IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

GRANT BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN PARKES, SUSAN 

VIGUS, and REGINA STONE, on behalf of themselves 

and classes of others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., ECONOMIC 

STRATEGY GROUP, ECONOMIC STRATEGY 

GROUP, INC., ECONOMIC STRATEGY, LLC, THE 

BERKLEY GROUP, INC., and VACATION 

OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INC., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-04069

Related to: Case No. 1:13-cv-00903

 Case No. 1:13-cv-00908

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Grant Birchmeier (“Birchmeier”), Stephen Parkes (“Parkes”), Susan Vigus 

(“Vigus”), and Regina Stone (“Stone,” and together with Birchmeier, Parkes, and Vigus, 

“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and classes of others similarly situated, for their 

Consolidated Complaint against Defendants Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (“Caribbean Cruise 

Line”), Economic Strategy Group, Economic Strategy Group, Inc., Economic Strategy LLC 

(collectively the “Economic Strategy Group Companies”), The Berkley Group, Inc. (“Berkley 

Group”), and Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc. (“VOMT,” and collectively, 

“Defendants”), state as follows:

Introduction

1. During at least the past eighteen months, Defendants have embarked on a venture 

to systematically call thousands of consumers on their cellular and landline telephones to offer 

them a “free” cruise package from Caribbean Cruise Line in exchange for taking a supposed 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:658
2

political survey conducted by an entity claiming to be “Political Opinions of America” (“POA”). 

This survey is little more than a pretext for unsolicited telemarketing, which, as the Washington 

Attorney General’s Office has described, involves “the patent illegality of commercial robocalling and misrepresentations that it’s a political poll.” Not only is the “free” cruise not free, the 

survey is simply a marketing tool with no legitimate political basis.

2. Nor is POA a legitimate survey organization. When operative, POA’s website 

provided no contact information, and although POA purportedly “works with many of [sic] Non 

Profit and Political research organizations in conduction surveys and opinion polls on the nations 

[sic] top issues,” its website identified no such clients, surveys, or opinion polls.

3. The Economic Strategy Group Companies do not appear to conduct any business 

other than sham surveys. POA and the Economic Strategy Group Companies are a front, used to 

sell vacation packages and time share condominiums for Berkley, Caribbean Cruise Line, and 

VOMT. To that end, Defendants collectively launched a massive “robo-calling” campaign, 

indiscriminately calling consumers while misrepresenting themselves as conducting a political 

survey. Robo-dialing campaigns are regulated by federal law because of the potential for such 

campaigns to harass millions of telephone subscribers per month.

4. Each time Defendants called a Class member’s telephone to perpetuate this 

scheme, they knowingly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (“TCPA”) 

prohibitions against calling telephone numbers using an automated telephone dialing system 

(“ATDS”) and/or artificial or prerecorded voice. See 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. 

5. Plaintiffs seek to recover statutorily set damages as well as treble damages from 

Defendants for their repeated violations of the TCPA.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:659
3

Jurisdiction and Venue

6. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331, as the action arises under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 

et seq. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as a substantial part of the conduct giving 

rise to the claims occurred here.

Parties and Other Entities

Plaintiffs

7. Named Plaintiff Birchmeier is a natural person domiciled in Illinois, with a 

cellular telephone number that has a suburban Chicago area code. Birchmeier personally 

experienced the misconduct alleged herein when he received a telephone call made by or on 

behalf of Defendants on his cellular telephone.

8. Named Plaintiff Parkes is a natural person domiciled in Illinois, with a cellular 

telephone number that has a Chicago area code. Parkes personally experienced the misconduct 

alleged herein when he received multiple telephone calls made by or on behalf of Defendants on 

his cellular telephone.

9. Named Plaintiff Vigus is a natural person domiciled in Missouri. Vigus personally 

experienced the misconduct alleged herein when she received unsolicited telephone calls made 

by or on behalf of Defendants on her cellular telephone.

