Skip navigation

Reichert v. Keefe Commissary Network, WA, Amended Complaint, Debit Release Cards, 2019

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 1 of 28

HON. RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11

JEFFREY REICHERT, and GARY MOYER,
both individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15
16
17

v.

NO. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, L.L.C.
d/b/a ACCESS CORRECTIONS; RAPID
INVESTMENTS, INC., d/b/a RAPID
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, d/b/a ACCESS
FREEDOM; and CACHE VALLEY BANK,
Defendants.

18

Plaintiff Jeffrey Reichert and Plaintiff Gary Moyer, each on behalf of himself and

19

all others similarly situated, brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury

20

Trial against Defendants Rapid Investments, Inc. (doing business as Rapid Financial

21

Solutions and Access Freedom) (hereinafter “Rapid Investments”), Keefe Commissary

22

Network, L.L.C. (doing business as Access Corrections), and Cache Valley Bank

23

(together, “Defendants”). The following allegations are based on personal knowledge as

24

to Plaintiffs’ conduct and are made on information and belief as to all other matters based

25

upon the undersigned counsels’ investigation.

26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 1
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 2 of 28

I. INTRODUCTION

1

1.

Defendants

Keefe

Commissary

Network,

LLC

(“Keefe”),

Rapid

2

Investment Solutions (“Rapid”) and Cache Valley Bank (“Cache Valley”) have
3

individually, and at times together, exploited plaintiffs and members of the class at their
4

darkest hour – when they were arrested and subsequently released from jail. Typically,
5

when people are arrested, the cash they have on hand is confiscated by the facility where
6

they are initially held. In the past, the cash was returned to those arrested upon release,
7

or, at the very least, a check was provided for the exact amount of cash. Defendants saw
8

the opportunity to make a money off of this straightforward transaction, solely at the
9

expense of those released.
10

2.

Defendants’ scheme is simple:

They would relieve local jails of any

11

obligation to hold, track and account for funds of people while in a facility, at no expense
12

to the facility. All the facilities needed to do was deposit the funds with Defendants
13

upon the person’s arrest, and then hand out the debit cards to those released; Defendants
14

would manage the rest. When the person is released, they are given Defendants’
15

activated debit card. Defendants then imposed various excessive fees on plaintiffs and
16

the classes they represent.
17

3.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Reichert was arrested by Kitsap County officers on October

18

21, 2016 during a drive home from work. Mr. Reichert was jailed for just four hours at
19

the Kitsap County Jail. Upon his arrest, Kitsap County officers confiscated
20

approximately $177.66 in cash. When released, Mr. Reichert involuntarily received
21

Defendants’ prepaid debit card loaded with the confiscated amount instead of the cash
22

that had been confiscated. The card was already activated by Defendants when given to
23

him. Before he could get his money back, Defendants took over $17 in unwarranted fees.
24
25
26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 2
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 3 of 28

1

4.

Plaintiff Gary Moyer was arrested in Kitsap County, Washington. Upon

2

his arrest, all of Mr. Moyer’s cash on his person was confiscated by Kitsap County

3

officers. When he was released from Kitsap County jail in February of 2019, he did not

4

receive money in the form of cash. Mr. Moyer was involuntarily provided with a prepaid

5

debit card. Pursuant to Kitsap County’s standard policy in February of 2019, the card,

6

when provided to Mr. Moyer, was “sealed in the Cardholder Terms and Conditions.”

7

The card was already activated when given to him. Mr. Moyer’s card was issued by one

8

or more of the Defendants. He also had to pay unwarranted fees before obtaining the

9

return of his money.

10

5.

Defendants have engaged in a pattern of unlawful, deceptive, unfair, and

11

unconscionable profiteering with respect to the activated prepaid release cards that

12

individuals who are released from jails and prisons receive involuntarily. In so doing,

13

Defendants have violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. §1693, and, for the

14

Washington Subclass, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.

15

addition, for the Washington Subclass, Defendants have committed an unlawful taking

16

of property under the Fifth Amendment, converted funds and have been unjustly

17

enriched by their conduct.

18
19

In

II. THE PARTIES

6.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Reichert lives in and is a citizen of Kingston, Washington.

20

Mr. Reichert involuntarily received an activated, fee-laden debit card issued by one or

21

more of the Defendants when he was released from Kitsap County Jail. He did not

22

receive a “terms and conditions” sheet with the card.

23

7.

Plaintiff Gary Moyer lives in and is a citizen of Port Orchard, Washington.

24

Mr. Moyer involuntarily received an activated, fee-laden debit card issued by one or

25

more of the Defendants when he was released from Kitsap County Jail. Consistent with

26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 3
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 4 of 28

1

Kitsap County’s standard practice in February of 2019, he received a “terms and

2

conditions” sheet with the card.

3

8.

Defendant Keefe Commissary Network, L.L.C. (“Keefe”), a subsidiary of

4

Keefe Group, Inc., is a Missouri corporation that does business under various trade

5

names, including “Access Corrections.” Keefe Group, Inc.’s annual revenue totals $1

6

billion. Keefe is the nation’s biggest operator of commissary stores inside correctional

7

facilities and offers a wide array of services to correctional institutions, including prepaid

8

debit release cards. Keefe contracted with Kitsap County to provide correctional

9

commissary services to the County, including an inmate release prepaid debit card

10

program that was provided through a third-party company, Rapid Investments, Inc.

