Preview
1 Alexander Xue
PO Box 1
2 Millbrae, CA 94030
Email: youyouxue@gmail.com ELECTRONICALLY
3 Telephone: (650) 200-0983 FILED
Plaintiff pro se Superior Court of California,
4 County of San Francisco
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 05/22/2024
5 Clerk of the Court
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BY: AUSTIN LAM
6 Deputy Clerk
7 ) CGC-24-614914
Alexander Xue, ) Case Number:
8 )
Plaintiff, )
9 ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
vs. )
10 ) 1. Violation of B.P.C. §§17200 et seq.
RAINBOW DESSERT BAR LLC ) 2. Violation of B.P.C. §§17500 et seq.
11 ) 3. Violation of Civ. Code §§1750 et seq.
Defendant. )
12 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
13 )
)
14 )
15
16
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
17
Defendant secretly adds a deceptively named 6% taxable “SF Mandate” charge to all its
18
transactions. This practice is prohibited by California law.
19
20
JURISDICTION
21
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter as the Defendant does business in San
22
Francisco County.
23
24
PARTIES
25
2. Plaintiff Alexander Xue is a competent adult.
26
3. Defendant Rainbow Dessert Bar owns and operates U Dessert Story, a dessert
27
restaurant located at 3489 16th St, San Francisco, CA 94114.
28
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PAGE NO. 1 OF 7
1
2 STATEMENT OF FACTS
3 4. Defendant is engaged in the business of selling food and drink to the general public.
4 5. Plaintiff visited Defendant’s restaurant on 11 January 2023 and paid his bill, which
5 totalled $24.00.
6 6. Plaintiff reviewed his receipt and was surprised to find a 6% charge that was secretly
7 added to his bill. This charge was called “SF Mandate”.
8 7. Defendant did not disclose this charge to Plaintiff at any point prior to Plaintiff ordering
9 food. Defendant does not disclose this charge on its menu.
10 8. Even if Defendant disclosed this charge to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to a
11 purchase being made, Defendant is still misrepresenting the nature of the charge.
12 9. The name of this charge, “SF Mandate”, led Plaintiff and would lead any reasonable
13 person to believe that it was a governmental requirement for employers to charge this fee onto
14 customer bills. Defendant uses the letters “SF” to represent the City and/or County of San
15 Francisco, and uses the word “Mandate” to convey the plain meaning of the word: “an
16 authoritative command”. (See: Merriam-Webster dictionary).
17 10. This charge is not imposed by any government agency, and is a charge that Defendant
18 adds to customer bills for the sole purpose of increasing its gross profit margin.
19 11. Plaintiff was deceived into making a purchase with Defendant, because he expected to
20 pay the prices displayed on the menu that was presented to him and his guest, and did not
21 expect any misleading and/or hidden charges to be added to his final bill.
22 12. Plaintiff would not have purchased items from Defendant if he had been aware of the
23 hidden 5% “SF Employer Mandate” charge, or if he was aware that Defendant was attempting
24 to pass off hidden merchant charges as governmentally mandated.
25
26 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
27 VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
28 (CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§17200 ET SEQ.)
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PAGE NO. 2 OF 7
1 13. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all other allegations and facts herein stated.
2 14. California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq. prohibits any “unlawful,
3 unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice”.
4 15. Defendant has engaged prohibited acts by:
5 a. Failing to disclose a mandatory merchant-imposed surcharge affecting the
6 effective prices of its products.
7 b. Advertising certain prices with the intent not to sell those items at the prices so
8 advertised.
9 c. Deceptively inducing customer purchases by displaying a menu that does not
10 include nor disclose all mandatory merchant-imposed surcharges, causing any
11 reasonable member of the public to assume that Defendant’s products were
12 cheaper than they actually were.
13 d. Harming competitors by causing any reasonable member of the public to believe
14 Defendant’s prices were cheaper than they actually were.
15 e. Falsely advertising its merchant-imposed surcharge as a “SF Mandate”, causing
16 any reasonable member of the public to believe the government of San Francisco
17 mandates the Defendant to add this surcharge to customer bills, when in fact, no
18 such mandate exists.
