IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISON

NEWTON JOSEPH, individually

and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.:

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Newton Joseph (“Plaintiff”), files this Class Action Complaint against 

Defendant, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC (“Defendant”), alleging that 

Defendant failed to provide him and the putative class members with adequate notice of their 

right to continued health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”). In further support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:

BRIEF OVERVIEW

1. Defendant, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the Comcast 

Comprehensive Health and Welfare Benefit Plan (“the Plan”), has repeatedly violated ERISA 

by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as 

prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health insurance coverage following an 

occurrence of a “qualifying event” as defined by the statute. 

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 1 of 18
2

2. COBRA is a remedial statute that should be interpreted in favor of the 

employee. The legislative history makes clear Congress enacted COBRA in 1986 as a result 

of the reports of the growing number of Americans without any health insurance coverage and 

the decreasing willingness of our Nation’s hospitals to provide care to those who cannot afford 

to pay. The purpose behind its notice requirements is to facilitate and assist individuals in 

electing continuation coverage should they so choose, not discourage them from doing so as 

Comcast’s does. 

3. Defendant’s COBRA notice violates 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606–4(b)(4). It is not 

written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant because it 

attempts to scare individuals away from electing COBRA by including an ominous warning 

suggesting that the submission of even “incomplete” information when electing COBRA may 

result in civil, or even criminal, penalties. 

4. The election form also needlessly references a possible “$50 penalty from the 

IRS for each failure to provide an accurate tax identification number for a covered individual.” 

This information is thrown into Defendant’s notice without context, much less with an 

explanation of why potential criminal penalties, or IRS penalties, are somehow relevant to the 

COBRA election process. 

5. Threats of criminal penalties and IRS fines simply have no place in a COBRA 

election notice, a process which is supposed to facilitate COBRA coverage election rather than 

intimidating people into not electing coverage. Adding such information distorts the 

information provided in the notice while also discouraging people, including Plaintiff, from 

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 2 of 18
3

electing COBRA, and also violating 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606–4(b)(4)’s requirement that notices 

be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant. 

6. Additionally, Defendant’s COBRA notice also violates 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606–

4(b)(4)(v) because it includes conflicting information on when the COBRA continuation 

coverage form is actually due. Not only that, Defendant’s COBRA form violates 29 C.F.R. § 

2590.606–4(b)(4)(vi) because it fails to sufficiently identify the Plan Administrator. 

7. As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members’ ability to 

maintain their health coverage, Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys’ 

fees, costs and expenses, and other appropriate relief as set forth herein and provided by law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

because the events giving rise to these claims arose in this district.

9. Plaintiff is a Florida resident, resides in this district and was a participant in the 

Plan prior to his termination, a qualifying event within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1163(2). 

10. Defendant is a foreign corporation with its headquarters in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, and employed more than 20 employees who were members of the Plan in each

year from 2013 to 2019. Defendant is the Plan sponsor within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.

§1002(16)(B), and the administrator of the Plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 

1002(16)(A). The Plan provides medical benefits to employees and their beneficiaries, and is 

an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1) and a group health 

plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1167(1).

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 3 of 18
4

SUPPORTING LAW AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

COBRA Notice Requirements

11. The COBRA amendments to ERISA included certain provisions relating to 

continuation of health coverage upon termination of employment or another “qualifying event” 

as defined by the statute. 

12. Among other things, COBRA requires the plan sponsor of each group health 

plan normally employing more than 20 employees on a typical business day during the 

preceding year to provide “each qualified beneficiary who would lose coverage under the plan 

as a result of a qualifying event ... to elect, within the election period, continuation coverage 

under the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1161. (Emphasis added). 

13. Notice is of enormous importance. The COBRA notification requirement exists 

because employees are not presumed to know they have a federally protected right to continue 

healthcare coverage subsequent to a qualifying event.