11

Keefe is located at 10880 Linpage Place, St. Louis, Missouri 63132.

12

9.

Defendant Rapid Investments is a Utah corporation that does business as

13

Rapid Financial Solutions and other various trade names, including “Access Freedom.”

14

Rapid Investments states on its website that “the Rapid Processing Engine is designed

15

to help your company process a variety of digital transactions including: direct deposit,

16

payroll cards, prepaid debit cards, wire transfers, mobile payments, structured

17

payments, and e-checks.” Rapid Investments markets its prepaid cards to government

18

entities, including Kitsap County, financial institutions, and other private enterprises.

19

These entities in turn disseminate Rapid Investments’ products to the general public.

20

Rapid Investments contracted with Keefe to provide AccessFreedom cards to

21

individuals being released from Kitsap County Jail. Rapid Investments is located at 3065

22

North 200 West, Ste. 200, North Logan, Utah 84341.

23

10.

Defendant Cache Valley Bank is a state chartered bank based in Utah.

24

Cache Valley Bank is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and has

25

over $950 million in assets and 13 offices throughout Utah. Cache Valley Bank has

26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 4
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 5 of 28

1

contracted with Rapid Investments to issue prepaid debit cards nationwide and is

2

located at 101 N. Main, Logan, Utah 84321.

3

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11.

4

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant

5

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this is a civil action arising under the laws of the United

6

States, namely 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 15 U.S.C. §1693.
12.

7
8

This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
13.

9

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because each

10

Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and a substantial part of the

11

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within this District.

12
13
14

IV. FACTS
A.

Background

14.

Over 650,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons

15

annually. Local jails nationwide process an estimated 11.6 million people each year. The

16

vast majority of these inmates are released from custody shortly after they are booked.

17

Most of the people released from jails are never convicted of any crime.

18

a.

Keefe is one of many for-profit players in an increasingly privatized

19

prison industry. State spending alone on corrections hit $52.4 billion in 2012.

20

Hundreds of private sector contractors now provide food, clothing, riot gear,

21

phone service, computers, and health care, in addition to directly operating many

22

correctional facilities.

23
24

b.

At least 10 companies, including Rapid Investments, now offer

prepaid release cards to correctional systems.

25
26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 5
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 6 of 28

15.

1

Kitsap County, like all jails, prisons, and detention facilities, keeps an

2

individual’s confiscated cash until his or her release. These funds are held in trust with

3

the understanding that the State will protect the property on the individual’s behalf.
16.

4

Traditionally, when inmates were released from jails, prisons, and other

5

detention facilities, their jailers returned to them in the form of cash or check any cash

6

that the jailers confiscated at booking. The jailers also traditionally returned to them, in

7

the form of cash or check, any monies that had accrued in the individual’s inmate trust

8

account.
17.

9

According to a 2014 Association of State Correctional Administrators

10

survey, government agencies across the United States that handle inmate funds are

11

increasingly using prepaid debit cards to return personal funds to former inmates. Over

12

half of responding agencies reported using prepaid debit cards to return inmates’

13

property, and a majority of those agencies reported that a fee is charged when using the

14

debit card to get cash from a bank.1
18.

15

Unlike typical consumers, released individuals are not given the choice to

16

accept a fee-laden financial product like the AccessFreedom Card, and they never fill out

17

an application for this financial product.
19.

18

Moreover, the typical released individual suffers from poor financial

19

literacy. A study by the University of Arkansas-Little Rock Anderson Institute on Race

20

and Ethnicity of Inmates in Arkansas found that only 33.1 percent of inmates could

21

correctly answer the question, “If you put $100 in a bank account paying 5 percent

22
23
24
1

25
26

See Proposed Amendments to Regulation E: Curb exploitation of people released from custody,
Prison Policy Initiative 2, March 18, 2015, https://static.prisonpolicy.org/releasecards/CFPBcomment.pdf (last visited October 20, 2017).

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 6
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 7 of 28

1

interest, how much will you have in your account after one year?” In contrast, 79.6

2

percent of non-incarcerated men got the same question right.2
20.

3

That Defendants market financial products rife with fees—all so released

4

individuals can access their own money—is both predatory, unfair, and deceitful.

5

B.

Kitsap County’s Inmate Release Card Program

21.

6

Kitsap County contracted with Keefe (formerly known as Keefe Supply

7

Company) as early as January 1, 2007 for myriad correctional commissary services,

8

including fair market pricing of goods for inmates, an inmate banking system, inmate

9

commissary order processing, as well as other services.
22.

10

The contract for correctional commissary services was subsequently

11

renewed on various occasions, and in March 2012, Kitsap County entered into an

12

agreement with Keefe for provision of prepaid debit cards to all released inmates. Under

13

the contract, Keefe may change the card brand, issuing bank, or program manager at any

14

time without the County’s approval. Keefe’s first contract with Kitsap County listed

15

OutPay Systems, L.L.C. as the prepaid debit card manager and First California Bank as

16

the issuing bank. Since the initial 2012 contract, Keefe has switched to Rapid Investments

17

as the card manager and brand, and Cache Valley Bank as the issuing bank.
23.

18

Under the Keefe contract and its amendments, the Kitsap County Sheriff’s

19

Office implemented Defendants’ inmate release card program to perform the traditional

20

government service of returning money relinquished by inmates at booking.
24.

