IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GLEN ELLYN PHARMACY, INC, )

on behalf of itself and a class, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 12 CV 2003

v. )

) Honorable Judge Feinerman

MISSION PHARMACAL COMPANY; ) Magistrate Judge Denlow

STAYMA CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC; )

LYNROSE LABS, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10, )

)

Defendants. )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

MATTERS COMMON TO MULTIPLE COUNTS

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc. brings this action to secure redress for

the actions of Defendants Mission Pharmacal Company, Stayma Consulting Services, LLC and

Lynrose Labs, LLC in sending or causing the sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone

facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §227

(“TCPA”), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 (“ICFA”), and the common law.

2. The TCPA expressly prohibits unsolicited fax advertising. Unsolicited fax

advertising damages the recipients. The recipient is deprived of its paper and ink or toner and the

use of its fax machine. The recipient also wastes valuable time it would have spent on something

else. Unsolicited faxes prevent fax machines from receiving and sending authorized faxes, cause

wear and tear on fax machines, and require labor to attempt to identify the source and purpose of

1

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:83
the unsolicited faxes.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with offices

in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, where it maintains telephone facsimile equipment.

4. Defendant Mission Pharmacal Company is a Texas corporation that has

offices in San Antonio, Texas.

5. Defendant Stayma Consulting Services, LLC is a Georgia limited liability

company that has offices in Alpharetta. GA.

6. Defendant Lynrose Labs, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company that

has offices in Alpharetta. GA.

7. Defendants John Does 1-10 are other natural or artificial persons that were 

involved in the sending of the facsimile advertisements described below. Plaintiff does not know

who they are. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1367. Brill v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7 Cir. 2005). th

9. This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1332(d) (Class Action

Fairness Act). Defendants are of diverse citizenship to at least one class member. On

information and belief, based on the economics of junk faxing, the number of class members

exceeds 100. On information and belief, based on the economics of junk faxing and the apparent

target audience of the faxes, the total amount in controversy, on a classwide basis, exceeds $5

million. (At $1500 per fax, this is satisfied if more than 3,334 faxes were sent; since at the

2

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:84
typical rates charged for fax advertising, this would only cost $50 to $100, it makes little or no

sense to send fewer faxes.)

10. Personal jurisdiction exists under 735 ILCS 5/2-209, in that defendants:

a. Have committed tortious acts in Illinois by causing the 

transmission of unlawful communications into the state.

b. Have transacted business in Illinois.

11. Venue in this District is proper for the same reason.

FACTS

12. On February 22, 2012, at about 10:26am, plaintiff Glen Ellyn Pharmacy,

Inc. received the unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit A on its facsimile machine.

13. Discovery may reveal the transmission of additional faxes as well. 

14. Defendants Mission Pharmacal Company, Stayma Consulting Services,

LLC and Lynrose Labs, LLC are responsible for sending or causing the sending of the faxes.

15. Defendant Mission Pharmacal Company, as the entity whose products or

services were advertised in the faxes, derived economic benefit from the sending of the faxes.

16. Defendant Mission Pharmacal Company either negligently or wilfully

violated the rights of plaintiff and other recipients in sending the faxes.

17. Plaintiff had no prior relationship with defendants and had not authorized

the sending of fax advertisements to plaintiff.

18. The faxes have a “remove” number at the bottom that is associated with

the mass broadcasting of advertising faxes.

19. On information and belief, the faxes attached hereto were sent as part of a

3

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:85
mass broadcasting of faxes.

20. On information and belief, defendants have transmitted similar unsolicited

fax advertisements to at least 40 other persons in Illinois.

21. There is no reasonable means for plaintiff or other recipients of

defendants’ unsolicited advertising faxes to avoid receiving illegal faxes. Fax machines must be

left on and ready to receive the urgent communications authorized by their owners.

COUNT I – TCPA

22. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-21. 

23. The TCPA makes unlawful the “use of any telephone facsimile machine,

computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine

...” 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(C).

24. The TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3), provides:

Private right of action.

A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court

of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State–

(A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations

prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,

(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a

violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation,

whichever is greater, or

(C) both such actions.

If the Court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this

subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court

may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal

to not more than 3 times the amount available under the subparagraph (B) of

this paragraph.

4

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:86
25. Plaintiff and each class member suffered damages as a result of receipt of

the unsolicited faxes, in the form of paper and ink or toner consumed as a result. Furthermore,

plaintiff’s statutory right of privacy was invaded.

