Exhibit A 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 1 of 28
Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 2 of 28
Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 3 of 28
Dated this day of Apr 29 2022 

**y`* CASE NUMBER: 502022CA003979XXXXMB Div: AB **** 

Filing # 148471686 E-Filed 04/27/2022 10:45:11 AIVI 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

MATTHEW CALVIN, individually and on bebalf of CLASS ACTION 

all others similarly situated, 

d~l S~~z 1 Z2 

Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

vs. 

HUMANA, INC., 

Defendant. 

SUMMONS 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA: 

To Eaelr erifffCert~ cess Server of the State 

TO: HUMANA, INC. 

Attn: Co on Service Company- Registered Agent 

f1'1 ays Street 

Tallahassee, FL 32301 

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the Complaint or petition on: 

Andrew Shamis, Esq, Sliamis & Gentile, P.A.,14 NE 1stAve STE 705, Miami, Florida 33132, 

within twenty (20) dlys after service of this summons on that Defendant, exclusive of the date of 

service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service on 

Plaintiffs attoiney or immediately tliereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a default will be entered 

against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint or petition. 

, 2022. 

JOSEPH ABRUZZO 

As Clerlc of the Court 

By: _ 

As Deputy Clerk Sandrine Grab 

FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK, 04/27/2022 10:45:11 AM 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 4 of 28
1N THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 

IN RE: STANDING ORDER FOR 

CASE MANAGEMENT FOR SUBIVIISSION 

OF AGREED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 

CASES FILED ON OR AFTER APRIL 30, 2021 

STANDING ORDER FOR CASE MANAGEMENT AND SUBMISSION OF AGREED 

CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN IN CIVIL CASES 

IN THE- FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FILED ON OR AFTER APRIL 30, 2021 

DCMSO 

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(a), Florida Rule of General Practice and 

Judicial Administration 2.545, and Administrative Order 3.107 entered by the Chief Judge of this 

Circuit, the parties are informed of the following information and procedures applicable to civil 

lawsuits filed in the Circuit Court on or after Apri130, 2021: 

1. SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. The Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of tllis Order 

with each Summons issued in this case. One copy of this Order is to<be filed with the Clerk of the 

Circuit Court with proof of service. 

2. CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. The Supreme Court of Florida has 

established guidelines for the prompt processing and resolution of civil cases. This Court has 

adopted a case management system to help meet those guidelines. In contested cases, the parties 

are required to participate in the case management system. The case management system requires 

early. consultation and cooperation among the parties for the preparation and submission of an 

Agreed Case Management Plan and early involvement by the Court. The Agreed Case 

Management Plan requires the parties to identify a case track, confer in good faith and atternpt to 

narrow the matters in controversy, identify the issues that require direct involvement by the Court, 

and establish a schedule for addressing those issues-1 The Agreed Case Managernent Plan may be 

accessed at the Court's website at:, https•//15thcircuit.com/civil-differentiated-forms-and-orders.

Unless all of the Defendants have been served and have been defaulted or dropped, an Agreed 

Case Management Plan must be submitted to the assigned divisional queue via the Court's online 

scheduling system (OLS) as an attachment, in PDF format, to a proposed Oi•der Accepting Agreed 

Case Management Plan on or before 130 days from the date of filing of the initial complaint. If 

the parties are unable to agree on an Agreed Case Management Plan by the applicable deadline, a 

I Case Track options include Expedited, Streamlined, General, or Complex. Case Tracks have been 

established in order to comply with the case disposition standards set forth in Florida Rule of General 

Practice and Judicial Administration 2.250(a)(1)(B). 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 5 of 28
case management conference will be scheduled by the Court or the. Court will review and issue an 

Order Implementing Case Management Plan without agreement of the Parties. No matters that 

arise as a result of this standing order, including lack of agreement, wilI be set on the Court's 

Uniform Motion Calendar and will, instead, be settled by the Court either at the case management 

conference or via an Order Implementing Case Management Plan without agreement of the parties. 

If a case management conference is scheduled, attendance by trial counsel and those parties who 

are not represeiited by counsel is mandatory. 

If all Defendants are served and defaulted or dropped, the Plaintiff will file the appropriate 

documentation to pursue a Default Final Judgment within 130 days of the filing of the complaint 

and Final Judgment is to be entered or set for hearing within 150 days of the filing of the complaint. 

