charter removed the case to federal court under CAFA (28 U.S.C. §1332(d)). The district court found CAFA jurisdiction proper, concluded the three credited plaintiffs’ claims were moot, and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim as to Thompson; the plaintiffs appealed.
- The First Circuit affirmed CAFA jurisdiction, held the three credited plaintiffs can still pursue declaratory relief (so their claims are not moot as to the statutory/licensing-interpretation issue), reversed dismissal in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA jurisdiction / amount in controversy | Putative class ≥95,000 affected; ≥$75 per member → >$5M | Amount in controversy insufficient | CAFA jurisdiction proper (≥$7.125M) |
| Mootness of individual claims after credits | Credits do not moot the live dispute over Charter's legal duty to provide automatic credits; plaintiffs seek declaratory relief | Credits rendered the individual damage claims moot for the three credited plaintiffs | Individual damage claims moot for credited plaintiffs, but declaratory claim as to Charter’s obligations remains live and justiciable; Thompson's damage claim remains live |
| Interpretation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch.166A §5(1) / licensing term: must credits be given only on request? | Statute and licensing language require pro rata credit to "any subscriber" interrupted 24+ hours — i.e., duty to provide credit without requiring subscriber request | Statute/licensing language requires a subscriber to request credit; alternatively, limitation to subscribers known to Charter means only upon complaint | Court rejects Charter's requested reading; statute and license plausibly impose an obligation to provide credits to affected subscribers without requiring customer request (as pleaded) |
| Private enforcement route — third-party beneficiary vs. Chapter 93A | Plaintiffs can enforce licensing-term as third-party beneficiaries (direct right to recover) | Licensing agreements provide enforcement mechanisms to municipalities; third-party enforcement is disfavored for government contracts | Third-party beneficiary claim fails (contract shows municipality has exclusive enforcement procedures). But plaintiffs plausibly state a Chapter 93A claim for unfair/deceptive practice based on Charter’s alleged failure to provide required credits; unjust enrichment/money-had-and-received claims survive pleading-stage scrutiny |
Key Cases Cited
- Maloy v. Ballori-Lage, 744 F.3d 250 (1st Cir.) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Amoche v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41 (1st Cir.) (CAFA amount-in-controversy burden)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court) (pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 460 Mass. 500 (Mass.) (Chapter 93A liability for failure to provide refunds when regulatory scheme requires refunds/disclosures)