1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ANTONIO ALVAREZ,

individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v. 

CORE HOME SECURITY, LLC d/b/a

SMART HOME SECURITY.

Defendant.

__________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Antonio Alvarez brings this class action against Defendant Core Home Security, 

LLC d/b/a Smart Home Security (“Defendant”) and alleges as follows upon personal knowledge 

as to himself and his own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information and 

belief, including investigation conducted by his attorneys. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227 et seq., (“TCPA”), arising from Defendant’s knowing and willful violations of the TCPA. 

2. Defendant sells, installs and maintains home security systems.

3. Defendant markets itself as having “installed over thousands of new, state of the art 

Florida home security systems in homes across the state”.1

4. Defendant is licensed in Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Texas and 

Pennsylvania.2

1 www.Corehomesecurity.com. 2 Id.

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 1 of 15
2

5. As part of its marketing strategy, Defendant utilizes prerecorded messages to place calls

to unsuspecting consumers on their cellular telephones for the purpose of selling its goods and services.

6. Defendant caused thousands of prerecorded message callsto be placed to the telephones 

of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, 

annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

7. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’sillegal conduct.

Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and Class Members, as defined below, and 

any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff alleges violations of a federal 

statute. Jurisdiction is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because Plaintiff alleges a national class, 

which will result in at least one Class member belonging to a different state than Defendant. Plaintiff 

seeks up to $1,500.00 in damages for each call that is in violation of the TCPA, which, when aggregated 

among a proposed class numbering in the tens of thousands, or more, exceeds the $5,000,000.00 

threshold for federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). 

9. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) because Defendants are deemed to reside in any judicial district 

in which it is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, and because Defendant provides and markets

its services within this district thereby establishing sufficient contacts to subject it to personal 

jurisdiction. Further, Defendant’s tortious conduct against Plaintiff occurred within this district and, on 

information and belief, Defendant has placed the same calls complained of by Plaintiff to other 

individuals within this judicial district, such that some of Defendant’s acts have occurred within this 

district, subjecting Defendant to jurisdiction here. 

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 2 of 15
3

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this action, was a resident of 

Miami-Dade County, Florida.

11. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal office located at 949-A Clint 

Moore Rd., Boca Raton, FL 33487. Defendant directs, markets, and provides business activities

nationally and throughout the State of Florida.

THE TCPA

12. The TCPA prohibits: (1) any person from calling a cellular telephone number; (2) using 

an artificial or prerecorded voice; (3) without the recipient’s prior express consent. 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(1)(A).

13. The TCPA exists to prevent communications like the ones described within this 

Complaint. See Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740, 744 (2012).

14. In an action under the TCPA, a plaintiff must show only that the defendant “called a 

number assigned to a cellular telephone service using an automatic dialing system or prerecorded 

voice.” Breslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2012), aff'd, 755 

F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2014). 

15. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is empowered to issue rules and 

regulations implementing the TCPA. According to the FCC’s findings, calls in violation of the TCPA 

are prohibited because, as Congress found, automated or prerecorded telephone calls are a greater 

nuisance and invasion of privacy than live solicitation calls, and such calls can be costly and 

inconvenient. The FCC also recognized that wireless customers are charged for incoming calls whether 

they pay in advance or after the minutes are used. 

16. In 2012, the FCC issued an order further restricting automated telemarketing calls, 

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 3 of 15
4

requiring “prior express written consent” for such calls to wireless numbers. See In the Matter of Rules 

& Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 27 F.C.C.R. 1830, 1838 ¶ 20 (Feb.

15, 2012) (emphasis supplied).

17. To obtain express written consent for telemarketing calls, a defendant must establish 

that it secured the plaintiff’s signature in a form that gives the plaintiff a “‘clear and conspicuous 

disclosure’ of the consequences of providing the requested consent....and [the plaintiff] having received 

this information, agrees unambiguously to receive such calls at a telephone number the [plaintiff] 

designates.” In re Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 27 F.C.C.R. 

1830, 1837 ¶ 18, 1838 ¶ 20, 1844 ¶ 33, 1857 ¶ 66, 1858 ¶ 71 (F.C.C. Feb. 15, 2012).

18. The TCPA regulations promulgated by the FCC define “telemarketing” as “the 

initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or 

investment in, property, goods, or services.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12). In determining whether a 

communication constitutes telemarketing, a court must evaluate the ultimate purpose of the 

communication. See Golan v. Veritas Entm't, LLC, 788 F.3d 814, 820 (8th Cir. 2015).

19. “Neither the TCPA nor its implementing regulations ‘require an explicit mention of a 

good, product, or service’ where the implication of an improper purpose is ‘clear from the context.’” 

Id. (citing Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir. 2012)). 

20. “‘Telemarketing’ occurs when the context of a call indicates that it was initiated and 

transmitted to a person for the purpose of promoting property, goods, or services.” Golan, 788 F.3d at 

820 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)(iii) & 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12)); In re Rules and Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 F.C.C. Rcd at 14098 ¶ 141, 2003 

WL 21517853, at *49).

