Case Summary
**Case Summary: Demmick v. Cellco Partnership, Docket Number 4110820**
**Court:** New Jersey Superior Court
**Date:** The case was filed on [insert filing date if known].
**Parties Involved:**
- **Plaintiff:** [Name of Plaintiff, e.g., John Demmick]
- **Defendant:** Cellco Partnership (operating as Verizon Wireless)
**Background:**
The plaintiff, Demmick, filed a lawsuit against Cellco Partnership, claiming damages related to issues arising from a telecommunications contract. The specifics of the contract, the nature of the alleged breach, and the resulting damages are central to understanding the dispute.
**Issues:**
The legal issues in this case may involve:
1. Breach of contract: Allegations that Cellco Partnership failed to fulfill its obligations under the terms of the service agreement with Demmick.
2. Consumer protection violations: Claims that Cellco Partnership engaged in deceptive practices or unfair treatment towards the plaintiff.
**Arguments:**
- **Plaintiff's Argument:** Demmick contends that Cellco Partnership did not provide the services as stipulated in the contract, leading to financial loss and inconvenience. The plaintiff may also argue that the company engaged in misleading advertising or failed to resolve customer service issues adequately.
- **Defendant's Argument:** Cellco Partnership would likely assert that they fulfilled their contractual obligations, or that any alleged breach was due to circumstances beyond their control. They may also argue that the claims lack merit or sufficient evidence.
**Court's Decision:**
The outcome of the case would depend on the judge or jury's interpretation of the evidence presented, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the application of relevant laws regarding contract enforcement and consumer rights.
**Conclusion:**
Demmick v. Cellco Partnership addresses significant issues regarding consumer rights and corporate responsibility in the telecommunications industry. The case highlights the importance of clear contractual terms and the obligations of service providers to their customers.
**Note:** Specific details regarding the docket number 4110820, the ruling, and any appeals would need to be incorporated when available for a complete case summary.