19 16. Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or
20 practices and is entitled by law to relief.
21
22 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
23 VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING LAW
24 (CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§17500 ET SEQ.)
25 17. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all other allegations and facts herein stated.
26 18. California Business and Professions Code §§17500 et seq. prohibits anyone from falsely
27 advertising their products.
28 19. Defendant has engaged in prohibited acts by:
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PAGE NO. 3 OF 7
1 a. Failing to disclose a mandatory merchant-imposed surcharge affecting the
2 effective prices of its products.
3 b. Advertising certain prices with the intent not to sell those items at the prices so
4 advertised.
5 c. Deceptively inducing customer purchases by displaying a menu that does not
6 include nor disclose all mandatory merchant-imposed surcharges, causing any
7 reasonable member of the public to assume that Defendant’s products were
8 cheaper than they actually were.
9 d. Harming competitors by causing any reasonable member of the public to believe
10 Defendant’s prices were cheaper than they actually were.
11 e. Falsely advertising its merchant-imposed surcharge as a “SF Mandate”, causing
12 any reasonable member of the public to believe the government of San Francisco
13 mandates the Defendant to add this surcharge to customer bills, when in fact, no
14 such mandate exists.
15 20. Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or
16 practices and is entitled by law to relief.
17
18 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
19 VIOLATION OF CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
20 (CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§1750 ET SEQ.)
21 21. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all other allegations and facts herein stated.
22 22. The Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) prohibits certain “unfair methods of
23 competition and unfair or deceptive acts”. Cal. Civ. Code §1770(a).
24 23. Defendant has violated the CLRA.
25 24. By advertising goods and services with intent not to sell them as advertised, Defendant
26 has violated the CLRA. Cal. Civ. Code §1770(a)(9).
27 25. By representing that the “SF Mandate” charge was a governmental mandate, a statement
28 that reasonably confers an obligation on the Defendant to remit the proceeds of this fee to a
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PAGE NO. 4 OF 7
1 governmental authority for the benefit of the public that is does not have (as the “SF Mandate”
2 fee was not actually a San Francisco mandate), Defendant has violated the CLRA. Cal. Civ.
3 Code §1770(a)(14).
4 26. Any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use by any person of any
5 practice declared to be unlawful by §1770 may bring an action against that person to recover or
6 obtain any of the following: “Actual damages”, “An order enjoining the methods, acts, or
7 practices”, “Punitive damages”, and “Any other relief that the court deems proper”. Cal. Civ.
8 Code §1780(a).
9
10 REQUEST FOR RELIEF
11 27. Plaintiff demands actual damages in an amount according to proof.
12 28. Plaintiff demands punitive damages.
13 29. Plaintiff demands injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant from continuing to act in
14 any way contrary to law, including (1) from continuing to charge any merchant-imposed fee or
15 surcharge that is not first properly disclosed to the customer, and (2) from representing such a
16 merchant-imposed fee or surcharge as a “mandate” or using names of governmental entities
17 like “SF” to mislead consumers.
18 30. Plaintiff demands an order mandating that Defendant refund all customers who were
19 deceptively induced into paying its hidden “SF Mandate” fee.
20 31. Plaintiff demands the costs of suit, including the filing fee and fees for service of
21 process.
22 32. Lastly, any other relief that this Court in its discretion deems just and appropriate.
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PAGE NO. 5 OF 7
1
2 Date: 22 May 2024 Signed: _____________________________
3 Print Name: ALEXANDER XUE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PAGE NO. 6 OF 7
1 VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
2 33. I, ALEXANDER XUE, Plaintiff in this matter, declare as follows:
3 34. I have personal knowledge of all allegations set out in the foregoing Verified Complaint,
4 and if called on to testify I would testify as to the matters stated herein.