21
22

By no later than March 2012, Kitsap County began providing prepaid debit

cards to released inmates, in lieu of a check. The cards were activated prior to being given

23
24
25
26

2

David Koon, ARKANSAS TIMES, New UALR survey finds a lack of basic ‘financial literacy’ among
inmates, https://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/new-ualr-survey-finds-a-lack-of-basic-financial-literacyamonginmates/Content?oid=3351524, June 19, 2017 (last visited October 20, 2017).
SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 7
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 8 of 28

1

to the released inmate. By February of 2019, Kitsap County would provide the cards to

2

released inmates along with a copy of the “Cardholder Terms and Conditions.”
25.

3

Rapid Investments’ prepaid card services reach over 2 million consumers

4

and span at least nine different prepaid card programs, including programs for

5

correctional facilities.3
26.

6

Rapid Investments contracts with third party commissary companies like

7

Keefe who, in turn, contract with detention facilities to provide prepaid card programs

8

to various city, county, and state agencies.
27.

9
10

bank for its cards, and with MasterCard as the payment network sponsor.
28.

11
12

Rapid Investments also contracts with Cache Valley Bank as an issuing

Keefe, Rapid Investments and Cache Valley Bank all work together,

coordinate efforts and share fees.
29.

13

Kitsap County chose to subcontract out its inmate property release system

14

in order to save the personnel time and money associated with check re-issuances, stop

15

payments, fraud prevention, and checking account maintenance.
30.

16

Kitsap County accepted Keefe’s assignation of the County’s duties and

17

contracted with Defendants to provide the inmate release card program. Pursuant to that

18

contract, Defendants enjoy a monopoly at the Kitsap County Jail.
31.

19
20

Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office Chief of Corrections, Ned Newlin, entered

into the contract for prepaid debit card services with Defendant Keefe.

21
22
23
24
3

25
26

Rapid Financial Solutions Partners with Digiliti Money to Deliver Mobile Money Solutions to More
Than 2 Million Cardholders, https://www.digilitimoney.com/news/press-releases/rapid-financialsolutions-partners-withdigiliti-money-to-deliver-mobile-money-solutions-to-more-than-2-millioncardholders, July 20, 2016 (last visited October 20, 2017).
SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 8
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 9 of 28

32.

1

Per their contract, Defendant Keefe serves as Kitsap County’s contractor

2

for prepaid debit card services, and Keefe may choose the card branding, issuing bank,

3

or prepaid debit card release program manager at its discretion.
33.

4

On information and belief, before contracting with Defendants for

5

maintenance and operation of its release card program, Kitsap County shouldered the

6

costs associated with the management of the inmate property program and its fiscal

7

operations.
34.

8
9
10
11
12

Prior to Defendants’ involvement, the County did not return an inmate’s

cash via a debit card. Instead, released inmates received their funds via a County-issued
check.
35.

The County agreed to use the AccessFreedom Card in releasing inmates

with as little as $0.01.

13

36.

AccessFreedom Cards can be loaded with up to $9,700.

14

37.

However, the County still issues checks to released inmates when the

15

inmate is transferred to another facility; when the inmate chooses to release his/or her

16

funds to someone else; when the inmate chooses to use his/her funds to post bail; or if

17

Keefe’s debit card equipment is not operational.

18

38.

The cards are issued with stickers that say, “ATTENTION! This card has

19

already been activated. Your PIN = 7###.” Thus, the cards are activated and ready for

20

immediate use when released inmates receive them. Card recipients who receive the

21

card do not assign their own PIN to the card.

22

39.

To resolve problems with the cards such as money being put on the wrong

23

person’s account, Defendants have instructed Kitsap County to simply transfer money

24

off the card of one individual and onto the card of another, whether or not they are in

25

custody. Or if a card was not received by the inmate, but left on the counter, Defendants

26

instructed Kitsap County to void the card and add it to a “destroy log.”
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 9
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 10 of 28

40.

1
2

Kitsap County Jail has over 500 beds and maintains an average daily

inmate population of 400.
41.

3

These prepaid release cards are extremely profitable for Defendants, who

4

charge their unwitting and unwilling customers exorbitant fees to possess and/or use

5

the cards.

6

42.

According to the contract between Keefe and Kitsap County, Defendants

7

charge a fee for their role in setting up the bank account with the bank issuing the cards

8

and for coordinating third party processing services. These so-called “Coordination

9

Fees” are embedded in the fee structure selected by Kitsap County and the other

10

government entities for the cards, and all fees are assessed to the card holder/inmate.
43.

11

These user fees taken from cardholders are well in excess of the

12

Defendants’ costs and are unreasonable and/or unrelated to the administration of each

13

account.
44.

14
15

present several potential fee schedules, though the services offered remain the same.
45.

16
17

When Defendants market their services to government entities, they

Rapid Investments publicizes at least two fee schedules for jails and

correctional facilities to choose from.4
46.

18

Of these two offered fee schedules, Kitsap County has chosen the more fee-

19

laden, with higher “weekly maintenance” fees starting just 72 hours after release, and

20

more expensive ATM fees.
47.

21
22

That Defendants offer multiple fee schedules for the same service indicates

that the fees are not cost-based, but instead a bald-faced profit mechanism.