14. COBRA further requires the administrator of such a group health plan to 

provide notice to any qualified beneficiary of their continuation of coverage rights under 

COBRA upon the occurrence of a qualifying event. 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a)(4). This notice must 

be “[i]n accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary” of Labor. 29 U.S.C. §

1166(a).

15. The relevant regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor concerning notice 

of continuation of coverage rights are set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4 as follows:

(4) The notice required by this paragraph (b) shall be written in a 

manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant and 

shall contain the following information:

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 4 of 18
5

(i) The name of the plan under which continuation coverage is 

available; and the name, address and telephone number of the 

party responsible under the plan for the administration of 

continuation coverage benefits;

(ii) Identification of the qualifying event;

(iii) Identification, by status or name, of the qualified 

beneficiaries who are recognized by the plan as being entitled to 

elect continuation coverage with respect to the qualifying event, 

and the date on which coverage under the plan will terminate (or 

has terminated) unless continuation coverage is elected;

(iv) A statement that each individual who is a qualified 

beneficiary with respect to the qualifying event has an 

independent right to elect continuation coverage, that a covered 

employee or a qualified beneficiary who is the spouse of the 

covered employee (or was the spouse of the covered employee 

on the day before the qualifying event occurred) may elect

continuation coverage on behalf of all other qualified 

beneficiaries with respect to the qualifying event, and that a 

parent or legal guardian may elect continuation coverage on 

behalf of a minor child;

(v) An explanation of the plan's procedures for electing 

continuation coverage, including an explanation of the time 

period during which the election must be made, and the date by 

which the election must be made;

(vi) An explanation of the consequences of failing to elect or 

waiving continuation coverage, including an explanation that a 

qualified beneficiary's decision whether to elect continuation 

coverage will affect the future rights of qualified beneficiaries 

to portability of group health coverage, guaranteed access to 

individual health coverage, and special enrollment under part 7 

of title I of the Act, with a reference to where a qualified 

beneficiary may obtain additional information about such 

rights; and a description of the plan's procedures for revoking a 

waiver of the right to continuation coverage before the date by 

which the election must be made;

(vii) A description of the continuation coverage that will be 

made available under the plan, if elected, including the date on 

which such coverage will commence, either by providing a 

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 5 of 18
6

description of the coverage or by reference to the plan's 

summary plan description;

(viii) An explanation of the maximum period for which 

continuation coverage will be available under the plan, if 

elected; an explanation of the continuation coverage termination 

date; and an explanation of any events that might cause 

continuation coverage to be terminated earlier than the end of 

the maximum period;

(ix) A description of the circumstances (if any) under which the 

maximum period of continuation coverage may be extended due 

either to the occurrence of a second qualifying event or a 

determination by the Social Security Administration, under title 

II or XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq. or 

1381 et seq.) (SSA), that the qualified beneficiary is disabled, 

and the length of any such extension;

(x) In the case of a notice that offers continuation coverage with 

a maximum duration of less than 36 months, a description of the 

plan's requirements regarding the responsibility of qualified 

beneficiaries to provide notice of a second qualifying event and 

notice of a disability determination under the SSA, along with a 

description of the plan's procedures for providing such notices, 

including the times within which such notices must be provided 

and the consequences of failing to provide such notices. The 

notice shall also explain the responsibility of qualified 

beneficiaries to provide notice that a disabled qualified 

beneficiary has subsequently been determined to no longer be

disabled;

(xi) A description of the amount, if any, that each qualified 

beneficiary will be required to pay for continuation coverage;

(xii) A description of the due dates for payments, the qualified 

beneficiaries' right to pay on a monthly basis, the grace periods 

for payment, the address to which payments should be sent, and 

the consequences of delayed payment and non-payment;

(xiii) An explanation of the importance of keeping the 

administrator informed of the current addresses of all 

participants or beneficiaries under the plan who are or may 

become qualified beneficiaries; and

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 6 of 18
7

(xiv) A statement that the notice does not fully describe 

continuation coverage or other rights under the plan, and that 

more complete information regarding such rights is available in 

the plan's summary plan description or from the plan

administrator.

