Starr v. Gardner Wireless, LLC
2:25-cv-02380
D. Kan.Aug 28, 2025Background
- Walza Starr, a pastor, sued Gardner Wireless, LLC for negligence and Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) violations after a problematic iPhone transaction.
- Plaintiff alleges that after trading in three personal iPhones for new ones at Defendant’s store, unauthorized access to Plaintiff’s accounts followed, causing financial disruption.
- Defendant argues that any transaction was between Gardner Wireless and Faith City (Plaintiff’s church), not Starr personally.
- Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing Plaintiff lacks Article III standing because Plaintiff is not a KCPA “consumer” and owed no duty.
- Defendant submitted documents showing Faith City as the contracting party; Plaintiff disputes their authenticity, claiming he never signed or saw such agreements.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss on facial grounds but converted the factual dispute to a summary judgment motion, allowing further briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing (KCPA Consumer) | Starr is a consumer; transaction was personal; he suffered concrete injuries. | Starr acted on behalf of Faith City, not as individual consumer. | Complaint plausibly alleges personal standing; facial challenge denied. |
| Duty Owed | Defendant owed duty of care in handling Plaintiff’s devices and data. | No duty owed to Starr personally if business (Faith City) was contracting party. | Resolution turns on factual disputes regarding contracting party; to be addressed at summary judgment. |
| Factual Dispute over Contracting Party | Denies contracts with Faith City; says signatures are forged; transaction was individual. | Submits contracts, invoices naming Faith City and showing Plaintiff as officer. | Genuine dispute of fact; Court converts to summary judgment for further evidence. |
| Sufficiency of Complaint (Pleading Standard) | Allegations are sufficient for standing and KCPA claim at the pleading stage. | Allegations insufficient; only Faith City is customer, so Starr cannot sue. | At this stage, complaint is sufficient; facial attack fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. Polis, 20 F.4th 686 (10th Cir. 2021) (setting out Article III standing requirements)
- Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 1995) (distinguishing facial and factual attacks on subject matter jurisdiction)
- Sivoza v. Nat’l Inst. of Stds. & Tech., 282 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2002) (when jurisdictional facts intertwine with merits, summary judgment required)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (pleading standard for standing; accepting complaint’s facts as true)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (injury-in-fact for standing)
- Utah Gospel Mission v. Salt Lake City Corp., 425 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2005) (limits of judicial notice at motion-to-dismiss stage)