Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McKenzie Law Firm, P.A. v. Ruby Receptionists, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

July 29, 2019

MCKENZIE LAW FIRM, P.A., and OLIVER LAW OFFICES, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
RUBY RECEPTIONISTS, INC., Defendant.

          Keith S. Dubanevich and Cody Berne, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter PC, Laurence D. King, Matthew B. George, and Mario M. Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Robert I Lax, Lax LLP, Jon M. Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Gregory J. Brod, Brod Law Firm, PC, Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

          Andrew R. Escobar and Austin Rainwater, DLA Piper LLP, Of Attorneys for Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Michael H. Simon United States District Judge

         Plaintiffs, McKenzie Law Firm, PA (“McKenzie”) and Oliver Law Offices, Inc. (“Oliver”), are two relatively small law firms. They bring this putative class action lawsuit against Ruby Receptionists, Inc. (“Ruby”), a company that provides virtual receptionist services to small businesses, including law firms. Plaintiffs are former clients of Ruby. They assert claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and money had and received-accounting. Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment as to liability on their claim of breach of contract. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' motion is denied.

         STANDARDS

         A party is entitled to summary judgment if the “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Clicks Billiards Inc. v. Sixshooters Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001). Although “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary judgment, ” the “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position [is] insufficient . . . .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 255 (1986). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

         BACKGROUND

         Ruby Receptionists is a business based in Portland, Oregon that provides receptionist services to small businesses throughout North America. The putative class consists of all of Ruby's clients in the United States for telephone call answering and messaging services. Many of Ruby's clients are small law firms and solo practitioners. Ruby's clients enter into contracts with Ruby to purchase receptionist services and are billed based on the quantity of “receptionist minutes” used or contracted for per month. Plaintiffs' claims all stem from two of Ruby's practices. Plaintiffs allege that Ruby failed to disclose to its clients Ruby's practice of “rounding up” to the nearest 30-second increment when calculating a “receptionist minute” and that Ruby also failed to disclose to its clients that Ruby includes in its charges the time that callers have been placed on hold by Ruby's receptionists.

         Ruby's clients enter into contracts with Ruby for a set number of “receptionist minutes” per month for a fixed monthly fee and an agreed-upon fee “per receptionist minute” for any additional minutes beyond the set number. In one version of the Ruby Receptionists Service Agreement, a section titled “Fees” offers three alternative plans for clients:

Plan A: $229 per month, 100 receptionist minutes, Overage rate: 2.29 per receptionist minute, one voicemail box
Plan B: $379 per month, 200 receptionist minutes, Overage rate: 1.90 per receptionist minute, two voicemail boxes
Plan C: $769 per month, 500 receptionist minutes, Overage rate: 1.54 per receptionist minute, three voicemail boxes.

         ECF 34, Ex. A.

         Plaintiff Oliver contracted with Ruby from October 2012 until May 2013. Oliver purchased 100 receptionist minutes per month for $229 and agreed to pay $2.29 for each additional receptionist minute. Plaintiff McKenzie became a Ruby client in April 2016 and purchased a plan for 200 receptionist minutes per month for $413.08 and agreed to pay $2.07 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.