16. To facilitate compliance with these notice obligations, the United States 

Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued a Model COBRA Continuation Coverage Election 

Notice (“Model Notice”), which is included in the Appendix to 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4. The 

DOL website states that the DOL “will consider use of the model election notice, appropriately 

completed, good faith compliance with the election notice content requirements of COBRA.”

17. In the event that a plan administrator declines to use the Model Notice and fails 

to meet the notice requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1166 and 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4, the 

administrator is subject to statutory penalties of up to $110.00 per participant or beneficiary 

per day from the date of such failure. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). Additionally, the Court may 

order such other relief as it deems proper, including but not limited to injunctive relief pursuant 

to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) and payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1132(g)(1). 

18. Here, Defendant failed to use the Model Notice and failed to meet the notice 

requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1166 and 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4, as set forth below.

Defendant’s Notice Is Inadequate and Fails to Comply with COBRA

19. Defendant did not use the Model Notice to notify plan participants of their right 

to continuation coverage even though the Model Notice adequately provides all required 

information and would have provided Defendant with a “safe harbor” if used. The Model 

Notice further demonstrates how the information can, and is required to, be written in a manner 

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 7 of 18
8

calculated to be understood by the average plan participant providing a near-foolproof way for 

persons to sign up for continuing coverage of their existing benefits. 

20. Rather than use the Model Notice, Defendant authored and disseminated a 

notice which omitted critical information required by law and needlessly included language 

meant to deter and otherwise “chill” election of COBRA benefits. The information Defendant 

omitted from its notice is information that is included in the Model Notice. 

21. The evidence will show Defendant used its deficient Notice to discourage 

participants from enrolling in continuation coverage. 

22. Defendant’s Notice violates several key COBRA requirements, specifically:

a. The notice violates 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606–4(b)(4)(v) because it 

includes conflicting information on the time period during which 

the election must be made, and the date by which the election 

must be made; 

b. The notice violates 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4)(i) because it 

fails to provide the name, address and telephone number of the 

party responsible under the plan for administration of 

continuation coverage benefits; and, finally, 

c. The notice violates 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4) because, by 

including threats of criminal penalties and IRS fines which 

simply have no place in a COBRA election notice, and by 

omitting the other required information set out above, Defendant 

failed to provide a notice “written in a manner calculated to be 

understood by the average plan participant.” 

23. Defendant’s COBRA Notice confused Plaintiff, and resulted in his inability to 

make an informed decision as to electing COBRA continuation coverage. 

24. As a result of the deficient notice, Plaintiff did not elect COBRA continuation 

coverage as those benefits for which he was eligible, including dental and life insurance.

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 8 of 18
9

25. Defendant’s deficient COBRA Notice caused Plaintiff an informational injury 

when Defendant failed to provide him with information to which he was entitled to by statute, 

namely a compliant COBRA election notice containing all information required by 29 C.F.R. 

§ 2590.606-4(b)(4) and 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a). 

26. Through ERISA and then COBRA, Congress created a right—the right to 

receive the required COBRA election notice—and an injury—not receiving a proper election 

notice with information required by 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4) and 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a). 

Defendant injured Plaintiff and the class members he seeks to represent by failing to provide 

the information required by COBRA. 

27. Besides the informational injury suffered, Plaintiff also suffered a tangible 

injury in the form of economic loss, specifically the loss of dental and life insurance coverage. 

Insurance coverage is an employer subsidized benefit of employment of monetary value, the 

loss of which is a tangible injury. 

Plaintiff Newton Joseph

28. Named Plaintiff Newton Joseph began working for Defendant as a Sales 

Representative on or around March 20, 2017, and he worked in this capacity until July 9, 2019. 

29. On or about July 9, 2019, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment. 

30. Plaintiff was not terminated for “gross misconduct” and was therefore eligible 

for continuation coverage. 