23
24
25
26

4

Cardholder Fees, http://www.accessfreedomcard.com/releasefees.html (last visited October 20,

2017).
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 10
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 11 of 28

1

48.

Upon information and belief, during negotiations between the contracting

2

government entity and Keefe and its subcontractors, the public entity selects an

3

applicable fee schedule.

4
5
6
7
8

49.

Kitsap County negotiated the fee schedule that applies for various uses of

the AccessFreedom Card. These fees were imposed on Plaintiffs and the putative Class.
50.

Defendants impose a variety of fees for their inmate release card program

in Kitsap County.
51.

The president of Rapid Investments, Daren Jackson, insists that the

9

company “provides a nice service, a convenient way for someone to get cash 24/7.”5 Yet

10

this “nice service” is far from “convenient.” For inmates in need of immediate cash to

11

pay for a taxi after release, for example, their money is simply not accessible because

12

they likely cannot access their cash through ATMs.

13

52.

Inmates with $22.94 or less in their accounts cannot access their money

14

because, assuming the inmate uses an ATM without its own fees, after Defendants’ $2.95

15

ATM fee, the account balance dips below $20—the minimum withdrawal amount at

16

nearly every ATM machine. These low-balance cards are not just particularly lucrative

17

for Defendants; they are also uniquely burdensome on the cardholder.

18

53.

Any claims by Defendants that the cards benefit consumers ignores the

19

reality that the individual’s cash has been exchanged for a prepaid debit card that incurs

20

fees mere hours after receipt. In short, an individual’s money is taken from them in the

21

form of exorbitant fees, and the cards plainly lack the utility of the confiscated cash.

22
23

54.

On information and belief, individuals who are deported after their arrest

and released back in their home country may not be able to access their funds at all—

24
25
26

5 NBC NEWS, March 24, 2015, http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/inmates-charged-fee-

after-leavingjail-n329151 (last visited October 20, 2017).
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 11
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 12 of 28

1

even before the $3.95 international ATM fee. Many released individuals report that

2

prepaid debit cards and/or their PIN numbers do not work abroad, or that limits on

3

international ATM withdrawals force them to accrue additional withdrawal fees.
55.

4

Defendants can charge and collect these exorbitant fees because their

5

exclusive contracts with government entities shield them from competitive market forces

6

and because they have absolute control over the funds once the funds are transferred to

7

them by the government entity.
56.

8

Individuals who are released from Kitsap County Jail do not voluntarily

9

engage the company, enroll in the program, or take any affirmative steps to form any

10

contractual relationship with Rapid Investments, Keefe, Cache Valley Bank, or

11

MasterCard. They have no choice but to accept an AccessFreedom Card in lieu of

12

receiving the return of their own money in the form of cash or check. If a released inmate

13

refuses to accept an AccessFreedom Card, they simply lose their money as the balance is

14

depleted by imposition of the fees.

15

C.

Plaintiffs’ Experiences

16

57.

Mr. Reichert resides in Kingston, Washington.

17

58.

For the last 31 years he has worked as a research test mechanic for the

18

Boeing Company.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

59.

He was arrested by the Kitsap County, Washington, Sheriff on October 21,

60.

Kitsap County confiscated $177.66 in cash and coins from Mr. Reichert

2016.

when he was arrested.
61.

As his representative, Kitsap County Jail accepted Plaintiff Reichert’s cash

and deposited it in a trust account.
62.

After approximately four hours in Kitsap County’s custody, Plaintiff

Reichert was released around 5 a.m. on October 22, 2016.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 12
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 13 of 28

63.

1

Upon his release, he received his personal effects back, but he did not get

2

his cash and coins. Instead, a Kitsap County Jail officer gave him an activated prepaid

3

debit release card loaded with the confiscated amount.
64.

4

The prepaid Mastercard Mr. Reichert received from Kitsap County Jail

5

bore the insignia “AccessFreedom Member,” the brand name of the AccessFreedom

6

Card, and was issued by Cache Valley Bank.
65.

7

Plaintiff Reichert was not given any paperwork explaining the card; nor

8

did anyone from Kitsap County explain how to use the card or why he was being given

9

the piece of plastic in lieu of his cash. When Mr. Reichert asked the releasing officer for

10

his cash, the officer replied, “oh, you don’t get your cash back, you get a debit card.”

11

When Mr. Reichert asked how the card worked the officer informed Mr. Reichert that he

12

needed to “put these set of numbers in” to get it to work, referring to his PIN number.
66.

13

Plaintiff Reichert was released around 5 a.m. into a parking lot with no

14

jacket. He called a cab and managed to persuade the cab driver that he would pay them

15

when they arrived at his home. He could not use the AccessFreedom Card for his cab

16

fare.

17

67.

Mr. Reichert would rather have received his cash back, but Kitsap County

18

Jail forced the prepaid card upon him without presenting any alternatives. Mr. Reichert

19

was never asked whether he wished to receive his monies in cash or in the form of a

20

prepaid debit card for which he would be assessed various exorbitant, unreasonable fees.

21

68.

Mr. Reichert never applied for the AccessFreedom Card.

22

69.

Mr. Reichert never agreed to receive the AccessFreedom Card instead of

23
24
25

his cash and never assented to the terms to any contract with Defendants.
70.