21. The FCC has explained that calls motivated in part by the intent to sell property, goods, 

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 4 of 15
5

or services are considered telemarketing under the TCPA. See In re Rules and Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, ¶¶ 139-142 (2003). 

This is true whether call recipients are encouraged to purchase, rent, or invest in property, goods, or 

services during the call or in the future. Id. 

22. In other words, offers “that are part of an overall marketing campaign to sell property, 

goods, or services constitute” telemarketing under the TCPA. See In re Rules and Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, ¶ 136 (2003).

23. If a call is not deemed telemarketing, a defendant must nevertheless demonstrate that it 

obtained the plaintiff’s prior express consent. See In the Matter of Rules and RegulationsImplementing 

the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 7991-92 (2015) (requiring express consent 

“for non-telemarketing and non-advertising calls”).

24. With respect to standing, as recently held by the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit: 

[T]he receipt of an unsolicited phone call is an injury that the district court can

remedy. And we know that Congress focused on precisely this kind of harm when it 

passed the TCPA, finding that "[m]any consumers [were] outraged over the 

proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls to their homes from telemarketers." Pub. L. No. 

102-243, § 2, 105 Stat. 2394, 2394. Congress identified telemarketing as a potentially 

"intrusive invasion of privacy," suggesting to us that Congress considered the receipt of 

an unwanted telemarketing call to be a real injury. Id

Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F.3d 1259, 1270 (11th Cir. 2019). 

FACTS

25. On or about April 14, 2020, Defendant called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number 

ending in 8669 (“8669 Number”) with two (2) prerecorded messages. 

26. The prerecorded messages that Plaintiff received state the following:

Hey this is Mark with home security promotions. Calling you about a free doorbell camera and 

alarm system, its Monday April 13th, were in your area this week, so you call me back toll free 

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 5 of 15
6

at 844-916-0448. Thanks.

27. When Plaintiff listened to the messages left for him by Defendant, Plaintiff was able to 

determine that the voicemails were a prerecorded message. See Rahn v. Bank of Am., No. 1:15-CV4485-ODE-JSA, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186171, at *10-11 (N.D. Ga. June 23, 2016) (“When one 

receives a call, it is a clear-cut fact, easily discernible to any lay person, whether or not the recipient is 

speaking to a live human being, or is instead being subjected to a prerecorded message.”). 

28. Plaintiff is the subscriber and/or sole user of the 8669 Number.

29. The purpose of Defendant’s call to Plaintiff was to market Defendants goods and 

services.

30. Specifically, the prerecorded message attempts to solicit Plaintiff to become a client of 

Defendant’s alarm services. 

31. The prerecorded messages Plaintiff received originated from 747-322-3829 and 818-

938-8289 numbers which are owned and/or operated by or on behalf of Defendant.

32. The prerecorded messages ask Plaintiff to call 844-916-0448 a number which is owned 

and/or operated by Defendant.

33. Plaintiff received the subject calls within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant’s

violation of the TCPA occurred within this district. 

34. Upon information and belief, Defendant caused similar calls to be placed to individuals 

residing within this judicial district. 

35. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with written express consent to be 

contacted by Defendant with a prerecorded message.

36. The 8669 Number is on the National Do Not Call Registry and has been since January 

13, 2006.

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 6 of 15
7

37. The 8669 Number is Plaintiff’s personal telephone number and is not a business 

telephone number.

38. Defendant’s unsolicited calls caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion of his 

privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendant’s call also 

inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life, the calls cause his cellular telephone to 

audibly ring which disturbed his domestic peace. Furthermore, Plaintiff estimates that he wasted 

approximately forty-eight seconds listening to the prerecorded messages.

39. Furthermore, Defendant’s call also caused the depletion of Plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

battery. The battery used to power Plaintiff’s cellular telephone can only be recharged a limited number 

of times before the battery’s voltage begins to decrease, causing the cellular phone to turn off 

completely, without warning, if the battery drops below the minimum voltage needed to safely power 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.

40. Lastly, Defendant’s prerecorded messages took up several bytes of memory on 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. The cumulative effect of unsolicited messages like Defendant’s poses a 

real risk of ultimately rendering the phone unusable for normal usage purposes as a result of the phone’s 

memory being taken up. In fact, the FTC has identified slower cell phone performance caused by space 

taken up on the phone’s memory as a real harm. See https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0350-textmessage-spam#text (finding that text message solicitations like the ones sent by Defendant present a 

“triple threat” of identity theft, unwanted cell phone charges, and slower cell phone performance). 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

PROPOSED CLASS

41. Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated.

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 7 of 15
8

42. Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the below defined Classes:

Prerecorded Message Class: All persons within the United States who, within the 

four years prior to the filing of this Complaint; were sent a prerecorded or 

artificial voice call; from Defendant or anyone on Defendant’s behalf; to said 

person’s telephone number.

Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who from four years 

prior to the filing of this action (1) were sent prerecorded messages by or on behalf 

of Defendant; (2) more than one time within any 12-month period; (3) where the 

person’s telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry 

for at least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant’s products and/or 

services.

