Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MAYERLAWGROUP,LLC
CarlJ.Mayer,Esq.
ZacharyJ.Liszka,Esq.
1180AvenueoftheAmericas,Suite800
NewYork,NewYork10036
(212)3824686
(212)3824687
LAWOFFICEOFTEDM.ROSENBERG
TedM.Rosenberg,Esq.(prohacviceapplicationpending)
RobertRosenberg,Esq.(prohacviceapplicationpending.)
321NewAlbanyRd.
Moorestown,NJ08057
(856)6089999
AttorneysforPlaintiffsandthePutativeClass
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
SOUTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK
THOMASESTLER,BLAKERUEHRWEIN, CIVILNO:_____________
andSTEVENPARK,onbehalfofthemselves
andallothersimilarlysituated,
CLASSACTION
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT
vs.
JURYTRIALDEMANDED
DUNKINBRANDS,INC.,DUNKIN
DONUTSSTORE#350125,DUNKIN
DONUTSSTORE#350126,
DONUTSSTORE#350127,
DUNKINDONUTSSTORE#345768,and
JOHNDOES1500,
Defendants.
16. Defendant DUNKIN BRANDS, INC was at all relevant times a business corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal executive
officeat130RoyalStreetinCanton,Massachusetts.
17. Defendant DUNKIN BRANDS, INC.s registered service agent in New York is C T
CorporationSystem,111EighthAvenueinNewYork,NY10011.
18. Defendant DUNKIN DONUTS STORE #350125 is located at 2 Penn Plaza, New York,
NewYork.
19. Defendant DUNKIN DONUTS STORE #350126 is located at 2 Penn Plaza, New York,
NewYork.
20. Defendant DUNKIN DONUTS STORE #350127 is located at 2 Penn Plaza, New York,
NewYork.
21. Defendant DUNKIN DONUTS STORE#345768islocated at60610th Avenue,NewYork,
NewYork.
JURISDICTIONANDVENUE
22. This
Court
has
jurisdiction
over
the
subject
matter
presented
by
thisclassactioncomplaintbecause it is aclassactionarisingundertheClassActionFairness
Act of 2005 (CAFA),
Pub. L. No. 1092, 119 Stat. 4 (2005)
, whichexplicitlyprovidesfor
the original jurisdiction of theFederalCourtsoveranyclassactionwhereanymemberofthe
plaintiff class is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, and when the matter in
controversy exceeds in the aggregate the sum of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and
costs.
Starbucksin2013asthelargestchainstoreoperatinginNewYorkCity.
29. Defendant Dunkin Brands, Inc. grants licenses to franchisees to operate Dunkin Donuts
storesinNewYork.
30. As part of the licensing franchisee agreement, Defendant Dunkin Brand, Inc. sets and
controls the prices and taxes to be assessed by each franchise store and programs them into
eachcashregister,includingthecashregistersinNewYork.
31. When Defendants sell prepackaged coffee at their New York stores, a surcharge is
automaticallyaddedontothepurchasepriceintheguiseofasalestax.
PrePackagedCoffeeisExemptFromSalesTaxinNewYork
32. In New York, most food is exempt from sales tax. Food must meet threerequirementstobe
exemptfromsalestax:i)itmustbesoldfor humanconsumption,ii)itmustbesoldunheated,
and iii) it must be sold in the same form and condition, quantities, and packaging as is
commonly used by retail food stores.
See
New York Department of Taxation and Finance
TaxBulletinST525,April13,2011.
33. Further, the New York Department of Taxation and Finance Tax Bulletin ST525 identifies
specific items that are
not tobetaxed
byretailfoodmarketsandsimilarestablishments,such
as Defendants stores. Coffee is specifically listed as exempt fromsalestax inthe Bulletin.
See
NewYorkDepartmentofTaxationandFinanceTaxBulletinST525,April13,2011.
34. If there is any doubt, the New York Department of Taxation and Finance Tax Bulletin
ST806 describes the method by which a business shoulddeterminewhetheranitemsoldby
restaurants,taverns,andsimilarestablishments,includingDefendantsistaxable.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/03/dunkindonutstopsstarbucksascityslargestchain/
35. TheTaxBulletinST806statesthefollowing,
When the food and drink is sold by a restaurant togo,itistaxableunless,i)thefood
(other than sandwiches) or drink is beingsoldunheated,and,ii)itisbeingsoldinthe
same way (in the same form, condition, quantities, and packaging) you would
normallyfinditinasupermarketorgrocerystore.
NewYorkDepartmentofTaxationandFinanceTaxBulletinST806,April13,2011.
36. Despite knowledge of Tax Bulletins ST525 and ST806, Defendants include a surchargein
the guise of a sales tax on their prepackaged coffee sold in the same form, condition,
quantities, and packaging as commonly sold in grocery stores. Indeed, the prepackaged
coffeeissoldunheatedandforoffpremiseconsumption.