3. MEDIATION/ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION -(ADRI. ADR 

provides parties with an out-of-court alternative to settling disagreements. Mediation is a type of 

ADR wherein an independent third party attempts to arrange a settlement at a conference between 

the parties. The Court requires the parties to participate in Mediation prior to trial unless the parties 

agree to anotlier form of ADR. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 

Florida, on this 26 day of April, 2021. 

t_Jl'utt; r' `IR ~i1tT 

' { • 1.11'A 

--' :.,nIll?II irpAT.lvr C!1'P IC¢' !1P ~r1eL .C~j (:t 

Administrative Circuit Judge 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 6 of 28
Filing # 148471686 E-Filed 04/27/2022 10:45:11 AM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

]N AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 

MATTHEW CALVIN, individually and on CLASS ACTION 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Case No. 

Plaintiff, 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

vs. 

HUMANA, INC., 

Defendant. 

/ 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Matthew Calvin brings this class action against Defendant, Humana, Inc., and alleges 

as follows upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's own acts and experiences, and, as to 

all other matters, upon infoi-ination and belief, including investigation conducted by Plaintiff's attorneys. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is a class action under the 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act ("TCPA") and under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), Fla. Stat. § 

501.059, as ainended by Senate Bill No. 1120.' 

2. Defendant is one of the lai-gest health insurance companies in the United States. 

3. To promote its goods aiid services, Defendant engages in aggressive telephonic 

sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express written consent as required under 

the FTSA, and with no regards for consumers' rights under the TCPA. 

1 The amendment to the FTSA became effective on July 1, 2021. 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 7 of 28
4. Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members 

harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and 

invasion of their privacy. 

5. Through this action, Plaintiff seelcs an injunction and statutory damages on behalf 

of himself and the Class members, as defined below, and any other available legal or equitable 

remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant. 

PAItTIES 

6. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual and a"called party" 

as defined by Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(a) in that he was the regular user of telephone number 813-

***-0096 (the "0096 Number") that received Defendant's telephonic sales calls. 

7. Defendant is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Delaware corporation and a 

"telephone solicitor" as defined by Fla. Stat. § 501.059(f). Defendant maintains its primary place 

of business and headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky. Defendant directs, markets, and provides 

business activities throughout the State of Florida and the United States. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil 

Procedure 1.220 and Fla. Stat. § 26.012(2). The inatter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$30,000 exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney's fees. 

9. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida because this suit arises out 

of and relates to Defendant's contacts with this state. Defendant made or caused to be made 

telephonic sales calls from within Florida without the requisite prior express written consent in 

violation of the FTSA and with no regards to consumers rights under the TCPA. 

2 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 8 of 28
'12:2d 4/

~ `~ ~ 

239355 } 

Tort.h`:enage 

Auet 11, 2020. 11:45 ARi, 

HUMANA: Staying in? Stay 

connected to your health with 

Humana's online health and wellness 

classes: Register now, =-Q_coj 

HWi?f:.~V)Yofxf~ 

Reply STOP to end,HELP for help 

~ 

Humana Neighborhood Genters 

Alerts: You have,been -removed from 

the service and will no longer rcv 

msgs (or charges). For help email 

sc ~~nOa hurnana.com

20, 12:52 P R3 

Humanar When your doctor is closed, 

virtual care is open. $0 copay for innetwork.providers.in 2021. MDLIVEis 

an option. Learn;more. m.pL1,cr~f 

6-1u~~ff~l`rr~.xy 

Reply STOP to end, HELP for help, 

. ° . . ~ :.S ~r~ . • x

12:204°' ~:~ :~~~s•.. +3r °.. :~If ^ ~~! 

, 

,.... .t.. . 

~ 239355"® 

hSon, Peb 7, t0:24 :e£A 

Humana: We noticed you may not 

have gotten~yourflu shot yet. Tap to 

see locations near yau. --> pL1fsQ_c_b{ 

,Reply STOP to end,, HELPfor help. 

Msg&Data, rates mayapply 

m 

You have been unsu6scribed from 

the Humana 2021 fiu shot program. 

No more texts will 6e sent. Reply 

HELP for help 

YJeB, c=L 28, 1o:Sg AM 

HUMANA: Not feeling well? Sign into 

MyHumana to use Buoy's symptom 

ct7ecker. Itcan suggest in-network 

care options. 

Reply STOP to end, HE'LP for help: 

Mo,,, web 7,.,;;,24 ,,M Hurnana Buoy alertsi'You have 4een : o 

remaved=from Buoy sympto'm 

Humana: We noticed you may not checker messages and vrill no longer 

have gatten your flu shot yet. Tap to rec insgs (or charges). For help; ° 

see locations near you. --> Ls1FAZg3 email

: ;ndU~csnesxuBf ~ 

Reblv STOP to end.. HELP for hela. 