31. Plaintiff’s termination was a qualifying event, which triggered Defendant’s 

COBRA notice obligations. 

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 9 of 18
10

32. Following his termination, Defendant caused its COBRA administrator to mail 

Plaintiff the deficient COBRA notice.

33. The COBRA notice was not written in a manner calculated to be understood by 

the average plan participant. 

34. The COBRA notice did not provide Plaintiff with the substantive information 

to which he was entitled pursuant to federal law, as set out further below, giving rise to this 

lawsuit. 

35. Plaintiff was not required to exhaust any administrative remedies through 

Defendant prior to bringing suit because no such administrative remedies exist. Even if they 

did exist, any attempts to exhaust the administrative remedies would have been futile. 

Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4)

Defendant failed to provide notice written in a manner

calculated “to be understood by the average plan participant”

36. Whether a defendant’s COBRA notification complies with the law turns on 

whether the notice is understandable by an average plan participant. This requirement has been 

interpreted as an objective standard rather than requiring an inquiry into the subjective 

perception of the individual plan participants.

37. 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a)(4)(A) requires plan administrators to notify the former 

employee of their right to receive continuation coverage with a notice that must be sufficient 

to permit the discharged employee to make an informed decision whether to elect coverage.

38. As previously stated, Defendant’s notice omits any reference to the plan 

administrator’s name, address, and telephone number, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 10 of 18
11

4(b)(4)(i). It also includes contradictory dates as to the deadline for election. 29 C.F.R. § 

2590.606-4(b)(4)(v).

39. Not only that, Defendant’s COBRA notice includes language warning of and 

threatening certain criminal and IRS penalties for noncompliance with its notice procedures. 

40. Specifically, the notice includes the following language: “any person who 

knowingly provides materially false, incomplete, or misleading information is considered to 

have committed an act to defraud or deceive the Plan Sponsors. The filing of any application 

for insurance or other claim for benefits based on false, misleading, or incomplete information 

is a fraudulent act and may result in criminal or civil penalties.”1

 

41. The election form also needlessly references a possible “$50 penalty from the 

IRS for each failure to provide an accurate tax identification number for a covered individual.” 

42. Defendant first buries its “COBRA Election Form” in the middle of its 

voluminous “COBRA Election Notice Summary.”

43. And, adding to the confusion, Defendant placed its misleading “certification” 

immediately after the election form without any reference to it in the Defendant’s instructions 

on how to enroll using the paper election form in its “COBRA Election Notice Summary.” 

44. In fact, nowhere in Defendant’s “COBRA Election Notice Summary” are there 

instructions on what to do with the arbitrary “certification” form, including whether it is 

somehow required to enroll in COBRA.

 1 Though it is unclear which criminal or civil statute Defendant is referencing, the ominous language Defendant 

included in its “certification,” omits the required element of intent which limits such penalties only to those 

instances when incomplete, false, or misleading information is presented “with the intent to injure, defraud, or 

deceive any insurer.” Fla. Stat. § 817.234(1)(a).

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 11 of 18
12

45. Defendant further includes needless language of monetary penalties for failure 

to provide tax identification numbers for those electing COBRA benefits.

46. The DOL Model Notice and its COBRA Continuation Coverage election Form 

does not contain such a “certification” regarding possible IRS penalties. Yet the Model DOL 

still manages to convey the required information, and does so in only seven pages compared 

to Defendant’s nineteen pages of conflicting, inadequate, and misleading information.

47. Without the above required information, coupled with its inclusion of needless 

criminal and IRS penalties, Defendant’s notice is not sufficient to permit the discharged 

employee to make an informed decision whether to elect coverage. 

Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4)(v)

Conflicting dates provided for when election due 

48. Under COBRA, the plan administrator must allow the discharged employee and 

other qualified beneficiaries sixty (60) days from the date on which coverage ends under the 

plan, or 60 days from the date notice was given to decide whether or not to elect continuation 

of their group health plan coverage. § 1165(1). 