10. Named Plaintiff Stone is a natural person domiciled in Louisiana. She personally 

experienced the misconduct alleged herein when she received multiple telephone calls made by 

or on behalf of Defendants on her cellular and landline telephones. 

Defendants

11. Defendant Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. is a corporation incorporated and existing 

under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business located at 2419 E. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:660
4

Commercial Boulevard, Suite 100, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. Caribbean Cruise Line does 

not operate its own cruise ships, but instead places travelers on the MV Bahamas Celebration, 

which is operated by Celebration Cruise Line. According to their most recent Annual Reports, 

Caribbean Cruise Line and Celebration Cruise Line are headquartered in the same office building 

in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In addition, Caribbean Cruise Line and Celebration Cruise Line are 

run by the same principals, as is VOMT. Moreover, Caribbean Cruise Line’s principal place of 

business is listed as the mailing address for National Travel Service, Inc. on that company’s 

annual report filed with the Florida Secretary of State. In 2000, National Travel Service, Inc. 

entered into a settlement agreement with Attorney Generals’ from 16 states and the District of 

Columbia for running a scam involving “free” vacation packages.

12. Defendant Economic Strategy Group is a political action committee registered 

with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), with a Delaware address and a Delaware 

registered agent. According to documents it filed with the FEC, Economic Strategy Group has 

neither raised nor disbursed any money since its founding in November 2011.

13. Defendant Economic Strategy Group, Inc. is a corporation incorporated and 

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware that was formed in September 2011.

14. Defendant Economic Strategy LLC is a (now dissolved) limited liability company 

incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of 

business located at 10060 Lake Cove Drive, K101, Fort Meyers, Florida 33908. The manager 

and registered agent of Economic Strategy LLC is Jacob DeJongh, who also serves as the 

treasurer of Economic Strategy Group, the political action committee.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:661
5

15. Defendant The Berkley Group, Inc. is a corporation incorporated and existing 

under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business located at 3015 N.

Ocean Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308.

16. Defendant Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc. is a corporation 

incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of 

business located at 2419 E. Commercial Boulevard, Suite 100, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308, 

the same address as Defendant Caribbean Cruise Line. VOMT is the primary marketing vendor 

for the Berkley Group, and through that contractual relationship, the Berkley Group expressly 

acknowledges that VOMT will utilize affiliated companies in carrying out its duties to the 

Berkley Group.

17. Non-party Political Opinions of America (“POA”) is a front for Defendants to sell 

“free” cruise packages and time shares to unsuspecting consumers. POA is one of a number of 

fake survey groups set up to sell Defendants’ vacation packages; others include “EFA Survey 

Group,” “ERG Research Group,” the “Independent Survey Group,” and “United Public Opinion 

Group.”

General Factual Background

18. Using an ATDS and/or prerecorded messages, i.e., “robo-calling”, is a cheap and 

efficient method of reaching millions of consumers nationwide. Defendants acquired or 

randomly generated lists of phone numbers and dialed those phone numbers using automated 

dialing equipment and then delivered messages using an artificial or prerecorded voice. The 

numbers called by Defendants included both cellular telephone and residential landline numbers. 

Defendants placed (or directed to be placed for their own benefit and on their behalf), the robocalls from numerous telephone numbers with area codes from around the country.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:662
6

19. Defendants conducted this activity by robo-calling consumers to offer a “free” 

cruise if the call recipient took a survey, which was nothing more than a sham designed to help 

Defendants sell vacation packages and time shares.

20. Consumers robo-called by Defendants did not, in any capacity, consent to receive 

such calls. Instead, Defendants placed (or directed to be placed for their benefit and on their 

behalf) calls from a third-party or randomly generated list of phone numbers without 

authorization.

21. According to its website, Caribbean Cruise Line offers consumers a “free roundtrip Caribbean Cruise Line cruise with meals and entertainment included to and from Grand 

Bahama Island, with no purchase necessary.”

