IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

Grant Birchmeier and Stephen Parkes, ) 

on behalf of themselves and a class ) 

of others similarly situated, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. _____ 

) 

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., ) 

Political Opinions of America, and ) 

Unknown Individual Defendants. ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

COMPLAINT

 NOW COME Plaintiffs, Grant Birchmeir (“Birchmeir”) and Stephen Parkes (“Parkes,” and 

together with Birchmeir, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and a Class of others similarly 

situated, and for their complaint against Defendants Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Political 

Opinions of America, and Unknown Individual Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”), state as 

follows: 

Introduction

1. Defendants have illegally contacted thousands of class members on their cellular 

telephones to offer the class members a “free” cruise package from Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. 

in exchange for taking a supposed political survey conducted by Political Opinions of America 

(“POA”). This is a scam, which, as the Washington Attorney General’s Office has described, 

involves “the patent illegality of commercial robo-calling and misrepresentations that it’s a 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
2 

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. POA’s website provides 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 identifies no such clients, surveys, or opinion polls. 

3. Rather, POA is a front, used to market time share condominiums for Defendant 

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc (“Caribbean”). To that end, they have launched a massive “robodialing” campaign, indiscriminately calling potential customers 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 literally millions of telephone 

subscribers per month. 

4. As challenged in this suit, each time Defendants called a class member’s cellular

telephone to perpetuate this scam they knowingly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act’s (“TCPA”) prohibitions against calling cellular telephone numbers using automatic dialing 

technology and/or with an artificial or prerecorded voice without the prior express consent of 

the class member. 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. 

Jurisdiction and Venue

6. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, as this case 

involves claims under the TCPA, and at least one Class member is a citizen of a different state 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
3 

than at least one of the Defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. 

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

7. Named Plaintiff Birchmeir is a citizen of Illinois, residing in suburban Cook

County, Illinois, with a cellular telephone number that has a suburban Chicago area code. 

Birchmeir personally experienced the misconduct alleged herein, when he received an 

unsolicited telephone call from Defendants on his cellular telephone. 

8. Named Plaintiff Parkes is a citizen of Illinois, residing in Chicago, Illinois, with a 

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

misconduct alleged herein, when he received multiple unsolicited telephone calls from 

Defendants on his cellular telephone. 

9. Defendant Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal 

place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Upon information and belief, 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, Inc.’s 

principal place of business is listed as the mailing address for National Travel Service, Inc. on 

that company’s latest annual report filed with the Florida Secretary of State. In 2000, National 

Travel Service entered into a settlement agreement with Attorney Generals’ from 16 states and 

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

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
4 

10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Political Opinions of America (“POA”) is 

an operating unit of Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., and is nothing more than a front to sell “free” 

cruise packages to unsuspecting consumers. 

11. The Unknown Individual Defendants are the individuals responsible for designing 

and implementing Defendants’ TCPA violations. 

12. Non-party The Berkley Group, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place 

of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

13. Upon information and belief, non-party Vacation Village is a trademark of The 

Berkley Group, Inc. 

Facts Relating to Named Plaintiffs

14. On May 7, 2012, Birchmeir received a telephone call from POA on his cellular 

telephone using automatic dialing technology and/or using an artificial or prerecorded voice. 

Upon answering the call, Birchmeir was greeted by a recorded message informing him that he 

would receive a free cruise if he took a political survey. Birchmeir declined to take the survey. 

Birchmeir had not consented to receive such a call. 

15. In 2012, Parkes has received at least nine calls from POA on his cellular 

telephone using automatic dialing technology and/or using an artificial of prerecorded voice. 

Parkes has not consented to receiving such calls. In fact, Parkes has 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 have simply ignored those requests and continued 

making unwanted calls. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
5 

16. The above-described calls violated the TCPA’s restriction on using any automatic 

telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to call cellular telephones. 

Further, Defendants acted “knowingly” within the meaning of the TCPA by knowingly calling a 

cellular telephone using any automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or 

prerecorded voice to call, without the prior express consent of the individual being called. 

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. 

Relationship Between Defendants And Related Entities

17. Upon information and belief, POA is an operating unit of Caribbean Cruise Line 

and/or an organization that Caribbean Cruise Line has directed to make calls to class members, 

as evidenced by the fact that individuals are transferred to Caribbean Cruise Line 

representatives immediately after taking the POA survey. 

18. 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.” 

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

presentation on the sale of independent vacation ownership resorts such as Vacation Village at 

Bonaventure and Vacation Village at Parkway.” As alleged above, Vacation Village is a 

trademark of the Berkley Group. 

20. Because POA contacts consumers on behalf of and/or at the direction of 

Caribbean Cruise Line, both companies, as well as the Unknown Individual Defendants who 

masterminded the scam, are liable for violating the TCPA’s prohibition on calling cellular 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
6 

telephones using automatic dialing technology and/or with an artificial or prerecorded voice 

without prior express consent. See In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Request of ACA International for Clarification and Declaratory 

Ruling, FCC 07-232, 23 F.C.C.R. 559, 565, CG Docket No. 02-278 (Dec. 28, 2007). 

Class Allegations

21. Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and a class of others similarly situated. 

The class consists of: 

All persons who have received a telephone call deployed by Defendants,

purportedly on behalf of POA, to his/her cellular telephone number using an 

automatic telephone dialing system and/or using an artificial or prerecorded 

voice since May 24, 2008. 

22. The individuals in the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impractical. Plaintiffs estimate that the Class numbers 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. 

b. More than 285 million Americans, making up approximately 91% of the

population, are mobile telephone subscribers, according to wireless industry 

surveys. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
7 

c. The nature of automatic telephone dialing systems and artificial or prerecorded 

voice messaging equipment is that they are used to contact large numbers of 

people over short periods of time. 

23. There are questions of law and fact common to the claims of the Class. Among 

these common questions are: 

a. Whether the Defendants have a policy or practice of using automatic telephone 

dialing systems and/or artificial or prerecorded voice messaging equipment to

call cellular telephone numbers; 

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

automatic telephone dialing systems and/or artificial or prerecorded voice 

messaging equipment to call cellular telephone numbers; 

c. Whether Defendants thereby violate the TCPA; 

d. Whether the Defendants acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA. 

24. The Named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class. 

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

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

action litigation to represent the Class. 

26. The questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any 

individual issues. 

COUNT I – Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act - Against All Defendants

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

forth herein. 

28. By all of the above, the Defendants engaged in willful and knowing violations of 

the TCPA’s restriction on using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or 

prerecorded voice to call cellular telephones. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
8 

29. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class were damaged as a direct and proximate 

result. 

30. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), they are entitled to the greater of the amount 

of their actual damages or $500 per call, trebled, together with the costs and fees herein. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Birchmeir and Parkes demand judgment against Defendants, 

awarding the greater of the amount of their actual damages or $500 per call, trebled, together 

with the costs and fees herein. Plaintiffs further demand that the Court certify the class and

establish a common fund of the trebled actual or statutorily prescribed damages recovered for 

the class, enjoin the continued violations and allow any and all other and/or future relief to 

which the class may appear entitled. 

Jury Demand

 Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

 

Dated: May 24, 2012 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

 

 __/s/Scott R. Rauscher _____ 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 

Arthur Loevy (ARDC Number 1682479) 

Michael Kanovitz (ARDC Number 6275233) 

Jon Loevy (ARDC Number 6218254) 

Scott R. Rauscher (ARDC Number 6287162) 

LOEVY & LOEVY 

312 N. May St., Suite 100 

Chicago, IL 60607 

(312) 243-5900 

(312) 243-5902 fax 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8