,. _. _........._._......_.. - 

q*9 IViCI S'xarle, . ` 

T~~av 1a=27 Fts 

~ 

_« _._ ~ .mm__...._._ ......._ 

Y A""', ~ 

'~''y`t i41F~~~L • ~ ~: 

0 

eipay 

~'4~~.Js ~._ ~ t_ 

• ° A ' . a~, ' °s !!~„.:' . 

. ..`:1 tAv. . • ° . 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 9 of 28
12. Defendant's messages concluded with the following opt-out instructions: "Reply 

STOP to end..." 

13. On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff responded with the word "STOP" in an attempt to 

opt-out of any further text message communications with Defendant. 

14. Immediately after Plaintiff sent his August 11, 2020 stop request, Defendant, within 

seconds, responded with an automated opt-out confinnation text confirming that Plaintiff had 

opted out of future coinmunications: "You Have been removed from the service and will no longer 

rcv msgs (or charges)..." 

15. Despite Plaintiff's use of Defendant's preferred opt-out language, and Defendant's 

subsequent opt-out confirmation, Defendant ignored Plaintiff's opt-out demand and continued to 

send Plaintiff further promotional text messages on May 20, 2022, Febivary 7, 2022. 

16. On Febi-uary 7, 2022 Plaintiff again responded with the word "STOP" in another 

attempt to opt-out of any further text message communications with Defendant. 

17. Immediately after Plaintiff sent his February 7, 2022, stop request, Defendant, 

within seconds, responded with another automated opt-out confirmation text confii-ming that 

Plaintiff had opted out of future communications. 

18. Despite plaintiff's repeated use of Defendant's preferred opt-out language and 

Defendant's subsequent opt-out confirmation each time, Defendant ignored Plaintiff's opt-out 

demands and continued to send Plaintiff further promotional text messages on Februaiy, 23, 2022, 

and March 16, 2022: 

C! 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 10 of 28
19. Defendant's use of automated, instantaneous opt-out confirmations show that 

Defendant has the capability of immediately coinplying with Plaintiff's opt-out requests. 

20. Plaintiff's 0096 Number has been registered with the national do-not-call registry 

since May 23, 2013, and at all times relevant to this action. 

21. As demonstrated by the above screenshot, the puipose of Defendant's teleplionic 

sales calls was to solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or sei-vices. 

22. Defendant's calls did not disclose the name of the individual caller pursuant to 47 

C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4). 

5 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 11 of 28
23. Defendant's calls did not provide a telephone number or address at which they may 

be contacted pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4). 

24. Defendant's calls were not made for an emergency puipose or to collect on a debt 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). 

25. Defendant's text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and 

within the time frame relevant to this action. 

26. Plaintiff is the sole user and/or subscriber of the cellular telephone number that 

received the above text messages. 

27. Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the 

future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff health insurance 

plans and other services. 

28. Upon information and belief, Defendant does not have a written policy for 

maintaining an internal do not call list pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 64.1200(d)(1). 

29. Upon information and belief, Defendant does not infoi-rn and train its personnel 

engaged in teleinarking in the existence and the use of any internal do not call list pursuant to 47 

U.S.C. § 64.1200(d)(2). 

30. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent 

to be contacted. 

31. To the extent that Defendant had any consent to contact Plaintiff, that consent was 

expressly revoked when Plaintiff responded with "STOP" on August 11, 2020 . 

32. Upon infoi-mation and belief, Defendant caused similar telephonic sales calls to be 

sent to individuals residing in Florida and throughout the United States. 

11 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 12 of 28
33. To transmit the above telephonic sales calls, Defendant utilized a computer 

software system that automatically selected and dialed Plaintiff's and the Class meinbers' 

telephone numbers. 

34. Plaintiff never provided Defendant with express written consent authorizing 

Defendant to transmit telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number utilizing an 

automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers. 

35. The TCPA's implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that "[n]o 

person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation" to "[a] residential telephone subscriber 

who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who 

do not wish to receive teleplione solicitations that is maintained by the federal government. 

36. The text messages originated fi-om telephone number 239355, a number which 

upon infoi-mation and belief is owned and operated by Defendant or on behalf of Defendant. 