22. In exchange for the purportedly free cruise, passengers are required to attend “a 

presentation on the sale” of a Berkley Group time share. 

23. VOMT, which is owned and operated by the same individuals (and out of the 

same office) as Caribbean Cruise Line, is a marketing partner of both Caribbean Cruise Line and 

the Berkley Group, and all of those entities directly benefited from the calls that Plaintiffs and 

the putative Classes received.

24. Defendants each were aware that the above described robo-calls were being made 

either by them directly or on their behalf, and that the robo-calls were being made to consumers 

without Defendants engaging in any mechanism to obtain valid express consent to make such 

calls. Because the robo-calls were made by or on behalf of all Defendants, and each Defendant 

individually monetarily (and knowingly) benefited from the calls, all Defendants are liable for 

violating the TCPA’s prohibition on calling telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice 

without prior express consent.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:663
7

Facts Relating to Named Plaintiffs

25. As described below, Defendants made robo-calls to each of the Plaintiffs in which 

they were offered a free cruise for taking a purported survey.

26. On May 7, 2012, a telephone call was made to Birchmeier’s cellular telephone 

number by or on behalf of POA using an ATDS and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to 

deliver a message. Upon answering the call, Birchmeier was greeted by a recorded message 

informing him that he would receive a free cruise if he took a political survey. 

27. In 2012, at least nine calls were made to Parkes' cellular telephone number by or 

on behalf of POA using an ATDS and/or delivering a message using an artificial or prerecorded 

voice. Parkes repeatedly tried to remove himself from POA’s call list by following recorded 

prompts that purport to remove telephone numbers from POA’s call list, but Defendants failed to 

honor those requests and continued making unwanted calls.

28. Between April 27, 2012 and June 20, 2012, numerous phone calls were made to 

Plaintiff Stone's two cellular telephone numbers and a landline telephone number by or on behalf 

of POA, using an ATDS and/or delivering a message using an artificial or prerecorded voice. 

When Stone answered the calls, she heard a recorded voice promoting a free cruise in exchange 

for answering a series of questions. The robo-calls stated that the questions and call were on 

behalf of “Political Opinions of America” and/or “Independent Survey Group.” Stone’s cellular 

and landline telephone numbers have been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry 

since at least 2009.

29. In 2012, at least two telephone calls were made to Vigus' cellular telephone 

number by or on behalf of POA using an ATDS and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to 

deliver a message. The prerecorded calls indicated that Vigus would receive two free cruise 

tickets in exchange for taking an automated survey.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:664
8

30. The above-described calls violated the TCPA’s restrictions on a) using an 

automated telephone dialing systems and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to call cellular 

telephone numbers and/or b) using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message to a 

residential telephone line that included the transmission of a telephone solicitation or an 

unsolicited advertisement. Further, Defendants acted “knowingly” within the meaning of the 

TCPA by knowingly calling consumers’ telephones using an automated telephone dialing 

systems and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to make such calls. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(3), Plaintiffs are entitled to the greater of the amount of their actual damages or $500 per 

call together, trebled.

Class Allegations

31. Plaintiffs jointly seek to represent themselves and a class of others similarly 

situated, which is defined as follows:

Cellular Telephone Class: All persons in the United States to whom (1) one 

or more telephone calls were made by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the 

Defendants; (2) purportedly offering a free cruise in exchange for taking an 

automated survey; (3) which delivered a message using a prerecorded or 

artificial voice; (4) to a telephone number assigned to a cellular service; (5) 

since May 24, 2008.

Plaintiff Stone seeks to represent herself and a class of others similarly situated, 

which is defined as follows: 

Landline Telephone Class: All persons in the United States to whom (1) one

or more telephone calls were made by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the 

Defendants; (2) purportedly offering a free cruise in exchange for taking an 

automated survey; (3) which delivered a message using a prerecorded or 

artificial voice; (4) to a residential landline telephone number; (5) since May 

24, 2008.

