IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HEIDBREDER BUILDING GROUP, LLC, )

on behalf of itself and a class, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

HOMESERVICES OF ILLINOIS, LLC, )

and JOHN DOES 1-10, )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

MATTERS COMMON TO MULTIPLE COUNTS

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Heidbreder Building Group, LLC, brings this action to secure

redress for the actions of defendant Homeservices of Illinois, 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”), 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 Heidbreder Building Group, LLC, is an Illinois limited liability

company with offices in the Chicago metropolitan area where it maintains telephone facsimile

equipment.

4. Defendant Homeservices of Illinois, LLC, is a limited liability company

1

Case: 1:12-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
chartered under the law of Delaware with its principal office at 3201 Old Glenview Road,

Wilmette, Illinois 60091. Its registered agent and office is CT Corporation System, 208 S.

LaSalle Street, Suite 814, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

5. 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

6. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1367. Mims v.

Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 132 S.Ct. 740 (2012); Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,

427 F.3d 446 (7 Cir. 2005). th

7. 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.

c. Are located in Illinois.

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

FACTS

9. On January 23, 2009, plaintiff Heidbreder Building Group, LLC, received

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

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

11. Defendant Homeservices of Illinois, LLC, is responsible for sending or

causing the sending of the faxes.

12. Defendant Homeservices of Illinois, LLC, as the broker for the properties

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

13. Defendant Homeservices of Illinois, LLC, either negligently or wilfully

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

2

Case: 1:12-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:1
14. Plaintiff had no prior relationship with defendant and had not authorized

the sending of fax advertisements to plaintiff.

15. The faxes do not contain an “opt out” notice in the form required by 47

U.S.C. § 227.

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

mass broadcasting of faxes.

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

fax advertisements to at least 40 other persons in Illinois.

18. 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

19. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-18. 

20. 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).

21. 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

3

Case: 1:12-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:1
this paragraph.

22. 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.

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

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

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

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

26. 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 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 Homeservices of Illinois, LLC, and on or

before a date 20 days following the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of

defendant Homeservices of Illinois, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which does

not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. § 227.

27. 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.

28. 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

fax numbers;

c. Whether defendants thereby violated the TCPA; and

4

Case: 1:12-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:1
d. Whether defendants thereby converted the property of plaintiff.

29. 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. 

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

based on the same factual and legal theories.

31. 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.

 32. 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

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). 

 33. 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:

5

Case: 1:12-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:1
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 – CONVERSION

34. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-18. 

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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. 

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

paper and ink or toner was wrongful and without authorization. 

39. 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.

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

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

41. 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 and entities with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on

6

Case: 1:12-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:1
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 Homeservices of Illinois, LLC, and on or before a

date 20 days following the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant

Homeservices of Illinois, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which does not

contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. § 227.

42. 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.

43. 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 committed the tort of conversion.

44. 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. 

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

based on the same factual and legal theories.

 46. 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.

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

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

7

Case: 1:12-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:1
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. 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

Cathleen M. Combs

James O. Latturner

Heather Kolbus

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

8

Case: 1:12-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:1
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:\26707\Pleading\Complaint_Pleading.wpd

9

Case: 1:12-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:1