Case 3:22-cv-03102-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 'vtp MAY 262022
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
�U.S. ·01STR!CT COURT
NOHTH DiSTHiCT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID ANGEL SIFUENTES III, CASE NO.
Defendant. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Now Comes, Plaintiff, David Angel Sifuentes III, In Pro Se and submits this complaint and
memorandum of law and demand for jury trial against Google Inc.,( GoogleFi) for cell phone bill
cramming, false advertising, potential future violation of the fair credit reporting act by concrete
injury of a lower credit score, Michigan consumer protection act, risk of present and future
retaliation by Google, doctrine of unclean hands, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, negligent and or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sifuentes seeks a refund of
$200 and punitive damages, of $125 ,000 compensatory, exemplary, injunctive relief, special
damages equitable and remedies available any other damages Sifuentes is entitled to. Sifuentes
ask that this Honorable court liberally construe his document and not fault him for not citing law,
the correct legal theory under, Haines v. Kerner, 404 US. 519 (1972).
FACTS AND LAW
On are around February 2022 Sifuentes asked Google to place him on a lower plan that would
save him money. Google placed him on a budget cell phone plan. However, the cell phone plan
increased Sifuentes charges by $90.00 per month. Sifuentes contacted support and asked them to
change him back to his original plan which was around $183.00 per month. Google advertised
Case 3:22-cv-03102-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 2 of 4
that the plan would save money and provide slower data that would stop any over charges ifa
customer which a certain amount ofdata. The unlimited plan had a fixed rate that only slows the
data down after certain amount ofusage. Google advertised the plan as the data would stop and
not overcharge a customer over around 10 gigs ofusage. However, Google never stated are
provided sufficient information that any usage over 10 would increase a customer's bill.
After switching his plan back to the unlimited plan Google than went ahead and added the
previous bill ofthe budget plan and the unlimited plan together casing a bigger bill over double
the amount to around $270.00. Sifuentes contacted Google again around May 12, 2022 asking
Google to adjust his bill. A representative informed Sifuentes that they are charging him a head
that is in advance for the unlimited plan and his previous bill. Sifuentes asked the representative
to adjust his bill and to speak with a Supervisor. No one contacted Sifuentes and the
representative refused to assist Sifuentes with his bill. IfSifuentes bill is not paid it will be shut
off within around 5 days ofthe bill being due which is around May 21, 2022. Sifuentes asked the
representative to provide him with his GoogleFi account number, the representative refused,
informed Sifuentes that he cannot provide it, and he cannot only get t ifhe closes his account
under Google's policy. More facts maybe discussed in this complaint.
Law and Memorandum
This court has jurisdiction ofall civil matters as the damages are more than $76,000 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Although Sifuentes is only seeking a refund of$200 punitive damages can also be added
for jurisdictional purposes. Hayes v. Equitable Energy Res. Co., 226 F3d 560 (6th Cir. 2001).
Also this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 ofSifuentes state law
i. Violation cell phone bill cramming, false advertising, potential violation ofthe fair credit
reporting act and violation ofthe Michigan Consumer Protection act, risk ofpresent and
future retaliation by Google, and doctrine of unclean hands, fraudulent misrepresentation,
and breach of contract
. ' Case 3:22-cv-03102-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 3 of 4
Google is in violation of cell phone cramming Sifuentes phone bill by adding extra charges to
his phone bill by adding his previous bill and forcing him to prepay his future bill making
charges he cannot afford. Google has engaged in false and misleading adverting that the budget
plan will save more money than the unlimited plan when in fact it can costs more than the
unlimited . In this case the bill was increased to $90.00 . Sifuentes credit reports are subject to
potential concrete injury by having his credit score lowered for potentially going in to default of
his cell phone bill as Sifuentes cannot afford to pay the high bill, this will cause Sifuentes to pay
higher interest rates and also late charges with Google.
Google has violated the Michigan Consumer protection Act by using unfair and deceptive
means also falsely representing that Sifuentes would get a lower bill if he signed up for a budget
phone bill plan.
Sifuentes also risks present and future retaliation by Google, by his account being closed and
his cell phone being shut down more and being forced to not business with Google again.
Sifuentes also claims the doctrine of unclean hands, as he is acting in good faith and Google is
acting in bad faith by requiring Sifuentes to be subject to a high bill and also late charges he
Google has cause injury to Sifuentes by way of fraudulent misrepresentation of facts that is
informing Sifuentes he would save money by switching to their budget plan when in fact he
ended up paying more money and having his cell phone bill cramped with additional charges and
future payments. A party has standing and injury if they have been fraudulent misrepresentation
of facts. See Wilson v. Kiss, 751 F.Supp. 1249 (E.D. Mich. 1990).
Google is in "breach of contract" by not honoring there terms also informing Sifuentes that his
bill would not be charged additional charges ifhe switched back to the unlimited plan. There was
meeting of the minds between Google when he was assured by the representative that no
additional charges would occur.
ii. "Negligent" and or "Intentional infliction of emotional distress".
Sifuentes suffers through "negligent" and or "intentional infliction of emotional distress" due
to being worried, being scared, stressed out, confused and very mad and angry due to the bill
being to high. Whether Google has caused emotional distress by negligent and or intentional
Sifuentes. A party has standing and may seek damages for "negligent" and or "intentional
Case 3:22-cv-03102-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 4 of 4
infliction of emotional distress" for being angry. Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, 946 F. 3d
855 (6th Cir. 2020). Sifuentes reserves the right to raise any additional claims are discuss, clarify
WHEREFORE, Sifuentes PRAYS that this Honorable Court AWARD a refund of $200 and
punitive damages, of $1 25 ,000 also compensatory, exemplary, injunctive relief, special damages
equitable and remedies available also any other damages Sifuentes is entitled to, in the
alternative Sifuentes ask that he be given credit for the overcharges of his cell phone bill and be
given a reasonable affordable budget plan.
David Angel Sifuentes III
In Pro Se
439 More St. NE
Grand Rapids, MI 4 9503
Dated: May 23, 2022