49. In addition, payment of the first premium is not due until 45 days after the date 

when election of continuation of coverage is made. § 1162(3). 

50. In the present case, Defendant’s notice provides information concerning how 

long the continuation of coverage will last and the amount of the premium. However, as to the 

enrollment deadline, Comcast’s COBRA form states on page 3 contains one deadline. 

51. But directly next to that information is a box clearly stating as follows: “If you 

do not complete the enrollment process within 60 days, you will lose your right to elect 

COBRA coverage.” These two dates cannot be reconciled. 

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 12 of 18
13

52. Plaintiff cannot truly make an informed decision regarding continuation 

coverage without knowing the specific, and correct, date when the election form is due. Not 

only that, the enrollment deadline also impacts the date for payment. 

53. Confusing or misleading notices, like that used by Comcast, about the duration 

of the election period and the 45 day grace period for payment of an initial premium for 

continuation coverage demonstrate Comcast has violated 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4)(v). 

Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4)(i)

Failure to Identify Plan Administrator

54. The COBRA notice provided to Plaintiff omitted important information 

identifying the party responsible under the Plan for administration of continuing coverage 

benefits. Instead, the third-party administrator, BenefitConnect, is identified, but that is not 

what the statute requires. Thus, Plaintiff was never informed who administers the continuation 

coverage, which is the Comcast entity named here. 

55. Defendant was required to provide “in a manner calculated to be understood by 

the average plan participant ... the name, address and telephone number of the party responsible 

under the plan for administration of continuation coverage benefits.” 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-

4(b)(4)(i). Defendant’s Notice failed to comply with this fundamental requirement. 

56. Defendant’s notice only identifies a third-party administrator. A third-party 

administrator is different from the Plan Administrator. Identifying the Plan Administrator is 

critical because the plan administrator bears the burden of proving that adequate COBRA 

notification was given to the employee, particularly in cases, like this, involving large 

corporations with multiple entities located throughout the country. 

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 13 of 18
14

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

57. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 Fed.R.Civ.P. on 

behalf of the following persons:

All participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant’s Health 

Plan who were the COBRA notice by Defendant, in the same 

form sent to Plaintiff, during the applicable statute of 

limitations period as a result of a qualifying event, as 

determined by Defendant, who did not elect COBRA.

58. No administrative remedies exist as a prerequisite to Plaintiff’s claim on behalf 

of the Putative Class. As such, any efforts related to exhausting such non-existent remedies 

would be futile. 

59. Numerosity: The Class is so numerous that joinder of all Class members is

impracticable. On information and belief, hundreds or thousands of individuals satisfy the 

definition of the Class.

60. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The COBRA notice that

Defendantsent to Plaintiff was a form notice that was uniformly provided to all Class members.

As such, the COBRA notice that Plaintiff received was typical of the COBRA notices that 

other Class Members received, and suffered from the same deficiencies.

61. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class 

members; she has no interests antagonistic to the class, and has retained counsel experienced 

in complex class action litigation.

62. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of

the Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class, 

including but not limited to:

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 14 of 18
15

a. Whether the Plan is a group health plan within the meaning of 

29 U.S.C. § 1167(1);

b. Whether Defendant’s COBRA notice complied with the 

requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a) and 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-

4;

c. Whether statutory penalties should be imposed against 

Defendant under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) for failing to comply 

with COBRA notice requirements, and if so, in what amount;

d. The appropriateness and proper form of any injunctive relief or 

other equitable relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3); and, 

finally, 

e. Whether (and the extent to which) other relief should be granted 

based on Defendant’s failure to comply with COBRA notice

requirements.

63. Class Members do not have an interest in pursuing separate individual actions 

against Defendant, as the amount of each Class Member’s individual claims is relatively small 

compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution. 