5 35. I verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
6 factual statements in this Verified Complaint concerning myself, my activities, and my intentions
7 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
8
9 Date: 22 May 2024 Signed: _____________________________
10 Print Name: ALEXANDER XUE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PAGE NO. 7 OF 7
Preview
1 Alexander Xue PO Box 1 2 Millbrae, CA 94030 Email: youyouxue@gmail.com ELECTRONICALLY 3 Telephone: (650) 200-0983 FILED Plaintiff pro se Superior Court of California, 4 County of San Francisco IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 05/22/2024 5 Clerk of the Court COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BY: AUSTIN LAM 6 Deputy Clerk 7 ) CGC-24-614914 Alexander Xue, ) Case Number: 8 ) Plaintiff, ) 9 ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT vs. ) 10 ) 1. Violation of B.P.C. §§17200 et seq. RAINBOW DESSERT BAR LLC ) 2. Violation of B.P.C. §§17500 et seq. 11 ) 3. Violation of Civ. Code §§1750 et seq. Defendant. ) 12 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) 13 ) ) 14 ) 15 16 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 17 Defendant secretly adds a deceptively named 6% taxable “SF Mandate” charge to all its 18 transactions. This practice is prohibited by California law. 19 20 JURISDICTION 21 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter as the Defendant does business in San 22 Francisco County. 23 24 PARTIES 25 2. Plaintiff Alexander Xue is a competent adult. 26 3. Defendant Rainbow Dessert Bar owns and operates U Dessert Story, a dessert 27 restaurant located at 3489 16th St, San Francisco, CA 94114. 28 VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE NO. 1 OF 7 1 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 4. Defendant is engaged in the business of selling food and drink to the general public. 4 5. Plaintiff visited Defendant’s restaurant on 11 January 2023 and paid his bill, which 5 totalled $24.00. 6 6. Plaintiff reviewed his receipt and was surprised to find a 6% charge that was secretly 7 added to his bill. This charge was called “SF Mandate”. 8 7. Defendant did not disclose this charge to Plaintiff at any point prior to Plaintiff ordering 9 food. Defendant does not disclose this charge on its menu. 10 8. Even if Defendant disclosed this charge to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to a 11 purchase being made, Defendant is still misrepresenting the nature of the charge. 12 9. The name of this charge, “SF Mandate”, led Plaintiff and would lead any reasonable 13 person to believe that it was a governmental requirement for employers to charge this fee onto 14 customer bills. Defendant uses the letters “SF” to represent the City and/or County of San 15 Francisco, and uses the word “Mandate” to convey the plain meaning of the word: “an 16 authoritative command”. (See: Merriam-Webster dictionary). 17 10. This charge is not imposed by any government agency, and is a charge that Defendant 18 adds to customer bills for the sole purpose of increasing its gross profit margin. 19 11. Plaintiff was deceived into making a purchase with Defendant, because he expected to 20 pay the prices displayed on the menu that was presented to him and his guest, and did not 21 expect any misleading and/or hidden charges to be added to his final bill. 22 12. Plaintiff would not have purchased items from Defendant if he had been aware of the 23 hidden 5% “SF Employer Mandate” charge, or if he was aware that Defendant was attempting 24 to pass off hidden merchant charges as governmentally mandated. 25 26 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 27 VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 28 (CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§17200 ET SEQ.) VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE NO. 2 OF 7 1 13. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all other allegations and facts herein stated. 2 14. California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq. prohibits any “unlawful, 3 unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice”. 4 15. Defendant has engaged prohibited acts by: 5 a. Failing to disclose a mandatory merchant-imposed surcharge affecting the 6 effective prices of its products. 7 b. Advertising certain prices with the intent not to sell those items at the prices so 8 advertised. 9 c. Deceptively inducing customer purchases by displaying a menu that does not 10 include nor disclose all mandatory merchant-imposed surcharges, causing any 11 reasonable member of the public to assume that Defendant’s products were 12 cheaper than they actually were. 13 d. Harming competitors by causing any reasonable member of the public to believe 14 Defendant’s prices were cheaper than they actually were. 15 e. Falsely advertising its merchant-imposed surcharge as a “SF Mandate”, causing 16 any reasonable member of the public to believe the government of San Francisco 17 mandates the Defendant to add this surcharge to customer bills, when in fact, no 18 such mandate exists. 