37. To be sure, when Plaintiffs called the New York Department of Taxation customer service
hotline they were told by a representative that prepackaged coffee is not supposed to be
taxed under New York tax regulations because it is sold unheated, for offpremise
consumption, and in the same form, condition, quantities, and packaging as commonly sold
ingrocerystores.
38. The NewYorkDepartment ofTaxationcustomerservicehotlineisavailable foranybusiness
touse,includingDefendants.
DefendantsUnlawfullyAssessaSurchargeintheGuiseofaSalesTax
39. On December 26, 2015, Plaintiff ESTLER purchased prepackaged coffee from Defendant
DUNKINDONUTSSTORE#350125andwasassessedasurchargeof.89centsintheguise
ofsalestax,asindicatedonthePlaintiffsreceipt.
40. On December 26, 2015, Plaintiff ESTLER purchased prepackaged coffee from Defendant
DUNKINDONUTSSTORE#350126andwasassessedasurchargeof.89centsintheguise
ofsalestax,asindicatedonthePlaintiffsreceipt.
41. On December 26, 2015, Plaintiff ESTLER purchased prepackaged coffee from Defendant
DUNKIN DONUTS STORE #350127 and was assessed a surcharge of $.89 cents in the
guiseofsalestax,asindicatedonthePlaintiffsreceipt.
42. On December 29, 2015, Plaintiff ESTLER purchased prepackaged coffee from Defendant
DUNKIN DONUTS STORE #345768 and was assessed a surcharge of $.89 cents in the
guiseofsalestax,asindicatedonthePlaintiffsreceipt.
43. On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff RUEHRWEIN purchased prepackaged coffee from
Defendant DUNKIN DONUTS STORE #350125 and was assessed a surcharge of $.89
centsintheguiseofsalestax,asindicatedonthePlaintiffsreceipt.
44. On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff RUEHRWEIN purchased prepackaged coffee from
Defendant DUNKIN DONUTS STORE #350126 and was assessed a surcharge of $.89
centsintheguiseofsalestax,asindicatedonthePlaintiffsreceipt.
45. On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff RUEHRWEIN purchased prepackaged coffee from
Defendant DUNKIN DONUTS STORE #350127 and was assessed a surcharge of $.89
centsintheguiseofsalestax,asindicatedonthePlaintiffsreceipt.
46. On January 14, 2016, Plaintiff PARK purchased prepackaged coffee from Defendant
DUNKIN DONUTS STORE #350125 and was assessed a surcharge of $.89 cents in the
guiseofsalestax,asindicatedonthePlaintiffsreceipt.
47. On January 14, 2016, Plaintiff PARK purchased prepackaged coffee from Defendant
DUNKIN DONUTS STORE #350126 and was assessed a surcharge of $.89 cents in the
guiseofsalestax,asindicatedonthePlaintiffsreceipt.
48. On January 14, 2016, Plaintiff PARK purchased prepackaged coffee from Defendant
DUNKIN DONUTS STORE #350127 and was assessed a surcharge of $.89 cents in the
guiseofsalestax,asindicatedonthePlaintiffsreceipt.
DunkinDonutsisAwareofitsIllegalActionsandContinuestoFlaunttheLaw
49. Defendants are aware ofthetaxregulationspromulgatedbythe State ofNewYorkregarding
thesaleofprepackagedcoffee.
50. Despite knowledge of the tax regulations, Defendants have ignored the regulations for at
leastthepastthree(3)years.
51. Instead, Defendants have a policy and practice of adding on a surcharge to their productsin
theguiseofasalestax.
52. Defendants maintain this policy despite customer complaints and press coverage, including
thefollowing:
a.
According to the article, Dunkin Donuts headquarters was alerted that New
Jerseyfranchiseswereunlawfullyassessinga7percentchargeonprepackagedcoffee.
c.
substancethatithadaddressedtheissuewithitsfranchisees.
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2013/03/bamboozled_coffee_tax_creates.html(access
edMarch8,2015).
2
FACTSCOMMONTOTHECLASS
54. Plaintiffs bring this action as a ClassactionpursuanttoRule23ofthe FederalRulesofCivil
Procedure,onbehalfofthemselvesandallotherssimilarlysituatedasfollows:
All New York citizens who purchased fromDefendantsprepackagedcoffeeandany
other taxexempt item during the period of three (3) years from the filing of this
action to present, whom were assessed a surcharge on the purchase price of the
prepackagedcoffeeand/oranyothertaxexemptproductintheguiseofasalestax.
55. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and discovery, the
foregoingdefinitionoftheClassmaybeexpandedornarrowedbyamendmentorcomplaint.
56. ExcludedfromtheClassisanypersonorentityinwhichDefendanthasacontrolling
interest,andtheofficers,directors,employees,affiliates,subsidiaries,legalrepresentatives,
heirs,successors,andtheirassignsofanysuchpersonorentity,togetherwithanyimmediate
familymemberofanyofficer,director,oremployeeofsaidcompanies.Alsoexcludedfrom
membershipintheClassisanyJudgeorMagistratepresidingoverthisactionandmembers
oftheirfamilies.