37. Defendant's telephonic sales calls caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, 

including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

PROPOSED CLASS 

38. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself individually and 

on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil 

Procedure 1.220(b)(2) and (b)(3). The "Class" that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: 

No Consent Class: All persons in the Florida who, (1) were sent a 

telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's goods and/or services, 

(2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call 

Plaintiff. 

Internal Do Not Call Class: All persons within the United States 

who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were 

sent a text message from Defendant or anyone on Defendant's 

7 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 13 of 28
behalf, to said person's cellular telephone number after making a 

request to Defendant to not receive future text messages. 

Do Not Call Retzistry Class: All persons in the United States who 

from four years prior to the filing of this action (1) were sent a call 

or text message by or on behalf of Defendant; (2) more than one 

time within any 12-month period; (3) where the person's telephone 

number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at 

least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant's products 

and services; and (5) for whom Defendant claims (a) it did not 

obtain prior express written consent, or (b) it obtained prior 

express written consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it 

supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call the 

Plaintiff. 

Seller ldentification Class: All persons within the United States 

who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint 

through the date of class certification, (1) received two or more text 

messages within any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant's 

property, goods, and/or services, (3) to said person's residential 

telephone number, (4) that did not disclose the name of the 

individual caller, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf 

the call is being made, or a telephone number or address at which 

the person or entity may be contacted. 

39. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does 

not know the exact number of inembers in the Class but believes the Class members number in the 

several thousands, if not more. 

NUIVIERosrrY 

40. Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed telephonic sales calls to 

telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers listed throughout Florida without their 

prior express written consent, and/or after they had requested to opt-out, and/or who are listed on 

the national do-not-call regisriy. The members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 

: 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 14 of 28
41. The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time and 

can be ascertained only through discovery. Identification of the Class members is a matter capable 

of ministerial detei-mination from Defendant's call records. 

COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT 

42. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual menibers of the Class. Among the 

questions of law and fact common to the Class are: 

[1]Whether Defendant initiated telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff and the Class members; 

[2]Whether Defendant can ineet its burden of showing that it had prior express written 

consent to make such calls; 

[3]Whether Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d); 

[4]Whether Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c); 

[5]Whether Defendant adhered to requests by class meinbers to stop sending text messages 

to their telephoiie nuinbers; 

[6] Whether Defendant keeps records of text recipients who revolced consent to receive 

texts; 

[7]Whether Defendant has any written policies for maintaining an internal do not call list 

[8]Whether Defendant's conduct was lcnowing and willful; and 

[9]Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages. 

43. The coimnon questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If 

Plaintiff's claim that Defendant routinely transmits telephonic sales calls without prior express 

written consent is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of 

being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case. 

9 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 15 of 28
TYPICALITY 

44. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all 

based on the same factual and legal theoi-ies. 

PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS 1VIEMBERS 

45. Plaintiff is a representative who will fully and adequately assert and protect the 

interests of the Class and lias retained competent counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff is an adequate 

representative and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 

SUPERIORITY 

46. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this lawsuit because individual litigation of the claims of all members of the Class 

is economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. While the aggregate damages sustained 

by the Class are in the millions of dollars, the individual damages incurred by each member of the 

Class resulting from Defendant's wrongful conduct are too small to warrant the expense of 

individual lawsuits. The likelihood of individual Class members prosecuting their own separate 

claims is reinote, and, even if every member of the Class could afford individual litigation, the 

court system would be unduly burdened by individual litigation of such cases. 

47. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk of 

establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. For 

example, one court might enjoin Defendant fi-om performing the challenged acts, whereas anothetinay not. Additionally, individual actioiis may be dispositive of the interests of the Class, although 

certain class members are not parties to such actions. 

COUNTI 

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 501.059 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent Class) 

10 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 16 of 28
48. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

49. It is a violation of the FTSA to "make or knowingly allow a teleplionic sales call to 

be made if such call involves an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers 

or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number called without 

the prior express written consent of the called party." Fla. Stat. § 501.059(8)(a). 

50. A"telephonic sales call" is defined as a"telephone call, text rnessage, or voicemail 

transmission to a consumer for the purpose of soliciting a sale of any consumer goods or services, 

soliciting an extension of credit for consumer goods or services, or obtaining infoi-niation that will 

or inay be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services or an extension 

of credit for such purposes." Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(g). 