64. Class certification will also obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation 

that might result in inconsistent judgments concerning Defendant’s practices and the adequacy 

of its COBRA notice. Moreover, management of this action as a class action will not present 

any likely difficulties. In the interests of justice and judicial efficiency, it would be desirable 

to concentrate the litigation of all Class Members’ claims in a single action.

65. Plaintiff intends to send notice to all Class Members. The names and addresses 

of the Class Members are available from Defendant’s records, as well as from Defendant’s 

third-party COBRA administrator. 

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 15 of 18
16

CLASS CLAIM I FOR RELIEF

Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1), ERISA § 502(c), and

29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4

66. The Plan is a group health plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1167(1).

67. Defendant is the sponsor and administrator of the Plan, and was subject to the 

continuation of coverage and notice requirements of COBRA.

68. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class experienced a “qualifying event” 

as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1163, and Defendant was aware that they had experienced such a 

qualifying event.

69. On account of such qualifying event, Defendant sent Plaintiff and the Class 

Members a COBRA notice.

70. The COBRA notice that Defendant sent to Plaintiff and other Class Members 

violated 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a), ERISA § 502(c), and 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4 for the reasons set 

forth above. 

71. These violations were material and willful.

72. Defendant knew that its notice was inconsistent with the Secretary of Labor’s 

Model Notice and failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a), ERISA § 502(c), and 29 C.F.R. 

§ 2590.606-4, but chose to use a non-compliant notice in deliberate or reckless disregard of 

the rights of Plaintiff and other Class Members.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, prays for relief as

follows:

a. Designating Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for the Class;

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 16 of 18
17

b. Issuing proper notice to the Class at Defendant’s expense;

c. Declaring that the COBRA notice sent by Defendant to Plaintiffs and 

other Class Members violated 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a) and 29 C.F.R. §

2590.606-4;

d. Awarding appropriate equitable relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

1132(a)(3), including but not limited to an order enjoining Defendant 

from continuing to use its defective COBRA notice and requiring 

Defendant to send corrective notices;

e. Awarding statutory penalties to the Class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

1132(c)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 2575.502c-1 in the amount of $110.00 per 

day for each Class Member who was sent a defective COBRA notice by

Defendant;

f. Awarding attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses to Plaintiffs’ counsel as 

provided by 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) and other applicable law; and

g. Granting such other and further relief, in law or equity, as this Court 

deems appropriate.

h. Designating Plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel for the Class;

i. Issuing proper notice to the Class at Defendant’s expense;

j. Declaring that the COBRA notice sent by Defendant to Plaintiffs and 

other Class Members violated 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a) and 29 C.F.R. §

2590.606-4;

k. Awarding appropriate equitable relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

1132(a)(3), including but not limited to an order enjoining Defendant

from continuing to use its defective COBRA notice and requiring 

Defendant to send corrective notices;

l. Awarding statutory penalties to the Class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

1132(c)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 2575.502c-1 in the amount of $110 per day 

for each Class Member who was sent a defective COBRA notice by

Defendant;

m. Awarding attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses to Plaintiffs’ counsel as 

provided by 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) and other applicable law; and

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 17 of 18
18

n. Granting such other and further relief, in law or equity, as this Court 

deems appropriate.

Dated this 25th day of June, 2020. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LUIS A. CABASSA, ESQ.

Florida Bar Number: 053643

Direct No.: 813-379-2565

BRANDON J. HILL, ESQ.

Florida Bar Number: 37061

Direct No.: 813-337-7992

WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.

1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300

Tampa, Florida 33602

Main No.: 813-224-0431

Facsimile: 813-229-8712

Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com

Email: bhill@wfclaw.com

Email: gnichols@wfclaw.com

and

CHAD A. JUSTICE

Florida Bar Number: 121559

JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC

1205 N. Franklin Street, Suite 326

Tampa, Florida 33602

Direct No. 813-566-0550

Facsimile: 813-566-0770 

E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 18 of 18