Grawitch v. Charter Communications, Inc.
750 F.3d 956
8th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Matt Grawitch and Mike Woody filed suit in Missouri state court against Charter Communications alleging MMPA violations and breach of contract.
- Charter removed the case to federal district court and moved to dismiss; the district court granted dismissal on three grounds.
- Plaintiffs subscribed to Charter's Plus service in 2011; upgrade later allowed up to 30 Mbps, but DOCSIS 2.0 modems could not achieve 30 Mbps without DOCSIS 3.0.
- Plaintiffs discovered they were not receiving 30 Mbps due to modem limitations and requested refunds, which Charter denied.
- Plaintiffs proposed a nationwide class of Charter Plus/Max/Ultra subscribers with modems less than DOCSIS 3.0 since Sept. 14, 2007, seeking damages up to $50,000 per class member.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of pecuniary loss, notice of upgrade, and a speed-disclaimer in the Agreement; plaintiffs appealed challenging removal and the grounds for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA removal was proper | Grawitch/Woody argue CAFA threshold not met by preponderance | Charter contends amount in controversy exceeded $5 million | Removal proper; CAFA threshold satisfied at time of removal. |
| Whether the complaint pleads pecuniary loss | Plaintiffs plead monetary loss as the difference between paid value and usable service | Complaint lacks factual support showing payment for 30 Mbps | Complaint fails to plead pecuniary loss; dismissal affirmed on this ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hargis v. Access Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2012) (CAFA removal standard; preponderance of the evidence)
- Westerfeld v. Indep. Processing, LLC, 621 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2010) (CAFA class-action jurisdiction requirements)
- Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2009) (CAFA threshold amount; preponderance standard)
- Alexander v. Hedback, 718 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2013) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard; facial plausibility required)
- Retro Television Network, Inc. v. Luken Commc’ns, LLC, 696 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2012) (pleading sufficiency under Iqbal/Twombly guidance)
- Farm Credit Servs. of Am., FLCA v. Haun, 734 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2013) (pleading damages required to survive dismissal)
- Ward v. W. Cnty. Motor Co., 403 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. 2013) (MMPA pecuniary loss element (Missouri law))
- Keveney v. Mo. Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. 2010) (Missouri breach-of-contract/pecuniary loss standard)