43.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following class:10   All persons who shipped one or more parcels through UPS’s retail affiliates and  were charged a Delivery Area Surcharge exceeding the amount listed in UPS’s  Retail Rates at any time beginning four years prior to the filing of the initial  complaint in this action until trial of this action. The class does not include any  UPS directors, board members, or executives who otherwise meet the class  definition.   44.  This case is a prototypical class action. Certifying this case will vindicate “the  purposes behind class actions: eliminating the possibility of repetitious litigation and providing  small claimants with a means of obtaining redress for claims too small to justify individual  litigation.” Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 659 n.12 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Wetzel v.  Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 508 F.2d 239, 249 (3d Cir. 1975)). The proposed class satisfies all of the  necessary criteria under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (3), and a class action is appropriate for the  following reasons (among others):   53.  UPS, by using its network of independently owned and operated affiliates to  overcharge and defraud retail customers, conducted the affairs of an enterprise though a pattern of  racketeering in violation of RICO.    54.  18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person . . .  associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign  commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s  affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity . . . .”   55.  UPS is a “person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3). UPS is “an entity  capable of holding legal or beneficial interest in property.” Id. Indeed, UPS generated $58.4  billion in revenue in 2015, and held much of that revenue in corporate accounts. Moreover, UPS  owns a wide variety of real property, including buildings, trucks, and computer systems.   85.  49 U.S.C. § 13708(b) provides that “[n]o person may cause a motor carrier to  present false or misleading information on a document about the actual rate, charge, or allowance  to any party to the transaction.”   86.  49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(2) provides that “[a] carrier or broker providing  transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under chapter 135 is liable for damages sustained  by a person as a result of an act or omission of that carrier or broker in violation of this part.” This  provision creates a private right of action. See Fulfillment Services Inc. v. United Parcel Service,  Inc., 528 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2008).   87.  UPS is “person” within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 13708(b). Under settled  agency principles, UPS is also vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees, who are also  “person[s]” within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 13708(b).   88.  UPS is a motor carrier within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 13708(b).   91.  “Liability in restitution derives from the receipt of a benefit whose retention  without payment would result in the unjust enrichment of the defendant at the expense of the  claimant.” Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 39(1) (2010); See Stone v.  White, 1937 301 U.S. 532, 534 (1937) (citing The History of Assumpsit, 2 Harv. L. Rev. 53;  Woodward, Law of Quasi-Contracts, s 2.); 1 G. Palmer, Restitution §§ 1.2, 2.2–2.3 (1978).   92.  By overcharging retail customers for the Delivery Area Surcharge, UPS has  received a benefit whose retention without payment would result in the unjust enrichment of UPS  at the expense of the Plaintiff and the class members.    93.  Under federal common law principles, a common carrier may not charge  customers an amount exceeding the carrier’s published rate. See 2 Robert Hutchinson et al., A  Treatise on the Law of Carriers, as Administered in the Courts of the United States and England  § 804 (3d ed. 1906). By charging more than its published rate, UPS has caused damage to  Plaintiff and the class.   Conducting the Affairs of an Enterprise in Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and  Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”),  18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq.  (Asserted on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Providing False or Misleading Information in Violation of the   Interstate Commerce Act 49 U.S.C. § 13708(b)  (Asserted on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   UPS’s Business   Unjust Enrichment Due to Failure to Adhere to Published Rates   in Violation of Federal Common Law  (Asserted on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  