19 16. Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or 20 practices and is entitled by law to relief. 21 22 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 23 VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING LAW 24 (CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§17500 ET SEQ.) 25 17. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all other allegations and facts herein stated. 26 18. California Business and Professions Code §§17500 et seq. prohibits anyone from falsely 27 advertising their products. 28 19. Defendant has engaged in prohibited acts by: VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE NO. 3 OF 7 1 a. Failing to disclose a mandatory merchant-imposed surcharge affecting the 2 effective prices of its products. 3 b. Advertising certain prices with the intent not to sell those items at the prices so 4 advertised. 5 c. Deceptively inducing customer purchases by displaying a menu that does not 6 include nor disclose all mandatory merchant-imposed surcharges, causing any 7 reasonable member of the public to assume that Defendant’s products were 8 cheaper than they actually were. 9 d. Harming competitors by causing any reasonable member of the public to believe 10 Defendant’s prices were cheaper than they actually were. 11 e. Falsely advertising its merchant-imposed surcharge as a “SF Mandate”, causing 12 any reasonable member of the public to believe the government of San Francisco 13 mandates the Defendant to add this surcharge to customer bills, when in fact, no 14 such mandate exists. 15 20. Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or 16 practices and is entitled by law to relief. 17 18 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 19 VIOLATION OF CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT 20 (CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§1750 ET SEQ.) 21 21. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all other allegations and facts herein stated. 22 22. The Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) prohibits certain “unfair methods of 23 competition and unfair or deceptive acts”. Cal. Civ. Code §1770(a). 24 23. Defendant has violated the CLRA. 25 24. By advertising goods and services with intent not to sell them as advertised, Defendant 26 has violated the CLRA. Cal. Civ. Code §1770(a)(9). 27 25. By representing that the “SF Mandate” charge was a governmental mandate, a statement 28 that reasonably confers an obligation on the Defendant to remit the proceeds of this fee to a VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE NO. 4 OF 7 1 governmental authority for the benefit of the public that is does not have (as the “SF Mandate” 2 fee was not actually a San Francisco mandate), Defendant has violated the CLRA. Cal. Civ. 3 Code §1770(a)(14). 4 26. Any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use by any person of any 5 practice declared to be unlawful by §1770 may bring an action against that person to recover or 6 obtain any of the following: “Actual damages”, “An order enjoining the methods, acts, or 7 practices”, “Punitive damages”, and “Any other relief that the court deems proper”. Cal. Civ. 8 Code §1780(a). 9 10 REQUEST FOR RELIEF 11 27. Plaintiff demands actual damages in an amount according to proof. 12 28. Plaintiff demands punitive damages. 13 29. Plaintiff demands injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant from continuing to act in 14 any way contrary to law, including (1) from continuing to charge any merchant-imposed fee or 15 surcharge that is not first properly disclosed to the customer, and (2) from representing such a 16 merchant-imposed fee or surcharge as a “mandate” or using names of governmental entities 17 like “SF” to mislead consumers. 18 30. Plaintiff demands an order mandating that Defendant refund all customers who were 19 deceptively induced into paying its hidden “SF Mandate” fee. 20 31. Plaintiff demands the costs of suit, including the filing fee and fees for service of 21 process. 22 32. Lastly, any other relief that this Court in its discretion deems just and appropriate. 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE NO. 5 OF 7 1 2 Date: 22 May 2024 Signed: _____________________________ 3 Print Name: ALEXANDER XUE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE NO. 6 OF 7 1 VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT 2 33. I, ALEXANDER XUE, Plaintiff in this matter, declare as follows: 3 34. I have personal knowledge of all allegations set out in the foregoing Verified Complaint, 4 and if called on to testify I would testify as to the matters stated herein. 5 35. I verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 6 factual statements in this Verified Complaint concerning myself, my activities, and my intentions 7 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 8 9 Date: 22 May 2024 Signed: _____________________________ 10 Print Name: ALEXANDER XUE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE NO. 7 OF 7