Mr. Reichert had no choice but to accept the AccessFreedom Card instead

of his cash. Mr. Reichert could not meaningfully object to receiving the prepaid debit

26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 13
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 14 of 28

1

card. Mr. Reichert’s receipt of his cash back in the form of the AccessFreedom Card was

2

completely and utterly involuntary.

3

71.

Just three days after his release, on October 25, 2016, $2.50 was taken from

4

his AccessFreedom Card balance for a weekly maintenance fee. Another $2.50 weekly

5

maintenance fee was assessed a week later, on November 1, 2016.

6

72.

On November 2, 2016, Mr. Reichert visited his local branch of the Kitsap

7

County Credit Union to try to access his funds. At the bank’s ATM, Mr. Reichert

8

requested an accounting of his balance. This ATM inquiry was unsuccessful and did not

9

tell him the balance. Mr. Reichert was however charged a $1.50 “inquiry fee.” He then

10

attempted to retrieve $180.00 in funds, and the ATM screen said that there were

11

insufficient funds for the transaction. Mr. Reichert then used the same ATM to withdraw

12

$160. This transaction resulted in two $2.95 “issuer fees” and a $3.00 “acquirer

13

convenience fee,” that was likely charged by the local ATM provider—all within the

14

span of 58 seconds.

15

73.

Knowing that he had more than $160 in cash at the time of his arrest, Mr.

16

Reichert then visited the credit union to inquire regarding his missing account balance

17

and to ask how to avoid fees. A credit union employee informed him that the credit

18

union likewise could not determine the account balance, and urged him to go online or

19

call the card issuer.

20
21
22

74.

On November 8, 2016, a final $1.37 weekly maintenance fee was taken from

Mr. Reichert’s account—the last few dollars and cents in the account.
75.

Later, after calling Rapid Investments to inquire about his remaining

23

balance, Mr. Reichert received via email a printout of the various charges, and learned

24

that Defendants had taken $17.66 in fees in the two weeks after his release—exactly 10

25

percent of his cash, and after only approximately four hours in custody.

26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 14
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 15 of 28

1
2
3
4
5

76.

Had Mr. Reichert chosen not to use the AccessFreedom Card, and to close

his account and receive a check, Defendants would have charged him $10.00 to do so.
77.

Gary Moyer was incarcerated in Kitsap County jail. At the time of his

incarceration, his cash was confiscated by Kitsap County officers.
78.

Mr. Moyer was released in February of 2019. Upon his release, he was

6

provided with a AccessFreedom Card. The card was activated when given to him.

7

Pursuant to Kitsap County’s policy in February of 2019, Mr. Moyer was provided with

8

a copy of the Cardholder Terms and Conditions.

9

79.

Mr. Moyer never applied for the AccessFreedom Card.

10

80.

Mr. Moyer never agreed to receive the AccessFreedom Card instead of his

11
12

cash and never assented to the terms to any contract with Defendants.
81.

Mr. Moyer had no choice but to accept the AccessFreedom Card instead of

13

his cash. Mr. Moyer could not meaningfully object to receiving the prepaid debit card.

14

Mr. Moyer’s receipt of his cash back in the form of the AccessFreedom Card was

15

completely and utterly involuntary.

16
17

82.

Mr. Moyer was subject to and involuntarily paid numerous fees to

Defendants, none of which he consented or agreed to.

18
19
20
21

V. CLASS CLAIMS

83.

Defendants have engaged in the same conduct with respect to thousands

of released inmates across the United States.
84.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly

22

situated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following

23

nationwide Class: All persons in the United States who, at any time since October 20,

24

2016, were: (1) taken into custody at a jail, correctional facility, detainment center, or any

25

other law enforcement facility, (2) entitled to the return of money either confiscated from

26

them or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released from the facility,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 15
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 16 of 28

1

(3) issued a prepaid debit card from Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, Rapid

2

Investments, Inc. and/or Cache Valley Bank that was subject to fees, charges, and

3

restrictions and (4) not offered an alternative method for the return of their money. This

4

class shall be referred to as the “Nationwide Class.”

5

85.

Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to represent the following Washington

6

Subclass: All persons who, at any time since October 20, 2013, were: (1) taken into

7

custody at a jail, correctional facility, detainment center, or any other law enforcement

8

facility located in the State of Washington, (2) entitled to the return of money either

9

confiscated from them or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released

10

from the facility, (3) issued a prepaid debit card from Keefe Commissary Network, LLC,

11

Rapid Investments, Inc. and/or Cache Valley Bank that was subject to fees, charges, and

12

restrictions and (4) not offered an alternative method for the return of their money. This

13

class shall be referred to as the “Washington Subclass.” The Nationwide Class and the

14

Washington Subclass are collectively referred to herein as the “Class.”

15
16

86.

The Nationwide Class and the Washington Subclass are both so numerous

that joinder of all members is impracticable. Each class has more than 1,000 members.

17

87. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and

18

predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class.

19

Questions of law and fact common to the Class include but are not limited to:

20

A.

Whether the AccessFreedom Cards that the Class received carried
unlawful fees;

21
22

B.

Whether the fees were a fair approximation of Defendants’ costs;

23

C.

Whether the fees were unreasonable or unrelated to the administration of
each user’s account;

24
25
26

D.

Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiff and the Class of a right, privilege,
or immunity protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States;

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 16
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 17 of 28

1

E.

1693, et seq.;

2
3

Whether Defendants violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C.

F.