57. Thisactionisproperlymaintainableasaclassaction.
58. Given thenatureofthe businessinvolved,membersoftheClassaresonumerousthatjoinder
of all members, whether otherwiserequiredorpermitted,isimpracticable.Theexactnumber
ofClassmembersandtheiraddressescanbedeterminedthroughappropriatediscovery.
59. PlaintiffsaremembersoftheClasstheyseektorepresent.
60. The Class is believed to include more than 1,000 customers. As aresult,joinderofallclass
membersinasingleactionisimpracticable.
61. ThereareimportantquestionsoflaworfactcommontotheentireClass,including:
a.
guiseofasalestaxonprepackagedcoffeeand/orothertaxexemptproducts
b.
whetherDefendantsactionsviolatedGBL349(NewYorkDeceptiveBusiness
PracticesAct)
c.
whetherDefendantsconductconstitutedabreachofcontract
d.
whetherDefendantsconductconstitutedunjustenrichment
e.
whetherDefendantsconductconstitutednegligence
f.
whetherDefendantsconductconstitutedfraud
g.
whether Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are entitled to damages,
includingtrebledamagesand
h.
whetherDefendantsprofitedfromtheunlawfulpracticesdescribedherein.
COUNTONE
VIOLATIONSOFNEWYORKGENERALBUSINESSLAW
349
67. The allegations contained in each paragraph set forth above in this Complaint are
incorporatedbyreferenceasiffullysetforthherein.
68. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are customers of Defendants. Plaintiffs bring this
actionpursuanttoNewYorkGeneralBusinessLaw349.
69. Defendants have engaged in deceptive practices by assessing a surcharge on the sale of
prepackagedcoffeeand/orothertaxexemptproductsundertheguiseofasalestax.
70. Such actions and failures to act have caused direct, foreseeable, and proximate damages to
PlaintiffsandothermembersoftheClass.
COUNTTWO
BREACHOFCONTRACT
71. The allegations contained in each paragraph set forth above in this Complaint are
incorporatedbyreferenceasiffullysetforthherein.
74. The allegations contained in each paragraph set forth above in this Complaint are
incorporatedbyreferenceasiffullysetforthherein.
75. Defendants, through their wrongful conduct described above, have reaped substantial
financialbenefitsattheexpenseofplaintiffs.
76. Defendantsprofitswouldhavebeenreduced,butfortheirwrongfulandunlawfulconduct.
77. Accordingly, Defendants have been unjustly enriched by their unlawful and wrongful
conduct. Defendants should not be allowed to retain the proceeds and benefits conferred
uponthembyPlaintiffsandtheClass.
78. In equity and good conscience, it would be unjust and inequitable to permit Defendants to
enrichthemselvesatPlaintiffsandtheClassexpense.
79. Therefore, Defendants must disgorge their unjustly acquired profits and other monetary
benefits resulting from their unlawful conduct and provide restitution to Plaintiffs and the
Class.
COUNTFOUR
NEGLIGENCE
80. TheallegationscontainedineachparagraphsetforthaboveinthisComplaintare
incorporatedbyreferenceasiffullysetforthherein.
81. Defendants breached a duty to Plaintiffs and the Class members by failing to properly train
theiragents,resultingintheaforementioneddamages.
COUNTFIVE
FRAUD
82. The allegations contained in each paragraph set forth above in this Complaint are
incorporatedbyreferenceasiffullysetforthherein.
83. Defendants willful and material misrepresentations to Plaintiffs and the Class, which
PlaintiffsandtheClassreasonablyreliedupon,resultedintheaforementioneddamages.
and Counsel as Class Counsel of the Class, and enter an order requiring Defendants to bear
thecostsofthenoticeunderRule23oftheFederalRulesofProcedure
b.
deceptivepractices
c.
orderDefendantstodisgorgeallprofitsmadeasaresultofitsdeceptivepractices
d.
award Plaintiffs and Class members their cost and disbursements incurred in
grantpunitivedamages,prejudgmentandpostjudgmentinterestand
f.
othersuchreliefastheCourtmaydeemjustandproper.
JURYTRIALDEMANDED
Plaintiffsherebydemandatrialbyjury.
Dated:
February8,2016
NewYork,NY
Respectfullysubmitted,
MAYERLAWGROUP,LLC
s/CarlJ.Mayer
CarlJ.Mayer,Esq.
ZacharyJ.Liszka,Esq.
1180AvenueoftheAmericas,Suite800
NewYork,NY10036
phone:(212)3824686
fax:(212)3824687
cyberesquire@aol.com
zachliszka@gmail.com
LAWOFFICEOFTEDM.ROSENBERG
TedM.Rosenberg,Esq.ID#033562011
RobertRosenberg,Esq.ID#015121981
321NewAlbanyRd.
Moorestown,NJ08057
(856)6089999
AttorneysforthePlaintiffsandtheClass