32. Excluded from the Classes are 1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents, subsidiaries, 

parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or their parents have a 

controlling interest and their current and former employees, officers, and directors; 2) the Judge 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:665
9

or Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s or Magistrate Judge’s 

immediate family; 3) persons who execute and file a timely request for exclusion; 4) the legal 

representatives, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person; and 5) Plaintiffs’ counsel 

and Defendants’ counsel.

33. The individuals in the Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impractical. Plaintiffs estimate that the Classes number in at least the thousands because, inter 

alia,

a. Upon information and belief, Caribbean Cruise Line is responsible for booking 

approximately 30% of all passengers who travel on Celebration Cruise Line’s 

1,500 passenger cruise ship, which sails every two days (meaning that Celebration 

Cruise Line can carry 3,000 or more passengers each week, and that Caribbean 

Cruise Line is booking up to 1,000 of those passengers). To book such a high 

number of passengers through its telemarketing efforts, Caribbean Cruise Line 

must contact a significantly higher number of potential passengers each week. 

Thus, Caribbean Cruise Line is undoubtedly contacting many thousands of Class 

members each week; and

b. Hundreds of complaints appear online related to receiving unwanted robo-calls 

from POA. 

34. There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiffs and 

the Classes, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual 

members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes include, but are not necessarily 

limited to the following:

a. Whether Defendants have a policy or practice of using artificial or prerecorded 

voice messaging to make telemarketing calls;

b. Whether Defendants have proper procedures in place to prevent the use of 

artificial or prerecorded voice messaging when making telemarketing calls;

c. Whether Defendants systematically place calls using a prerecorded or artificial 

voice to persons that did not previously provide Defendants with consent to call 

their respective telephone numbers;

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:666
10

d. Whether the calls made by Defendants using a prerecorded or artificial voice 

violated Class members’ respective rights to privacy;

e. Whether Defendants violated the TCPA; and

f. Whether the Defendants acted knowingly in violating the TCPA. 

35. The Named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of other members of the 

Classes, in that Plaintiffs and the Class members sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ 

uniform wrongful conduct and unsolicited telemarketing activities. Specifically, each Plaintiff 

received an unsolicited robo-call purporting to be on behalf of POA offering vacation packages 

in exchange for taking a political survey. 

36. The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the 

Classes. The Named Plaintiffs have retained skilled counsel with experience in federal and class 

action litigation to represent the Class. Plaintiffs have no interest antagonistic to those of the 

Class, and Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiffs.

COUNT I 

Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(iii)

(On behalf of Plaintiffs and the Cellular Telephone Class, as against all Defendants)

37. Plaintiffs incorporate each and every paragraph of this complaint as if fully set 

forth herein.

38. Defendants and/or their agents made unsolicited telephone calls to cellular 

telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Cellular Telephone 

Class without their prior express consent.

39. Defendants and/or their agents made unsolicited telephone calls to cellular 

telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Cellular Telephone 

Class using a prerecorded or artificial voice, more commonly known as a “robo-call.”

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:667
11

40. By making, or having made on their behalf, the unsolicited robo-calls utilizing an 

artificial or prerecorded voice to Plaintiffs’ and the Cellular Telephone Class’s cellular

telephones without prior express consent, Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(iii).

41. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Cellular Telephone Class suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive the 

unsolicited telephone calls—including, but not limited to the cost for each call—and therefore, 

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the other members of the Cellular Telephone Class, seek 

an Order under section 227(b)(3)(B) awarding a minimum of $500 in damages for each of 

Defendants’ violations of the TCPA.

42. Further, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the other members of the Cellular 

Telephone Class, seek an Order under section 227(b)(3)(A) of the TCPA enjoining Defendants’ 

unlawful telephone calling activities described in this Complaint.

43. By all of the above, the Defendants engaged in knowing violations of the TCPA’s 

restriction on using artificial or prerecorded voice to call Plaintiffs’ and Cellular Telephone Class

members’ telephones.

44. Should the Court determine that Defendants’ conduct was knowing, it may, under 

section 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiffs and the

other members of the Cellular Telephone Class.

COUNT II

Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B)

(On behalf of Plaintiff Stone and the Landline Telephone Class, as against all Defendants)

45. Plaintiff Stone incorporates each and every paragraph of this complaint as if fully 

set forth herein.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:668
12

46. Defendants and/or their agents made unsolicited telephone calls to residential 

landline telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff Stone and the other members of the Landline 

Telephone Class without their prior express consent.

47. Defendants and/or their agents made unsolicited telephone calls to telephone 

numbers belonging to Plaintiff Stone and the other members of the Landline Telephone Class

using a prerecorded or artificial voice, more commonly known as a “robo-call.”

48. By making, or having made on their behalf, the unsolicited robo-calls utilizing an 

artificial or prerecorded voice to Plaintiff Stone and the other members of the Landline 

Telephone Class’s landline telephones without prior express consent, Defendants have violated 

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B).

49. Plaintiff Stone, on behalf of herself and the other members of the Landline 

Telephone Class, seeks an Order under section 227(b)(3)(B) awarding a minimum of $500 in 

damages for each of Defendants’ violations of the TCPA.

50. Further, Plaintiff Stone, on behalf of herself and the other members of the 

Landline Telephone Class, seeks an Order under section 227(b)(3)(A) of the TCPA enjoining 

Defendants’ unlawful telephone calling activities described in this Complaint.

51. By all of the above, Defendants engaged in knowing violations of the TCPA’s 

restriction on using artificial or prerecorded voice to call Plaintiff Stone’s and the other members 

of the Landline Telephone Class’s residential landline telephones.

52. Should the Court determine that Defendants’ conduct was knowing, it may, under 

section 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiff Stone and

the other members of the Landline Telephone Class.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:669
13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Classes, pray for the 

following relief:

1. An order certifying the Classes, as defined above: appointing Plaintiffs Grant 

Birchmeier, Stephen Parkes, Regina Stone, and Susan Vigus, as Class 

Representatives; and appointing Interim Co-Lead Counsel Jay Edleson of Edelson 

LLC and Scott R. Rauscher of Loevy & Loevy as Class Counsel;

2. An award of actual and statutory damages;

3. An injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unsolicited phone call activities, 

and otherwise protecting the interests of the Classes;

4. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

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

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable.

By: /s/ Jay Edelson

Counsel for Stone, and Interim Co-Lead 

Counsel

Jay Edelson

Rafey S. Balabanian

Christopher L. Dore

Eve-Lynn J. Rapp

EDELSON LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Telephone: (312) 589-6370

Email: jedelson@edelson.com

rbalabanian@edelson.com

cdore@edelson.com

erapp@edelson.com

By: /s/ Scott R. Rauscher

Counsel for Birchmeier and Parkes, and Interim 

Co-Lead Counsel

Scott R. Rauscher 

Jonathan I. Loevy

Arthur R. Loevy 

Michael I. Kanovitz 

LOEVY & LOEVY

312 N. May Street, Suite 100 

Chicago, Illinois 60607

Telephone: (312) 243-5900

Email: scott@loevy.com

jon@loevy.com

loevylaw@loevy.com

mike@loevy.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:670
14

Scott D. Owens 

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.

664 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard

Hallandale, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 306-8104

Email: scott@scottdowens.com

Counsel for Vigus

George Lang 

ANDERSON & WANCA 

3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 

Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008 

Telephone: (847) 368-1500 

Email: glang@andersonwanca.com

John S. Steward, #45932

Steward Law Firm, LLC

1717 Park Avenue

St. Louis, Missouri 63104

Telephone: (314) 571-7134

Email: Glaw123@aol.com

 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 102 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:671