Whether Defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the

4

conduct of any trade or commerce and thus violated the Washington

5

Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86;

6

G.

policies and practices;

7
8

Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched through their prepaid card

H.

Whether Defendants converted money belonging to the Class by taking
unlawful fees;

9
10

I.

Whether and what form(s) of relief should be afforded to the Class; and

11

J.

Whether the Class has suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ actions,

12

and, if so, the measure and amount of such damages, including any

13

statutory damages.

14

88.

Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class

15

they seek to represent. Defendants’ practices have targeted and affected all members of

16

the Class in a similar manner, i.e., they have all sustained damages arising out of

17

Defendants’ practices.

18

89.

Plaintiffs will fully and adequately protect the interests of all members of

19

the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in both complex class action and

20

consumer fraud litigation. Plaintiffs have no interests which are adverse to, or in conflict

21

with the interests of the other members of the Class.

22

90.

A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

23

efficient adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all Class members is

24

impracticable. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class

25

would impose heavy burdens upon the courts, and would create a risk of inconsistent

26

or varying adjudications of the questions of law and fact common to the Class. A class
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 17
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 18 of 28

1

action, on the other hand, would achieve substantial economies of time, effort, and

2

expense, and would assure uniformity of decision with respect to persons similarly

3

situated without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable

4

results.

5

91.

The interests of the members of the Class in individually controlling the

6

prosecution of separate actions are theoretical rather than practical. The Class has a high

7

degree of cohesion, and prosecution of the action through representatives would be

8

unobjectionable. The damages suffered by the individual Class members may be

9

relatively small. Therefore, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it

10

virtually impossible for Class members to redress the wrongs done to them. Plaintiffs

11

anticipate no difficulty in management of this action as a class action.

12

92.

The parties opposing the Class have acted or refused to act on grounds

13

generally applicable to each member of the Class, thereby making appropriate final

14

injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.

15

VI. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

16

(Claim Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Violation to the Fifth Amendment)

17

(Against all Defendants)

18
19
20

93.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations of this

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully restated herein.
94.

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States

21

Constitution states in relevant part that “private property [shall not] be taken for public

22

use, without just compensation.”

23
24

95.

The Takings Clause is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth

Amendment.

25
26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 18
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 19 of 28

1

96.

A governmental user fee that fails to bear a sufficient relationship to the

2

value received or fails to provide a fair approximation of the costs of the benefits

3

supplied—if any— constitutes a taking within the meaning of the Takings Clause.

4

97.

Defendants engaged in state action under color of law, in that Plaintiffs’

5

and the Washington Subclass’s unconstitutional deprivation of their property resulted

6

from a governmental policy. Defendants are persons for whom the State is responsible

7

in that: (a) Kitsap County, and other governmental entities that issue Defendants’

8

prepaid debit release cards, bore an affirmative obligation upon release of Plaintiffs and

9

the Washington Subclass to return monies confiscated from them; (b) the State delegated

10

that function to Defendants and gave to Defendants Plaintiff’s confiscated money; and

11

(c) Defendants voluntarily assumed that obligation by contract. Defendants thereby

12

deprived Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass of a right, privilege, or immunity

13

protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

14

98.

The State benefited from the actions of its delegee, as Defendants’ business

15

practices allow the State to administer a “cashless” inmate property release system and

16

save the costs associated with its own management of the inmate property release system

17

and issuance of checks. The State negotiated its delegation contract with Defendants, and

18

knowingly assented to Defendants’ fee structure as a means to transfer its costs onto

19

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass.

20
21
22

99.

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass possessed a constitutionally

protected interest in the monies Defendants took from them.
100.

Defendants’ card user fees are excessive, unreasonable, unrelated to the

23

administration of the users’ accounts, and are imposed without regard to what, if any,

24

benefit the users received.

25
26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 19
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 20 of 28

1

101.

Defendants’ excessive and unreasonable card user fees should be declared

2

to constitute a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United

3

States Constitution.

4
5
6
7

102.

Defendants should be ordered to compensate Plaintiffs and the

Washington Subclass for the taking of property.
103.

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass are entitled to their reasonable

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (2000).

8

VII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq.)

9

(Against Defendants Rapid Financial and Cache Valley Bank)

10
11
12
13

104.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations of this

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully restated herein.
105.

The primary objective of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”) is to

14

protect consumer rights by providing a basic framework establishing the rights,

15

liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in the electronic fund and remittance

16

transfer systems.

17

106.

Defendants Rapid Financial and/or Cache Valley Bank are financial

18

institutions as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(9), and 12 C.F.R. § 1005.2(a)(2)(i), because

19

they directly or indirectly hold accounts belonging to consumers and/or they issue an

20

access device to consumers.

21

107.

22

§ 1693a(6).

23

108.

24
25

Plaintiffs and members of the Class are “consumers” under 15 U.S.C.

Under the EFTA, an unsolicited card is permitted only if all of the

following conditions are met:
(1) such card, code, or other means of access is not validated;

26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 20
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 21 of 28

1
2
3
4
5

(2) such distribution is accompanied by a complete disclosure, in
accordance with section 1693c of this title, of the consumer’s rights and
liabilities which will apply if such card, code, or other means of access
is validated;
(3) such distribution is accompanied by a clear explanation, accordance
with regulation of the Bureau, that such card, code, or other means of
access is not validated and how the consumer may dispose of such code,
card, or other means of access if validation is not desired; and

6
7
8
9
10
11

(4) such card, code, or other means of access is validated only in response
to a request or application from the consumer, upon verification of the
consumer’s identity.
15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b).

