IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DR. G. NEIL GARRETT, DDS, PC, )

on behalf of itself and a class, )

) 12 CV 5652

Plaintiff, )

) Honorable Judge Manning

v. ) Magistrate Judge Keys

)

PHARMALOGICAL, INC., )

d/b/a MEDICAL DEVICE KING ) 

and JOHN DOES 1-10, )

)

Defendants. )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

MATTERS COMMON TO MULTIPLE COUNTS

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, brings this action to secure redress

for the actions of defendant Pharmalogical, Inc. d/b/a Medical Device King 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.

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:273
PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, is an Illinois professional

corporation with offices in Lake Villa, Illinois, where it maintains telephone facsimile

equipment.

4. Defendant Pharmalogical, Inc., does business as Medical Device King at

425 Northern Blvd., Suite 28, Great Neck, NY, 11021.

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. Brill v.

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

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

Fairness Act). Defendant is of diverse citizenship to plaintiff. 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.)

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

a. Has committed tortious acts in Illinois by causing the

transmission of unlawful communications into the state.

b. Has transacted business in Illinois.

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:274
9. Venue in this District is proper for the same reason.

FACTS

10. On July 8, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received the

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

11. On July 20, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

12. On August 1, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

13. On August 1, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

14. On August 15, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

15. On September 7, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

16. On September 19, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

17. On September 23, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

18. On October 17, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

19. On November 1, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

20. On November11, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:275
the unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit K on its facsimile machine.

21. On November 22, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

22. On December 6, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

23. On December 12, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

24. On December 14, 2011, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

25. On January 3, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

26. On January 3, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

27. On January 16, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

28. On January 31, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

29. On February 27, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

30. On March 27, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

31. On April 10, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:276
32. On April 30, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

33. On May 15, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

34. On May 21, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

35. On June 5, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

36. On June 13, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

37. On June 25, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received

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

38. On July 31, 2012, plaintiff Dr. G. Neil Garrett DDS, PC, received the 

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

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

40. Defendant Pharmalogical, Inc. d/b/a Medical Device King is responsible

for sending or causing the sending of the faxes.

41. Defendant Pharmalogical, Inc. d/b/a Medical Device King, as the entity

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

sending of the faxes.

42. Defendant Pharmalogical, Inc. d/b/a Medical Device King either

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

43. Plaintiff had no prior relationship with defendant and had not authorized

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:277
the sending of fax advertisements to plaintiff.

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

the mass broadcasting of advertising faxes.

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

mass broadcasting of faxes.

46. On information and belief, defendant has transmitted similar unsolicited

fax advertisements to at least 40 other persons in Illinois.

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

defendant’s 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.

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

U.S.C. § 227.

COUNT I – TCPA

49. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-48. 

50. 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).

51. 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

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:278
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.

52. 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.

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

54. Defendant violated the TCPA even if its actions were only negligent.

55. Defendant should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

56. 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 defendant Pharmalogical, Inc. d/b/a Medical Device King, and on or before a date 20

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

Pharmalogical, Inc. d/b/a Medical Device King promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and

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

57. 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.

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:279
58. 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 defendant engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited fax

advertisements;

b. The manner in which defendant compiled or obtained their list of

fax numbers;

c. Whether defendant thereby violated the TCPA;

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

in violation of the ICFA.

 e. Whether defendant thereby converted the property of plaintiff.

59. 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. 

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

based on the same factual and legal theories.

61. 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 defendant is small because it is not economically feasible to bring

individual actions.

 62. 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.

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:280
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). 

 63. 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 defendant 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

64. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-48. 

65. Defendant engaged in unfair acts and practices, in violation of ICFA § 2,

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

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:281
66. 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.

67. Defendant engaged in an unfair practice by engaging in conduct that is

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

68. 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. 

69. Defendant engaged in such conduct in the course of trade and commerce.

70. Defendant’s conduct caused recipients of their advertising to bear the cost

thereof. This gave defendant 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.

 71. Defendant’s shifting of advertising costs to plaintiff and the class members

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

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

72. Defendant should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

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

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:282
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

by or on behalf of defendant Pharmalogical, Inc. d/b/a Medical Device King, and on or before a

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

Pharmalogical, Inc. d/b/a Medical Device King promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and

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

74. 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.

75. 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 defendant engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited fax

advertisements;

b. Whether defendant thereby violated the TCPA;

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

violation of the ICFA.

 d. Whether defendant thereby converted the property of plaintiff.

 76. 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. 

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

based on the same factual and legal theories.

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:283
 78. 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 defendant is small because it is not economically feasible to bring

individual actions.

 79. 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 defendant 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

80. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-48. 

81. By sending plaintiff and the class members unsolicited faxes, defendant

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

82. 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.

83. By sending the unsolicited faxes, defendant appropriated to its 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. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:284
84. Defendant knew or should have known that such appropriation of the

paper and ink or toner was wrongful and without authorization. 

85. 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.

86. Defendant should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

87. 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 defendant Pharmalogical, Inc. d/b/a Medical Device King, and on or before a date

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

Pharmalogical, Inc. d/b/a Medical Device King promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and

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

88. 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.

89. 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 defendant engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited fax

advertisements;

b. Whether defendant thereby violated the TCPA;

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:285
c. Whether defendant thereby committed the tort of conversion;

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

violation of the ICFA.

 e. Whether defendant thereby converted the property of plaintiff.

 90. 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. 

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

based on the same factual and legal theories.

 92. 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 defendant is small because it is not economically feasible to bring

individual actions.

 93. 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 defendant 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.

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:286
s/ Dulijaza Clark

Dulijaza Clark

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)

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:287
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Dulijaza Clark, certify that on October 15, 2012, I caused a true and accurate copy of

the foregoing document to be served via the Court’s CM/ECF system on the following parties:

Blaine C Kimrey

Bryan K. Clark

Lathrop & Gage LLP

100 N. Riverside Plaza

Suite 2100

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 920-3304

bclark@lathropgage.com 

bkimrey@lathropgage.com 

 s/ Dulijaza Clark 

Dulijaza (Julie) Clark

Daniel A. Edelman

Cathleen M. Combs

James O. Latturner

Dulijaza Clark

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

Case: 1:12-cv-05652 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:288