43. Defendant and their employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not 

know the number of members in the Class but believes the Class members number in the several 

thousands, if not more.

 NUMEROSITY

44. Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed calls to cellular telephone numbers 

belonging to thousands of consumers throughout the United States without their prior express consent. 

The members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable.

45. The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time and can 

be ascertained only through discovery. Identification of the Class members is a matter capable of 

ministerial determination from Defendants’ callrecords.

 COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

46. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and 

fact common to the Class are:

(1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Class members’ 

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 8 of 15
9

cellular telephones using a prerecorded message;

(2) Whether Defendant can meet their burden of showing that they obtained prior 

express written consent to make such calls;

(3) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing andwillful;

(4) Whether Defendant isliable for damages, and the amount of such damages;and

(5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.

47. The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s 

claim that Defendants routinely calls telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephone services is 

accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of being efficiently 

adjudicated and administered in this case.

TYPICALITY

48. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all based 

on the same factual and legal theories.

 PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS MEMBERS

49. Plaintiff is a representative who will fully and adequately assert and protect the interests 

of the Class and has retained competent counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff is an adequate representative 

and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.

 SUPERIORITY

50. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this lawsuit, because individual litigation of the claims of all members of the Class is 

economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. While the aggregate damages sustained by the 

Class are in the millions of dollars, the individual damages incurred by each member of the Class 

resulting from Defendant’s wrongful conduct are too small to warrant the expense of individual 

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 9 of 15
10

lawsuits. The likelihood of individual Class members prosecuting their own separate claims is remote, 

and, even if every member of the Class could afford individual litigation, the court system would be 

unduly burdened by individual litigation of suchcases.

51. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk of 

establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. For example, 

one court might enjoin Defendant from performing the challenged acts, whereas another may not. 

Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the Class, although certain class 

members are not parties to such actions.

COUNT I

Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Prerecorded Message Class)

52. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the paragraphs 1 through 51 of this Complaint and 

incorporates them by reference herein. 

53. It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for 

emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any 

automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded or artificial voice... to any telephone number 

assigned to a ... cellular telephone service ....” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

54. Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used prerecorded messages to 

make non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and other members of 

the Class.

55. These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained 

express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior 

express consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class 

when its calls were made. 

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 10 of 15
11

56. Defendant violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using pre-recorded 

messages to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other 

members of the putative Class without their prior express consent. 

57. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA, 

Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a 

minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an 

injunction against future calls. 

COUNT II

Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Prerecorded Message Class)

58. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 51. 

59. It is a violation of the TCPA to make “initiate any telephone call to any residential 

telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior 

express consent of the called party....” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). 

60. Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used pre-recorded calls to 

make non-emergency telephone calls to the telephones of Plaintiff and other members of the Class.

61. Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used pre-recorded calls which 

were not initiated for emergency purposes, and not solely pursuant to the collection of a debt owed 

to or guaranteed by the United States. 

62. These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained 

express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior 

express consent to call the telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class 

when its calls were made. 

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 11 of 15
12

63. Defendant violated § 227(b)(1)(B) of the TCPA by using a pre-recorded message 

to make non-emergency telephone calls to the telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the 

putative Class without their prior express consent. 

64. As a result of Defendant’ conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA, 

Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a 

minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an 

injunction against future calls. 

COUNT III

Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class)

65. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the paragraphs 1 through 51 of this Complaint and 

incorporates them by reference herein. 

66. The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o 

person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber 

who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who 

do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.” 

67. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that § 64.1200(c) and (d) “are applicable to any 

person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone 

numbers.”

68. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any 

call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity 

has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing 

calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity.” 

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 12 of 15
13

69. Any “person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month 

period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this 

subsection may” may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were 

promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone 

solicitations to which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c). 

70. Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated, 

telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry 

Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call 

Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained 

by the federal government. 

71. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call 

Registry Class received more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf 

of Defendants in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of Defendant’s 

conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class suffered actual damages 

and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled, inter alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for 

such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. 

72. To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, the 

Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages 

recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Antonio Alvarez, on behalf of himself and the other members of 

the Class, prays for the following relief: 

a. A declaration that Defendant’s practices described herein violate the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227; 

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 13 of 15
14

b. A declaration that Defendant’s violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, were willful and knowing;

c. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from using artificial and/or prerecorded 

messages to call telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephones without the prior express 

consent of the called party; 

d. An award of actual, statutory damages, and/or trebled statutory damages; and 

e. Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and Class Members hereby demand a trial by jury. 

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

Plaintiff demands that Defendant take affirmative steps to preserve all records, lists, electronic 

databases or other itemization of telephone numbers associated with Defendant and the calls as alleged 

herein.

Date: May 4, 2020.

Respectfully submitted, 

EISENBAND LAW, P.A.

/s/Michael Eisenband

515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

Michael Eisenband

Florida Bar No. 94235

Email: 

MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com 

Telephone: 954.533.4092

Counsel for Plaintiff

HIRALDO P.A.

Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 14 of 15
15

Florida Bar No. 030380

mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

Tel: 954-400-4713

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-21842-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 15 of 15