See also 12 C.F.R. § 1005.5(b) (same); 12 C.F.R. § 1005.2(a)(1)

(“’Access device’ means a card…”).
109.

This statutory and regulatory scheme protects consumers by mandating

12

that before a card is validated the consumer must receive a complete disclosure of the

13

rights and liabilities that “will apply if such card … is validated.”

14

110.

“Validation” occurs when the card “may be used to initiate an electronic

15

fund transfer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(c). In other words, a validated card is one that is already

16

activated. All of the cards issued to Plaintiffs and class members were already validated.

17

111.

The EFTA regulates the precise form of assent necessary to make the terms

18

and conditions binding on the consumer. Pursuant to Section 4, assent to the issuance

19

of the card (and its corresponding terms and conditions) can only occur “in response to

20

a request or application from the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b)(4). The consumer must

21

also be provided the terms and conditions before the card is validated so that the

22

consumer can decide whether to accept those terms. 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b)(2). No other

23

form of assent is recognized by statute. 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(a), (b). As a result, a consumer

24

cannot be said to have “assented” to a contract for a card by simply taking it upon

25

release, or subsequently using the card. Under the EFTA, there is only one way that an

26

unsolicited card would be valid under federal law:
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 21
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

a consumer must make an
SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 22 of 28

1

affirmative “request or application” for activation. 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b)(4). With respect

2

to Plaintiffs and all Class members, the cards were validated before they were even

3

provided to the them. No “request” or “application” preceded validation of any of the

4

cards given to Plaintiffs or Class members upon their release.

5

112.

No contract or agreement was formed between Defendants and Plaintiffs

6

and Class members. Defendants had no authority or right to take money from Plaintiffs

7

and Class members in the form of fees.

8
9
10
11

113.

Defendants’ Rapid Financial’s and/or Cache Valley Bank’s violations of

the EFTA have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs and the Class damages.
114.

Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to their actual and statutory damages,

as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693m.

12

VIII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

13

(Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.86, et seq.)

14

(Against all Defendants)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

115.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations of this

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully restated herein.
116.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of himself and the Washington

Subclass against all Defendants.
117.

Defendants, Plaintiffs, and the Washington Subclass members are

“persons” within the meaning of Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010(1).
118.

Defendants are engaged in “trade” or “commerce” within the meaning of

22

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010(2), because the unsolicited AccessFreedom cards are

23

intended to be used in commerce in Washington.

24

119.

The Washington Consumer Protection Act (“Washington CPA”) makes

25

unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in

26

the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.020.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 22
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 23 of 28

1

120.

In the course of their business, Defendants, through their agents,

2

employees, and/or subsidiaries, violated the Washington CPA as detailed above.

3

Specifically, in distributing unsolicited prepaid debit cards, and then taking and keeping

4

Plaintiffs’ and the Washington Subclass members’ money in the form of exorbitant fees,

5

and in imposing fees for the return of Plaintiffs’ and the Washington Subclass members’

6

money without disclosing that fees would be imposed, Defendants engaged in unfair

7

and/or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.020.

8
9
10
11

121.

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass members suffered ascertainable

losses and actual damages in the loss of their property as a direct and proximate result
of Defendants’ unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices.
122.

Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk of injury to Plaintiffs and

12

the Washington Subclass members, as well as to the general public. Defendants’

13

unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public interest.

14

123.

Pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.090, Plaintiffs and the Washington

15

Subclass members seek an order enjoining Defendants’ unfair and/or deceptive acts or

16

practices, and awarding damages, treble damages, attorney fees and costs and any other

17

just and proper relief available under the Washington CPA.

18

IX. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

19

(Conversion)

20

(Against all Defendants)

21
22
23

124.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations of this

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully restated herein.
125.

Kitsap County Jail, and other correctional facilities that issue Defendants’

24

AccessFreedom Cards have taken money from Plaintiffs and other members of the

25

Washington Subclass to hold during their incarceration, acting in the capacity of their

26

representative. Upon their release, Kitsap County Jail and other correctional facilities
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 23
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 24 of 28

1

were obligated to return the full amount of their money to them. Any purported

2

agreement to use the AccessFreedom Card to return that money, less fees charged by the

3

Defendants, lacks consideration and is unenforceable.

4

126.

Conversion occurs when a person intentionally interferes with chattel

5

belonging to another, either by taking or unlawfully retaining it, thereby depriving the

6

rightful owner of possession. Money may be the subject of conversion if the Defendants

7

wrongfully received it.

8

127.

Defendants, exercising their control over the funds in the AccessFreedom

9

Card accounts, have wrongfully collected fees from Plaintiffs and members of the

10

Washington Subclass, and have taken specific and readily identifiable funds from

11

Plaintiffs and the members of the Washington Subclass in payment of these fees.

12

128.

Defendants, without proper authorization, assumed and exercised the

13

right of ownership over these funds, in hostility to the rights of Plaintiffs and the

14

Washington Subclass, without legal justification.

15
16
17
18
19

129.

Defendants continue to retain these funds unlawfully and without the

consent of Plaintiffs or the Washington Subclass.
130.

