IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF ERIE COUNTY, OHIO

Geoffrey Oglesby 11706 Andress Road Berlin Heights, Ohio 44814-0042 on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated PLAINTIFFS -VQSL of Vermilion, Inc. c/o Ronald J. Rice statutory agent 48 W. Liberty Street Hubbard, Ohio 44425 DEFENDANT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE# 2011-CV-0025 JUDGE Roger Binette

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Jury demand endorsed hereon) D. Jeffery Rengel (Bar#0029069) Thomas R. Lucas (Bar#0071916) RENGEL LAW OFFICE 421 Jackson Street Sandusky, Ohio 44870 Ph: 419-627-0400 Fax: 419-627-1434 E-mail: djr@toast.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CLASS COMPLAINT
NOW COME THE PLAINTIFF, Geoffrey Oglesby, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, D. Jeffery Rengel and Thomas R. Lucas, and for his Complaint against Defendant states and avers as follows:

1.

Defendant QSL of Vermillion, Inc. is an active Ohio corporation doing business

individually in Ohio as Quaker Steak & Lube, 5150 Liberty Avenue,Vermilion, Ohio 44089 2. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant named herein because Defendant is a

corporation that conducts business in and maintains operations in Erie County, or is a legal entity which has sufficient minimum contacts with Erie County so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction by the Ohio courts, and this Court in particular, permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This action is not removable. 4. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendant either conducts business in, has

the business enterprise in, or maintains executive offices in Erie County, a substantial portion of the transactions and wrongs complained of herein, including the Defendants primary participation in the wrongful acts detailed herein in violation of Ohio law occurred in Erie County, and Defendant has received substantial compensation in Erie County by doing business here and engaging in numerous activities that had an effect in Erie County.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 5. On or about January 15, 2010, Plaintiff entered into a contractual transaction with

Defendant whereby Plaintiff purchased goods and services from Defendant. 6. Plaintiffs purchase from Defendant consisted of the purchase of food and beverage

for which Plaintiff was charged by Defendant the sum of $26.27. 7. 8. Plaintiff was taxed the sum of $1.71 upon such purchase for a total due of $27.98. Defendants register receipt actually stated a charge of, and Defendant collected

from Plaintiff, the sum of $28.00. 9. On information and belief, similarly situated Plaintiffs also purchased food,

beverage and other items from Defendant for which Defendant charged Plaintiffs more than the posted prices plus interest in a rounding up manner. 10. On information and belief, Defendant failed to indicate on its charge or fee bills that

it was, in fact, charging and collecting from Plaintiffs more money than the actual true charge or fee bill. 11. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions said Defendant received a

windfall of the additional monies paid by Plaintiffs in excess of Plaintiffs true bill for food, beverages and other items from Defendant.

Class Allegations 12. Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23,

Ohio R. Civ. P., on behalf of all customers of Defendant who purchased goods or services for which they were overcharged and paid more than the actual posted price, plus applicable interest, by means of a charge or fee bill which incorrectly listed the balance due as more than the actual balance due. 13. This action is properly maintainable as a class action as it is unlikely that members

of the Class will individually prosecute actions for violations of less than, on average, one dollar ($1.00) for each violation. 14. 15. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class and which 2

predominate over questions affecting any individual Class member. All Plaintiffs entered into substantially similar purchase of goods and services with Defendant and all Plaintiffs received bill statements which incorrectly rounded up Plaintiffs bill in Erie County, Ohio. 16. The common legal questions include, inter alia, the following:

(a) whether the Defendant has breached its contract with Plaintiff and the other members of the Class by failing to provide a true and correctly calculated register receipt and charge bill to said Plaintiff and the other members of the Class; (b) whether the Defendant has engaged in fraud and/or breached its contract with Plaintiff and the other members of the Class by charging and collecting such register receipt overcharges; (c) whether the Defendant is engaging in unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345, et. seq.; (d) whether the Defendant engaged in unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices in light of prior decisions contained in the Public Information Files of the Ohio Attorney Generals Office. 17. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class and

Plaintiff does not have any interests adverse to the Class. 18. Plaintiff is committed to prosecuting this action and is an adequate representative of

the Class. Plaintiff has retained competent counsel experienced in litigation of this nature and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 19. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class will create a

risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class which will establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the Class. 20. Plaintiff anticipates that there will be no difficulty in the management of this

litigation. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication 3

of this controversy. 21. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class with respect to the

matters complained of herein, thereby making appropriate the relief sought herein with respect to the Class as a whole.