26. Plaintiff and each class member is entitled to statutory damages.

27. Defendants violated the TCPA even if their actions were only negligent.

28. Defendants should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

29. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), plaintiff brings this claim on

behalf of a class, consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the

filing of this action (28 U.S.C. §1658), or such shorter period during which faxes were sent by or

on behalf of defendants, and on or before a date 20 days following the filing of this action, (c)

were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants promoting goods or services for sale (d) and with

respect to whom defendants cannot provide evidence of express consent or an established

business relationship prior to the faxing.

30. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 

Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that there are more than 40 members of the class.

31. There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate

over any questions affecting only individual class members. The predominant common

questions include:

a. Whether defendants engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited fax

advertisements;

5

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:87
b. The manner in which defendants compiled or obtained their list of

fax numbers;

c. Whether defendants thereby violated the TCPA;

d. Whether defendants thereby engaged in unfair acts and practices,

in violation of the ICFA.

 e. Whether defendants thereby converted the property of plaintiff.

32. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving

unlawful business practices. Neither plaintiff nor plaintiff's counsel have any interests which

might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action. 

 33. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members. All are

based on the same factual and legal theories.

34. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication

of this controversy. The interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of

separate claims against defendants is small because it is not economically feasible to bring

individual actions.

 35. Several courts have certified class actions under the TCPA. Sadowski v.

Med1 Online, LLC, 07 C 2973, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41766 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2008); Green v.

Service Master on Location Services Corp., 07 C 4705, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53297 (N.D. Ill.

June 22, 2009); CE Design v. Beaty Construction, Inc., 07 C 3340, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5842

(N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2009); Hinman v. M & M Rental Ctr., 06 C 1156, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

27835 (N.D. Ill. April 7, 2008); G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Group C Communs., Inc., 08 C 4521, 2010

6

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:88
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17843 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2010); Targin Sign Systems, Inc. v. Preferred

Chiropractic Center, Ltd., 679 F.Supp.2d 894 (N.D. Ill. 2010); Holtzman v. Turza, 08 C 2014,

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95620 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2009); G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Finish Thompson,

Inc., 07 C 5953, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73869 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2009); CE Design v. Cy’s

Crabhouse North, Inc., 259 F.R.D. 135 (N.D. Ill. 2009).

 36. Management of this class action is likely to present significantly fewer

difficulties that those presented in many class actions, e.g. for securities fraud.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of

plaintiff and the class and against defendants for:

a. Actual damages;

b. Statutory damages;

c. An injunction against the further transmission of unsolicited fax

advertising;

d. Costs of suit;

e. Such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II – ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

37. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-21. 

38. Defendants engaged in unfair acts and practices, in violation of ICFA § 2,

815 ILCS 505/2, by sending unsolicited fax advertising to plaintiff and others.

39. Unsolicited fax advertising is contrary to the TCPA and also Illinois law. 

720 ILCS 5/26-3(b) makes it a petty offense to transmit unsolicited fax advertisements to Illinois

residents.

7

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:89
40. Defendants engaged in an unfair practice by engaging in conduct that is

contrary to public policy, unscrupulous, and caused injury to recipients of their advertising.

41. Plaintiff and each class member suffered damages as a result of receipt of

the unsolicited faxes, in the form of paper and ink or toner consumed as a result. 

42. Defendants engaged in such conduct in the course of trade and commerce.

43. Defendants’ conduct caused recipients of their advertising to bear the cost

thereof. This gave defendants an unfair competitive advantage over businesses that advertise

lawfully, such as by direct mail. For example, an advertising campaign targeting one million

recipients would cost $500,000 if sent by U.S. mail but only $20,000 if done by fax broadcasting. 

The reason is that instead of spending $480,000 on printing and mailing his ad, the fax

broadcaster misappropriates the recipients’ paper and ink. “Receiving a junk fax is like getting

junk mail with the postage due”. Remarks of Cong. Edward Markey, 135 Cong Rec E 2549,

Tuesday, July 18, 1989, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.

 44. Defendants’ shifting of advertising costs to plaintiff and the class members

in this manner makes such practice unfair. In addition, defendants’ conduct was contrary to

public policy, as established by the TCPA and Illinois statutory and common law.

45. Defendants should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

46. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), plaintiff brings this claim on

behalf of a class, consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date

three years prior to the filing of this action, or such shorter period during which faxes were sent

8

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:90
by or on behalf of defendants, and on or before a date 20 days following the filing of this action,

(c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants promoting goods or services for sale (d) and

with respect to whom defendant cannot provide evidence of express consent or an established

business relationship prior to the faxing.

47. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 

Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that there are more than 40 members of the class.

48. There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate

over any questions affecting only individual class members. The predominant common

questions include:

a. Whether defendants engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited fax

advertisements;

b. Whether defendants thereby violated the TCPA;

c. Whether defendants thereby engaged in unfair acts and practices, in

violation of the ICFA.

 d. Whether defendants thereby converted the property of plaintiff.

 49. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving

unlawful business practices. Neither plaintiff nor plaintiff's counsel have any interests which

might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action. 

 50. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members. All are

based on the same factual and legal theories.

 51. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication

9

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:91
of this controversy. The interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of

separate claims against defendants is small because it is not economically feasible to bring

individual actions.

 52. Management of this class action is likely to present significantly fewer

difficulties that those presented in many class actions, e.g. for securities fraud.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of

plaintiff and the class and against defendants for:

a. Appropriate damages;

b. An injunction against the further transmission of unsolicited fax

advertising;

c. Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit;

d. Such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III – CONVERSION

53. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-21. 

54. By sending plaintiff and the class members unsolicited faxes, defendants

converted to their own use ink or toner and paper belonging to plaintiff and the class members.

55. Immediately prior to the sending of the unsolicited faxes, plaintiff and the

class members owned and had an unqualified and immediate right to the possession of the paper

and ink or toner used to print the faxes.

56. By sending the unsolicited faxes, defendants appropriated to their own use

the paper and ink or toner used to print the faxes and used them in such manner as to make them

unusable. Such appropriation was wrongful and without authorization. 

10

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:92
57. Defendants knew or should have known that such appropriation of the

paper and ink or toner was wrongful and without authorization. 

58. Plaintiff and the class members were deprived of the paper and ink or

toner, which could no longer be used for any other purpose. Plaintiff and each class member

thereby suffered damages as a result of receipt of the unsolicited faxes.

59. Defendants should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

60. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), plaintiff brings this claim on

behalf of a class, consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date

five years prior to the filing of this action, or such shorter period during which faxes were sent by

or on behalf of defendants, and on or before a date 20 days following the filing of this action, (c)

were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants promoting goods or services for sale (d) and with

respect to whom defendants cannot provide evidence of express consent or an established

business relationship prior to the faxing.

61. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 

Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that there are more than 40 members of the class.

62. There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate

over any questions affecting only individual class members. The predominant common

questions include:

a. Whether defendants engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited fax

advertisements;

11

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:93
b. Whether defendants thereby violated the TCPA;

c. Whether defendants thereby committed the tort of conversion;

d. Whether defendants thereby engaged in unfair acts and practices, in

violation of the ICFA.

 e. Whether defendants thereby converted the property of plaintiff.

 63. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving

unlawful business practices. Neither plaintiff nor plaintiff’s counsel have any interests which

might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action. 

 64. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members. All are

based on the same factual and legal theories.

 65. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication

of this controversy. The interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of

separate claims against defendants is small because it is not economically feasible to bring

individual actions.

 66. Management of this class action is likely to present significantly fewer

difficulties that those presented in many class actions, e.g. for securities fraud.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of

plaintiff and the class and against defendants for:

a. Appropriate damages;

b. An injunction against the further transmission of unsolicited fax

advertising;

12

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:94
c. Costs of suit;

d. Such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

s/ Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Michelle R. Teggelaar

Julie Clark

Heather A. Kolbus

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

13

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:95
NOTICE OF LIEN AND ASSIGNMENT

Please be advised that we claim a lien upon any recovery herein for 1/3 or such

amount as a court awards. All rights relating to attorney’s fees have been assigned to counsel.

s/ Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER

& GOODWIN, LLC

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

T:\26752\Pleading\First Amended Complaint_Pleading.WPD 

14

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:96
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Daniel A. Edelman, certify that on April 16, 2012, or as soon thereafter as service may be

effectuated, I caused a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document to be served, in the manner

set forth below, on the following parties:

Via hand delivery by Process Server:

Stayma Consulting Services, LLC

c/o Registered Agent Rick Henson or other individual authorized to accept service

11055 Callington Court

Suwanee, GA 30024

Lynrose Labs, LLC

c/o Registered Agent Rick Henson or other individual authorized to accept service

11055 Callington Court

Suwanee, GA 30024

Via ECF:

Bart Thomas Murphy

bart.murphy@icemiller.com

Thomas J Hayes 

thomas.hayes@icemiller.com

s/ Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Dulijaza (Julie) Clark

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18 Floor th

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

15

Case: 1:12-cv-02003 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:97