IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GLEN ELLYN PHARMACY, INC., )

on behalf of itself and a class, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 12 CV 4271

)

v. )

) Honorable Judge Bucklo

SHAFER ENTERPRISES, LLC, ) Magistrate Judge Valdez

and JOHN DOES 1-10, )

)

Defendants. )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc., brings this action to secure redress for

the actions of defendant Shafer Enterprises, 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”), 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.

1

Case: 1:12-cv-04271 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/01/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:123
PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc., is an Illinois corporation with offices

in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, where it maintains telephone facsimile equipment.

4. Defendant Shafer Enterprises, LLC, is a Georgia limited liability company

with an office located at 170 Andrew Drive, Stockbridge, Georgia 30281. 

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 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-04271 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/01/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:124
9. Venue in this District is proper for the same reason.

FACTS

10. On February 7, 2012, plaintiff Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc., received the

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

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

12. Defendant Shafer Enterprises, LLC, is responsible for sending or causing

the sending of the faxes.

13. Defendant Shafer Enterprises, LLC, as the entity whose products or

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

14. Defendant Shafer Enterprises, LLC, either negligently or wilfully violated

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

15. Each fax refers to a website used by defendant Shafer Enterprises, LLC.

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

the sending of fax advertisements to plaintiff.

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

the mass broadcasting of advertising faxes.

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

mass broadcasting of faxes.

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

fax advertisements to at least 40 other persons in Illinois.

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

defendants’ unsolicited advertising faxes to avoid receiving illegal faxes. Fax machines must be

3

Case: 1:12-cv-04271 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/01/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:125
left on and ready to receive the urgent communications authorized by their owners.

COUNT I – TCPA

21. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-20. 

22. 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).

23. 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

this paragraph.

24. 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.

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

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

4

Case: 1:12-cv-04271 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/01/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:126
27. Defendants should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the

future.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

28. 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 Shafer Enterprises, 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 Shafer Enterprises, LLC,

promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and with respect to whom defendant cannot provide

evidence of express consent or an established business relationship prior to the faxing.

29. 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.

30. 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;

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

in violation of the ICFA.

5

Case: 1:12-cv-04271 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/01/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:127
 e. Whether defendants thereby converted the property of plaintiff.

31. 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. 

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

based on the same factual and legal theories.

33. 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.

 34. 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). 

6

Case: 1:12-cv-04271 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/01/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:128
 35. 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:

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.

s/ Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

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)

7

Case: 1:12-cv-04271 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/01/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:129
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:\26685\Pleading\First Amended Complaint_Pleading.WPD

8

Case: 1:12-cv-04271 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/01/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:130
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Daniel A. Edelman, certify that on August 1, 2012, I caused a true and accurate copy of the

foregoing document to be sent via Court’s CM/ECF system to the parties listed below:

Neil E. Holmen

Ryan Jason Rodman

David E. Walker

Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP

One North Franklin Street

Suite 3200

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 244-6700

nholmen@wwmlawyers.com

rrodman@wwmlawyers.com

dwalker@wwmlawyers.com

 s/ Daniel A. Edelman 

Daniel A. Edelman

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)

9

Case: 1:12-cv-04271 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/01/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:131