CAUSES OF ACTION
22. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Consumer Sales Practices Act violation) For Plaintiffs first cause of action, plaintiffs restate each and every, all and singular,

the averments and allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 21 inclusive as if the same were fully restated herein, and further state that: 23. Plaintiffs are persons and consumers as defined in the Ohio Consumer Sales

Practices Act, R.C. 1345.01(B) & (D). 24. Defendants are suppliers as defined by R.C. 1345.01(C) engaged in the

solicitation, consummation and/or effectuation of consumer transactions within the meaning of R.C. 1345.01(A). 25. Defendants are in a business of providing goods and services to consumers

generally consisting of restaurant related food, beverages and related goods and services. 26. The agreements referenced hereinabove between Plaintiffs and Defendants were

consumer transactions as defined in R.C. 1345.01(A) with Defendants. 27. Defendants acts and practices have previously been declared to be unfair, deceptive,

and unconscionable by the Ohio Attorney General and by provisions of the Ohio Administrative Code, 109:4:3:03 as well as findings of the OAG and Ohio courts as demonstrated by PIF#1816; 10001280 and 10001435. 28. Such actions are ongoing as Defendant continues to charge and collect monies from

Plaintiffs as customers and continues to misrepresent and deceive Plaintiffs regarding Plaintiffs

true bill and charge for goods and services from Defendant in violation of Ohio law. 29. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a direct and proximate consequence of

Defendants acts and omissions set forth herein. 30. Defendant, as a supplier, used unfair, deceptive, unconscionable and misleading

register receipts containing terms that permitted Defendants, as suppliers, to display a final balance due in excess of the actual charge or fee for goods and services plus applicable interest. 31. Defendant, as a supplier, engaged in unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts and

practices by failing to disclose to Plaintiffs that Defendants register receipt inaccurately reflected the charges for goods and services owed by Plaintiffs to Defendants. 32. Defendant engaged in acts and practices set forth hereinabove which were unfair,

deceptive, and unconscionable acts and practices, in violation of Ohios Consumer Sales Practices Act, including but not limited to, R.C.1345.02(A) and (B).

33.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud) For Plaintiffs second cause of action, plaintiffs restate each and every, all and

singular, the averments and allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 33 inclusive as if the same were fully restated herein, and further state that: 34. Defendants fraudulent, actual or implied, misrepresentations and concealments to

Plaintiffs, where there was a duty to disclose, regarding the billing, collection and payment of charges for goods and services provided to Plaintiffs were material to the transactions between the parties. 35. Defendants made such misrepresentations and/or concealments of material fact to

Plaintiffs with knowledge of their falsity or with such utter disregard and recklessness toward the truth or falsity of the representations and/or concealments such that knowledge may be inferred.

36. 37.

Defendants intended to mislead Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs reasonably, actually and justifiably relied upon said false and fraudulent

representations and concealments by Defendants regarding the billing, collection and payment of charges for goods and services provided to Plaintiffs. 38. Plaintiffs were, and continue to be, proximately and directly harmed and otherwise

damaged by Defendants acts and omissions regarding the billing, collection and payment of charges for goods and services provided to Plaintiffs. 39. Defendants failures set forth above caused Plaintiffs to believe that their bill for

goods and services was higher than it actually was, thereby inducing Plaintiffs to provide larger tips to Defendants food service server employees. 40. Plaintiff Oglesby provided a larger tip that he otherwise would have provided to his

server based upon his cursory review of the bill charge receipt indicating that $28 was due and owing rather than $27 and change. 41. Defendants acts and omissions were so intentional, wanton and willful or made with

such conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiffs that has a great probability of causing substantial harm such that punitive damages are awardable. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of contract) For Plaintiffs third cause of action, plaintiffs restate each and every, all and

42.

singular, the averments and allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 41 inclusive as if the same were fully restated herein, and further state that: 43. Defendant orally and in writing agreed to provide goods and services to Plaintiffs at

rates and charges as set forth in Defendants menus, advertising and other representations. 44. Plaintiffs impliedly agreed to pay said rates and charges by ordering, obtaining and

consuming said goods and services from Defendant. 6

45.

Defendants collected for such goods and services at a rate and charge more than,

and in excess of, the agreed rate and charge after entering into the agreement with Plaintiffs. 46. Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiffs by billing and charging fees and

charges from Plaintiffs which were not authorized by contract and by requiring Plaintiffs to pay fees and charges beyond the contracted amount. 47. Defendants actions were a breach of the contract between Plaintiffs and Defendant

which proximately and directly caused harm to Plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for: 1. 2. 3. 4. Class action status determination; Judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $25,000; Costs and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to R.C. 1345.09(F) and common law; A declaration that Defendants acts and practices defined and complained of herein are

unfair, deceptive and otherwise unconscionable and a permanent injunction against the acts and practices so found to be unfair, deceptive and unconscionable pursuant to R.C. 1345.09(D); 5. 6. An award of punitive damages in an amount in excess of $25,000; An award of treble damages or other relief pursuant to R.C. 1345.09(B) if no class action

is determined; 7. 8. Injunctive relief preventing Defendants from engaging in such conduct in the future; and An award of attorneys fees and costs and such other and appropriate relief as this Court

may determine. ____________________________ D. Jeffery Rengel (Bar#0029069) Thomas R. Lucas (Bar#0071916) RENGEL LAW OFFICE Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury.

____________________________ D. Jeffery Rengel (Bar#0029069)