Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, No. A122765

By FindLaw Staff on January 05, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a class action lawsuit against Sprint alleging that cell phone handsets sold by the defendant-company secretly had been locked with programming locks to prevent the use of the phones on other services providers' networks, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where: 1) because the trial court's ruling accorded too large a role to objecting class members in the fee setting process, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to approve the fee arbitration provision where it had already determined that the range of possible fee awards was reasonable and that there was no evidence of collusion by the parties to the settlement; but 2) defendant has failed to show actual prejudice resulted from determination of the amount of the attorney fee award by the court rather than by the arbitrator selected by the parties.     

Read Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, No. A122765 [HTML]

Read Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, No. A122765 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed January 4, 2010


Opinion by Judge Simons

For Appellant:   Bandas Law Firm, P.C., and Christopher A. Bandas; Liuzzi; Murphy & Solomon, LLP, and Frank C. Liuzzi

For Appellee:   Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Robert M. Bramson, Alan R. Plutzik and L. Timothy Fisher; Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor and Scott A. Burson

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard