IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BUDD ENGINEERING CORPORATION )

on behalf of itself and a class, )

and RICHARD WADE ARCHITECTS, P.C., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

BILDAU AND BUSSMAN NORTH )

AMERICA GmbH, )

and JOHN DOES 1-10, )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

MATTERS COMMON TO MULTIPLE COUNTS

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs Budd Engineering Corporation and Richard Wade Architects,

P.C. brings this action to secure redress for the actions of defendant Bildau and Bussman North

America GmbH 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

the unsolicited faxes.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Budd Engineering Corporation is an Illinois corporation with

offices at 7605 N. Tripp Avenue, Skokie, Illinois 60076, where it maintains telephone facsimile

1

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1
equipment.

4. Plaintiff Richard Wade Architects, P.C, is an Illinois professional

corporation with offices in Frankfort, Illinois, where it maintains telephone facsimile equipment.

5. Defendant Bildau and Bussman North America GmbH is a corporation

chartered under German law. Its principal office is located at Lehrterstrasse 24-25, DE 10557,

Berlin, Germany. It does business in the United States and may be served at 2822 54th Avenue

South, #105, St. Petersburg, FL 33712, or through its agent Architectural Windows & Entries,

Inc., 2822 54th Avenue South, #237, St. Petersburg, FL 33712.

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

involved in the sending of the facsimile advertisements described below. Plaintiffs do not know

who they are. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. 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

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

Fairness Act). Defendant is 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 typical rates

charged for fax advertising, this would only cost $50 to $100, it makes little or no sense to send

fewer faxes.)

9. 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.

2

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:2
10. Venue in this District is proper for the same reason.

FACTS

11. On April 27, 2010, plaintiff Budd Engineering Corporation received the

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

12. On February 16, 2011, plaintiff Budd Engineering Corporation and

Richard Wade Architects, P.C. received the unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit B

on its facsimile machine.

13. On April 30, 2010, plaintiff Richard Wade Architects, P.C. received the

unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit C on its facsimile machine.

14. On May 25, 2010, plaintiff Richard Wade Architects, P.C. received the

unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit D on its facsimile machine.

15. On August 9, 2010, plaintiff Richard Wade Architects, P.C. received the

unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit E on its facsimile machine.

16. On August 22, 2010, plaintiff Richard Wade Architects, P.C. received the

unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit F on its facsimile machine.

17. On February 16, 2011, plaintiff Richard Wade Architects, P.C. received

the unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit G on its facsimile machine.

18. On April 4, 2012, plaintiff Richard Wade Architects, P.C. received the

unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit H on its facsimile machine. 

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

20. Defendant Bildau and Bussman North America GmbH is responsible for

sending or causing the sending of the faxes.

21. Defendant Bildau and Bussman North America GmbH, as the entity whose

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

the faxes.

22. The faxes do not contain an “opt out notice” such as is described in 47

3

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:3
U.S.C. §227.

23. Defendant Bildau and Bussman North America GmbH either negligently

or wilfully violated the rights of plaintiffs and other recipients in sending the faxes.

24. Plaintiffs had no prior relationship with defendant and had not authorized

the sending of fax advertisements to plaintiffs.

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

mass broadcasting of faxes.

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

fax advertisements to at least 40 other persons in Illinois.

27. There is no reasonable means for plaintiffs 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

28. Plaintiffs incorporate ¶¶ 1-27. 

29. 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).

30. 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

4

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:4
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.

31. 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.

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

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

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

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

35. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), plaintiff Budd Engineering

Corporation brings this claim on behalf of a class, consisting of (a) all persons and entities with

fax numbers (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 defendant Bildau

and Bussman North America GmbH, and on or before a date 20 days following the filing of this

action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Bildau and Bussman North America

GmbH promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which do not contain an opt out notice as

described in 47 U.S.C. §227.

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

Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that there are more than 40 members of the class.

37. 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. The manner in which defendants compiled or obtained their list of

5

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:5
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.

38. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving

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

might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action. 

 39. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class members. All are

based on the same factual and legal theories.

40. 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.

 41. Several courts have certified class actions under the TCPA. Travel 100

Group, Inc. v. Empire Cooler Service, Inc., 03 CH 14510 (Cook Co. Cir. Ct., Oct. 19, 2004);

Rawson v. C.P. Partners LLC, 03 CH 14510 (Cook Co. Cir. Ct., Sept. 30, 2005); ESI Ergonomic

Solutions, LLC v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 50 P.3d 844 (Ariz. App. 2002); Core

Funding Group, LLC v. Young, 792 N.E.2d 547 (Ind.App. 2003); Nicholson v. Hooters of

Augusta, Inc., 245 Ga.App. 363, 537 S.E.2d 468 (2000) (private class actions); see State of

Texas v. American Blast Fax, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 2d 892 (W.D. Tex. 2001) (state enforcement

action).

 42. 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, plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment in favor of

6

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:6
plaintiffs 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

43. Plaintiffs incorporate ¶¶ 1-27. 

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. 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. 

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

49. 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,

7

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:7
Tuesday, July 18, 1989, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.

 50. Defendants’ shifting of advertising costs to plaintiffs 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.

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

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

52. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), plaintiff Budd Engineering

Corporation brings this claim on behalf of a class, consisting of (a) all persons and entities 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 by or on behalf of defendant Bildau and

Bussman North America GmbH, and on or before a date 20 days following the filing of this

action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Bildau and Bussman North America

GmbH promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which do not contain an opt out notice as

described in 47 U.S.C. §227.

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

Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that there are more than 40 members of the class.

54. 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.

8

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:8
 55. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving

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

might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action. 

 56. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class members. All are

based on the same factual and legal theories.

 57. 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.

 58. 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, plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment in favor of

plaintiffs 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

59. Plaintiffs incorporate ¶¶ 1-27. 

60. By sending plaintiffs and the class members unsolicited faxes, defendants

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

61. Immediately prior to the sending of the unsolicited faxes, plaintiffs 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.

9

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:9
62. 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. 

63. Defendants knew or should have known that such appropriation of the

paper and ink or toner was wrongful and without authorization. 

64. Plaintiffs and the class members were deprived of the paper and ink or

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

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

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

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

66. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), plaintiff Budd Engineering

Corporation brings this claim on behalf of a class, consisting of (a) all persons and entities 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 defendant Bildau and Bussman

North America GmbH, and on or before a date 20 days following the filing of this action, (c)

were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Bildau and Bussman North America GmbH

promoting its goods or services for sale 

(d) which do not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. §227.

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

Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that there are more than 40 members of the class.

68. 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;

10

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:10
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.

 69. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving

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

might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action. 

 70. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class members. All are

based on the same factual and legal theories.

 71. 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.

 72. 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, plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment in favor of

plaintiffs and the class and against defendants for:

a. Appropriate damages;

b. An injunction against the further transmission of unsolicited fax

advertising;

c. Costs of suit;

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

11

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:11
 s/ Daniel A. Edelman 

Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Cathleen M. Combs

James O. Latturner

Heather A. Kolbus

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

12

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:12
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)

13

Case: 1:12-cv-03973 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:13