51. "Prior express written consent" means an agreement in writing that: 

1. Bears the signature of the called party; 

2. Clearly authorizes the person making or allowing the placement of a telephonic 

sales call by telephone call, text message, or voiceinail transmission to deliver 

or cause to be delivered to the called party a telephonic sales call using an 

automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers, the playing 

of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number called, or 

the transmission of a prerecorded voicemail; 

3. Includes the telephone number to which the signatory authorizes a telephonic 

sales call to be delivered; and 

4. Includes a clear and conspicuous disclosure informing the called party that: 

a. By executing the agreement, the called party authorizes the person 

making or allowing the placement of a telephonic sales call to deliver or 

cause to be delivered a telephonic sales call to the called party using an 

automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or 

the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a 

number called; and 

11 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 17 of 28
b. He or she is not required to directly or indirectly sign the written 

agreement or to agree to enter into such an agreement as a condition of 

purchasing any property, goods, or services. 

Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(g). 

52. Defendant failed to secure prior express written consent fi•om Plaintiff and the Class 

members. 

53. In violation of the FTSA, Defendant made and/or laiowingly allowed telephonic 

sales calls to be made to Plaintiff and the Class members without Plaintiff's and the Class 

members' prior express written consent. 

54. Defendant made and/or knowingly allowed the telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff 

and the Class members to be made utilizing an automated system for the selection or dialing of 

telephone numbers. 

55. As a result of Defendant's conduct, and pui-suant to § 501.059(10)(a) of the FTSA, 

Plaintiff and Class members were harnied and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00 in 

damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the Class meinbers are also entitled to an injunction 

against future calls. ld. 

COUNTII 

VIOLATION OF 47 U.S.C. ~ 227(c)(2) 

(Individually and on behalf of the Internal Do Not Call Class) 

56. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-47 as if fully set forth herein. 

57. The TCPA provides that any "person who has received more than one telephone 

call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations 

prescribed under this subsection may" bring a private action based on a violation of said 

regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid 

receiving telephone solicitations to wliich they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). 

12 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 18 of 28
58. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), "[n]o person or entity shall initiate any call for 

telemarlceting purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has 

instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing 

calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must meet certain 

minimum standards, including: 

(3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or entity making a call for 

telemarketing ptu-poses (or on whose behalf such a call is made) receives a request fi-om 

a residential telephone subscriber not to receive calls from that person or entity, the 

person or entity must record the request and place the subscriber's name, if provided, 

and telephone number on the do-not call list at the time the request is inade. Persons or 

entities making calls for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such calls are 

made) must honor a residential subscriber's do-not-call request within a reasonable time 

from the date such request is made. This period may not exceed thirty days from the 

date of such request . . . . 

(6) Maintenance of do-not-call lists. A person or entity making calls for telemarlceting 

puiposes must maintain a record of a consumer's request not to receive further 

telemarketing calls. A do-not-call request must be honored for 5 years fi-om the time the 

request is made. 

47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3), (6). 

59. Under 47 C.F.R § 64.1200(e) the rules set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) are 

applicable to any pei-son or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless 

telephone nuinbers: 

(e) The iules set forth in paragraph (c) and (d) of this section are applicable to any person 

or entity inaking telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone 

numbers to the extent described in the Commission's Report and Order, CG Docket No. 

02-278, FCC 03-153, "Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consuiner 

Protection Act of 1991. 

47 C.F.R. 5 64.1200(e). 

60. Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members made requests to Defendant 

not to receive calls froin Defendant. 

13 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 19 of 28
61. Defendant failed to honor Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class meinbers' 

requests. 

62. Upon inforination and belief, Defendant has not instituted procedures for 

inaintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls made by or on behalf 

of their behalf, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). 

63. Because Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members received more than 

one text message in a 12-month period made by or on behalf of Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. 

§ 64.1200(d), as described above, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). 

64. As a result of Defendant's violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), Plaintiff and the 

Internal Do Not Call Class members are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for 

each and every negligent violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). 

65. As a result of Defendant's violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), Plaintiff and the 

Internal Do Not Call Class members are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutoiy damages, 

for each and every knowing and/or willful violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). 

66. Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members also suffered damages in the 

forni of invasion of privacy. 

67. Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members are also entitled to and seelc 

injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant's illegal conduct in the fiiture, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

227(c)(5). 

COUNT III 

VIOLATION OF 47 U.S.C. "27 

(Individually and on behalf of the Do Not Call Registry Class) 

68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incoiporates paragraphs 1-47 as if fully set forth herein 

14 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 20 of 28
69. The TCPA's implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that "[n]o 

person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation" to "[a] residential telephone subscriber 

who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who 

do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government." 

70. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that § 64.1200(c) and (d) "are applicable to any 

person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone 

numbers."2

71. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that "[n]o person or entity shall initiate any 

call for telemarketing puiposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity 

has instituted procedures for inaintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing 

calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity." 

72. Any "person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month 

period by or on behalf of the same eiitity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this 

subsection may" may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were 

promulgated to protect telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone 

solicitations to which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c). 

73. Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated, 

telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registiy 

Class inembers who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call 

Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is inaintained 

by the federal govermnent. 

z Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 9991, CG Docket No. 02-278, 

Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014 (2003) Available at https:Happs.fcc.gov/edocs—Public/attachmatch/FCC03-153Al.pdf 

15 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 21 of 28
74. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call 

Registry Class received more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf 

of Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of Defendant's 

conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class suffered actual damages 

and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled, inter alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for 

such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. 

75. To the extent Defendant's misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, the 

Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutoiy damages 

recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class. 

COUNTIV 

VIOLATION OF 47 U.S.C. 227(B) 

(Individually and on behalf of the Seller ldentification Class) 

76. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-47 as is fully set forth liei-ein. 

77. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), "[n]o person or entity shall initiate any call for 

telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has 

instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarlceting 

calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must meet certain 

minimum standards, including: 

(4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or entity making a call for 

telemarketing purposes inust provide the called party with the name of the individual 

caller, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, and a 

telephone number or address at which the person or entity may be contacted. 

47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4). 

78. Under 47 C.F.R § 64.1200(e) the rules set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) are 

applicable to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless 

telephone numbers: 

16 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 22 of 28
(e) The iules set forth in paragraph (c) and (d) ofthis section are applicable to any person 

or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone 

numbers to the extent described in the Commission's Report and Order, CG Docicet No. 

02-278, FCC 03-153, "Rules and Regulations hnplementing the Teleplione Consumer 

Protection Act of 1991 

47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e). 

79. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4), Defendant's contact of Plaintiff's cellular 

plione without disclosing the name of the individual caller constitutes a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 

227(c). 

80. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4), Defendant's contact of Plaintiff's celhllar 

phone without providing a telephone number or address at which they may be contacted constitutes 

a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c). 

81. As a result of Defendant's violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) Plaintiff and the Seller 

Identification Class members are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each 

and every negligent violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B). 

82. As a result of Defendant's violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), Plaintiff and the Seller 

Identification Class members are entitled to aii award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each 

and every lcnowing and/or willful violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B). 

83. Plaintiff and the Seller ldentification Class inembers are also entitled to and seek 

injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant's illegal conduct in the future, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

227(c)(5). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WI-IEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, prays for the following 

relief 

17 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 23 of 28
a) An order certifying tliis case as a class action on behalf of the Class as defined above, 

and appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Class and Plaintiffls counsel as Class 

Counsel; 

b) An award of statutory damages for Plaintiff and each meinber of the Class; 

c) An order declaring that Defendant's actions, as set out above, violate the FTSA; 

d) An order declaring that Defendant's actions, set out above, violate the TCPA; 

e) An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all telephonic sales calls made without 

express written consent, and to otherwise protect the interests of the Class; 

f) Such fiu-ther and other relief as the Court deems necessary. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, hereby demand a trial by jury. 

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND 

Plaintiff demands that Defendant take affii-mative steps to preserve all records, lists, electronic 

databases or other itemization of telephone iiumbers associated with the coinn-iunications or transmittal 

of the calls as alleged herein. 

Dated: Apri127, 2022 

Respectfully Subinitted, 

SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 

/s/Andrew Slzamis 

Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 101754 

ashamis@shamisgentile.com

/s/ Gairett Ber& 

Gan-ett O. Berg, Esq. 

Florida Bai- No. 1000427 

gberg@shamisgentile.com

14 NE 1 st Ave., Suite 705 

Miaini, Florida 33132 

Tel ephone: 3 05-479-2299 

18 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 24 of 28
EDELSBERG LAW P.A. 

/s/ Scott Edelsberg 

Scott Edelsberg, Esq. 

Florida BarNo. 0100537 

20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 

Aventtira, Florida 33180 

Telephone: 305-975-3320 

Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

Couiisel for Plaintiff and the Class. 

19 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 25 of 28
Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 26 of 28
Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 27 of 28
Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 28 of 28