Defendants intend to permanently deprive Plaintiffs and the Washington

Subclass of these funds.
131.

These funds are properly owned by Plaintiffs and the Washington

20

Subclass, not Keefe, Rapid Investments or Cache Valley Bank, which now claim that they

21

are entitled to their ownership, contrary to the rights of Plaintiffs and the Washington

22

Subclass.

23
24

132.

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass are entitled to the immediate

possession of these funds.

25

133.

Defendants have wrongfully converted these specific and readily

26

identifiable funds.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 24
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 25 of 28

1

134.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct is continuing.

2

135.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conversion,

3
4
5

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass have suffered and continue to suffer damages.
136.

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass are entitled to damages and

prejudgment interest in an amount to be determined at trial.

6

X. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

7

(Unjust Enrichment)

8

(Against all Defendants)

9
10
11

137.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations of this

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully restated herein.
138.

Defendants have been unjustly enriched by taking funds from the

12

AccessFreedom Card accounts under their control in the form of fees assessed upon

13

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass.

14

139.

The circumstances are such that it would be unjust and inequitable for

15

Defendants to retain the benefit that they unjustly received from Plaintiffs and the

16

Washington Subclass members.

17
18
19

140.

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass members have conferred benefits

on Defendants, which Defendants have knowingly accepted and retained.
141.

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass members have suffered and

20

continue to suffer actual damages as a result of Defendants’ unjust retention of proceeds

21

from their acts and practices alleged herein.

22

142.

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass members seek to disgorge

23

Defendants’ unlawfully retained benefits resulting from their unlawful conduct, and

24

seek restitution for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass.

25
26

143.

Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass members are entitled to the

imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendants, such that their unjustly retained
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 25
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 26 of 28

1

benefits are distributed equitably by the Court to and for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the

2

Washington Subclass members.

3

XI. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

4

Plaintiffs respectfully requests jury trial of all claims that can be so tried.

5

XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

6
7
8
9
10
11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Class, prays
for the following relief:
1.

An order certifying this case as a class action and appointing Plaintiffs and

the undersigned counsel to represent the Class;
2.

Declaration, judgment, and decree that Defendants Keefe, Rapid

Investments and/or Cache Valley Bank’s conduct alleged herein:

12

a.

Violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

13

b.

Violates the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (as to Defendants Rapid
Investments and Cache Valley Bank only);

14
15

c.

Violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act;

16

d.

Constitutes conversion; and

17

e.

Constitutes unjust enrichment.

18

3.

Damages to Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass to the maximum extent

19

allowed under state and federal law; including ordering Defendants to pay actual and

20

statutory damages;

21

4.

Costs and disbursements of the action;

22

5.

Restitution and/or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains;

23

6.

Pre- and post-judgment interest; and

24

7.

Reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

25

8.

Such other relief, in law and equity, as this Court may deem just and

26

proper.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 26
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 27 of 28

1

DATED: August 9, 2019.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC

2
3

s/ Chris R. Youtz
Chris R. Youtz, WSBA #7786
Email: chris@sylaw.com

4
5

s/ Richard E. Spoonemore
Richard E. Spoonemore, WSBA #21833
Email: rick@sylaw.com

6
7
8

s/ Eleanor Hamburger
Eleanor Hamburger, WSBA #26478
Email: ele@sylaw.com

9
10

3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
Fax: (206) 223-0246

11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 27
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246

Case 3:17-cv-05848-RBL Document 100 Filed 08/09/19 Page 28 of 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2
3
4
5

I hereby certify that on August 9, 2019, I caused the foregoing to be electronically
filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification
of such filing to the following:
•

Sylvia Karen Bamberger
kbamberger@bpmlaw.com, carkins@bpmlaw.com, lbrown@bpmlaw.com

•

Eleanor Hamburger
ehamburger@sylaw.com, matt@sylaw.com, stacy@sylaw.com, theresa@sylaw.com

•

Emily J Harris
eharris@corrcronin.com, sdamon@corrcronin.com, reception@corrcronin.com

•

Suzanne L Jones
sjones@hinshawlaw.com, mharo@hinshawlaw.com

•

Eric A Lindberg
elindberg@corrcronin.com, mdawson@corrcronin.com

•

Daniel Marshall
dmarshall@hrdc-law.org, kmoses@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,
tlivingston@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

•

Masimba Mutamba
mmutamba@hrdc-law.org, kmoses@hrdc-law.org

•

Sabarish Neelakanta
sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org

•

Russell S Ponessa
rponessa@hinshawlaw.com

•

Richard E Spoonemore
rspoonemore@sylaw.com, matt@sylaw.com, rspoonemore@hotmail.com,
theresa@sylaw.com, stacy@sylaw.com

•

George F Verschelden
george.verschelden@stinson.com, linda.stephen@stinson.com

•

Chris Robert Youtz
chris@sylaw.com, matt@sylaw.com, theresa@sylaw.com, stacy@sylaw.com

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

DATED: August 9, 2019, at Seattle, Washington.

23

s/ Richard E. Spoonemore
Richard E. Spoonemore, WSBA #21833

24
25
26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – 28
[Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL]

SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
TEL. (206) 223-0303 FAX (206) 223-0246



 

Prisoner Education Guide side

 

Advertise here

 

Prisoner Education Guide side

 

Advertise here
Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual