1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

CASE NO:

DAVID ULERY, individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly situated CLASS REPRESENTATION

Plaintiff,

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

vs.

MORNING FINANCIAL LLC,

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, DAVID ULERY (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), brings this class action against 

MORNING FINANCIAL LLC (“MF’) “Defendant”) for its violations of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (hereinafter “TCPA”), and the regulations promulgated 

thereunder. In support, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any 

other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in 

negligently or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, in violation of the 

TCPA, thereby invading Plaintiff’s privacy. Plaintiff alleges as follows upon personal knowledge 

as to himself and his own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information and 

belief, including investigation conducted by his attorneys. 

2. The TCPA was designed to prevent unwanted calls like the ones described within 

this complaint, and to protect the privacy of citizens like Plaintiff. The Federal Communications 

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 1 of 20
2

Commission (FCC) reports that unwanted calls constitute its top consumer complaint. See Federal 

Communications Commission, Stop Unwanted Calls and Texts (Mar. 2, 2021), 

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/stop-unwanted-calls-and-texts (last visited Apr. 16, 2021). 

In the fiscal year 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) received 293,071 complaints from 

Florida consumers about unwanted telephone calls. See Federal Trade Commission, Do Not Call 

Data Book 2020 (Oct. 2020), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/national-donot-call-registry-data-book-fiscal-year2020/dnc_data_book_2020.pdf (last visited Apr. 16, 2021).

3. In the course of promoting and selling their services, Defendants and/or their agents 

placed thousands of nonconsensual automated or prerecorded calls to consumers’ telephone 

numbers nationwide using an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the TCPA.

4. Moreover, Plaintiff and Class members’ phone numbers were registered with the 

National Do-Not-Call Registry. The FCC has explicitly stated that the TCPA’s prohibitions 

“encompasses both voice calls and text calls to wireless numbers including, for example, short 

message service (SMS) calls.” U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5; Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991, § 3(a), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

5. Plaintiff and each Class Member received unwanted telephone robocalls from 

Defendants without proper regard to the TCPA or the Do-Not-Call Rules, and in disregard for 

individual privacy. Plaintiff and Class Members’ phone numbers were registered with the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry. This lawsuit challenges all calls that were sent by Defendants to Plaintiff 

and Class Members from approximately September 2018, through the date of preliminary approval 

of class certification. 

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 2 of 20
3

6. “Month after month, unwanted robocalls and texts, both telemarketing and 

informational, top the list of consumer complaints received by the [FCC].”1 The TCPA is designed 

to protect consumer privacy by, among other things, prohibiting the making of autodialed or 

prerecorded-voice calls to cell phone numbers and failing to institute appropriate do-not-call 

procedures. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d).

7. In enacting the TCPA, Congress intended to give consumers a choice as to how 

companies may call them and made specific findings that “[t]echnologies that might allow 

consumers to avoid receiving such calls are not universally available, are costly, are unlikely to be 

enforced, or place an inordinate burden on the consumer. TCPA, Pub.L. No. 102–243, § 11. 

Toward this end, Congress found that: 

[b]anning such automated or prerecorded telephone calls to the home, except when 

the receiving party consents to receiving the call or when such calls are necessary 

in an emergency situation affecting the health and safety of the consumer, is the 

only effective means of protecting telephone consumers from this nuisance and 

privacy invasion.

Id. at § 12; see also Martin v. Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, LLC, 2012 WL 3292838, 

at *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2012) (citing Congressional findings on TCPA’s purpose). 

8. In an action under the TCPA, a plaintiff must only show that the defendant “called 

a number assigned to a cellular telephone service using an automatic dialing system or prerecorded 

voice.” Breslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2012), aff'd, 

755 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2014).

1

. In re Rules & Regs. Implementing the TCPA, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, ¶ 1 (2015).

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 3 of 20
4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 and 47 U.S.C. § 227. 

10. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this case occurred in this 

District, including Defendant’s transmission of the unlawful and unwanted calls to Plaintiff in this 

District.

11. Plaintiff resides in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where the subject calls were 

received, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 

12. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts business in 

this state, markets its services within this state, solicits consumers to purchase its products and 

services in this state, and has availed themselves to the jurisdiction of this state by placing calls to 

Plaintiff and Class Members in this state.

PARTIES

13. Plaintiff’s domicile is in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

14. Class Members are citizens of the United States, including within the State of 

Colorado.

15. Defendant, MORNING FINANCIAL LLC is a Florida limited liability company

with its principal address located at 1201 SE 2nd CT., #406, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. 

MORNING FINANCIAL LLC lists its registered agent as Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., 155 

Office Plaza Dr., Suite A, Tallahassee, FL 32301. Based upon information and belief, all of the 

individual principals of MORNING FINANCIAL LLC are citizens of Florida.

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 4 of 20
5

16. Defendant uses a business model whereby it promotes its debt solution services by 

spamming callers with unsolicited robo-calls to generate leads, including Plaintiff and Class 

Members.

17. Defendant spammed Plaintiff’s and members of the class without regard to whether 

it had express written consent to make the calls or whether the recipients were registered to the 

National Do-Not-Call Registry, in violation of the TCPA.

18. Defendant, directly, individually, jointly, and/or in concert with another, or through 

other persons, entities or agents acting on its behalf, conspired to, agreed to, contributed to, 

authorized, assisted with, ratified, and/or otherwise caused all of the wrongful acts and omissions, 

including the dissemination of the unsolicited calls that are the subject matter of this Complaint.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

19. Defendant engages in the telemarketing, promotion, and sale, of debt relief and 

resolution services to consumers across the country. 

20. Defendant, either directly or through authorized lead generators, sales agents, 

vendors, and/or contractors promotes its services through the use of unlawful telemarketing 

campaigns. 

21. To increase the sales volume and profits of its products and services, Defendant 

and/or its authorized agents repeatedly called thousands of consumers using a prerecorded and/or 

artificial voice in violation of the TCPA. 

22. Plaintiff knows the calls were prerecorded and/or used an artificial voice because 

the nature of the voice “script” was clearly a recording, automated, and a distinct artificial voice 

using artificial intelligence could be heard.

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 5 of 20
6

23. The prerecorded robocalls sounded the same and had the same or substantially 

similar message or “script.”

24. The script states Defendant was calling from “the debt forgiveness center,” offering 

a debt forgiveness program to reduce debt up to “55%,” that they are a “free referral service,” and 

that this is a “time sensitive program.”

25. Plaintiff received at least 2 of these calls, including one on July 27, 2022 and on 

July 28, 2022.

26. After Plaintiff listened to the script a second time, he was subsequently transferred 

to a live agent named Mark who briefly explained the program and eventually disclosed that he 

was calling from Morning Financial. Mark provided Plaintiff the Morning Financial website and 

Mark’s contact information to verify that MF was the identity of the caller. 

27. The call on July 27, 2022 was from a spoofed number, 719-552-7644.

28. The call on July 28, 2022 was from the spoofed number, 719-552-1978. 

29. Plaintiff received these calls to his cell phone number ending in 7000 that has been 

on the national Do-Not-Call Registry since 2008.

30. Upon information and belief, the telemarketing robocalls were made using an 

Automatic Telephone Dialing system (“ATDS”). 

31. The impersonal and generic nature of the prerecorded and artificial voice that 

Defendants sent to Plaintiff demonstrates that Defendants used an ATDS to send the subject calls.

32. Through the above unsolicited phone calls, Defendants contacted Plaintiff on 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone regarding an unsolicited service via an ATDS, as defined by 47 

U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) and prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). 

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 6 of 20
7

33. Upon information and belief, this ATDS has the capacity to store or produce 

telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator. This system can

also be considered an “automated system for the selection or dialing of numbers,” as defined by 

Fla. Stat. §501.059(8)(a).

34. Upon information and belief, this ATDS has the capacity to store numbers and to 

dial numbers without human intervention. 

35. In other words, no human physically dialed each digit of Plaintiff’s and Class 

Members’ telephone numbers – the calls were made using equipment with the capacity to dial 

many phone numbers in a short period of time, without human intervention. 

36. Upon information and belief, Defendants used a combination of hardware and 

software systems which have the capacity to generate or store random or sequential numbers or to 

dial sequentially or randomly in an automated fashion without human intervention.

37. Defendants utilized the ATDS to send the subject phone calls en masse to Plaintiff 

and Class Members using an autodial function regardless of whether these individuals had 

provided express written consent or had registered their phone numbers on the National Do Not 

Call Registry.

38. Based upon information and belief, most call recipients were sent more than one 

call, and Defendants lack an adequate system for preventing autodialed or prerecorded-voice calls 

to phones for which they do not have consent. 

39. The content of the phone calls (selling debt resolution services) made to Plaintiff 

and the Class Members show that they were for marketing purposes and thus required Plaintiff’s 

prior express written consent.

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 7 of 20
8

40. The telephone number Defendants called was assigned to a cellular telephone 

service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).

41. These calls were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(1)(A)(i).

42. Plaintiff did not provide Defendants or its agents prior consent to receive these calls 

to his cellular telephone; therefore, the unsolicited calls violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).

43. The calls made to Plaintiff and the Class Members were for the purpose of 

marketing, advertising, and promoting Defendant’s business and services to Plaintiff.

44. Defendant was and is aware or should have known through the exercise of 

reasonable diligence that it was placing unsolicited calls to Plaintiff and other consumers without 

their prior consent. 

45. Upon information and belief, Defendant has previously received consumer 

complaints regarding the same unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint yet Defendant 

continues to engage in the same unlawful conduct. 

46. Since 2020, not including this action, Defendant’s business venture partner, 

Litigation Practice Group, has been sued at least 3 times for TCPA violations.

47. Plaintiff was damaged by Defendants’ calls. In addition to using Plaintiff’s cellular 

data, phone storage, and battery life, his privacy was wrongfully invaded, his seclusion was 

intruded upon, and Plaintiff has become understandably aggravated with having to deal with the 

frustration of repeated, unwanted, harassing, time consuming, and nuisance phone calls, forcing 

his to divert attention away from his personal time and homelife, and causing disruption to his 

work, sleep, and other activities. Not only did the receipt of the phone calls distract and take time 

away from Plaintiff’s personal and professional activities, but Plaintiff was also forced to spend 

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 8 of 20
9

considerable time answering the calls themselves and investigating the source of the calls. See 

Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 905 F.3d 1200, 1211 (11th Cir. 2018). (“[T]ime wasting is 

an injury in fact”.... “[A] small injury... is enough for standing purposes”);See, e.g., Mims v. 

Arrow Fin. Servs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 740 (Jan. 18, 2012) (discussing congressional findings of 

consumer “outrage” as to autodialed and prerecorded calls)

48. Plaintiff wasted time investigating the source of the company responsible for the 

unwanted, illegal and unauthorized calls to Plaintiff. But for Plaintiff’s efforts, Defendant’s 

identity would continue to be concealed. 

49. Plaintiff had no relationship with Defendants prior to these illegal phone calls and 

had his number has been registered to the National Do Not Call Registry since 2008. 

LIABILITY FOR CALLS PLACED BY THIRD PARTIES

50. To the extent Defendant outsourced its robocalling, it is still liable for calls that 

violate the TCPA. 

51. Defendant is liable for third-parties’ actions if it took steps to cause the calls to be 

made, or if the calls were made pursuant to Defendant’s actual authority, apparent authority and/or 

ratification, or pursuant to joint enterprise or acting in concert liability.

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

52. Plaintiff brings this class action under Rule 23(a),(b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and of a similarly situated “Class” or “Class 

Members” defined as:

Do Not Call Registry Class: All people in the United States who from four 

years prior to the filing of this action (1) were called 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 9 of 20
10

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.

Robocall Class: All persons in the United States who, within the four (4) 

years prior to the filing of the original Complaint received a call from 

Defendant or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s telephone 

number, advertising Defendant’s products or services, using an artificial or 

prerecorded voice or similar dialing system used to call Plaintiff, without the 

recipients’ prior express written consent, in violation of the TCPA

53. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action 

against Defendant because there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the 

proposed Class is easily ascertainable through Defendant’s call records. Plaintiff reserves the right 

to amend the Class definition if discovery and further investigation reveal that any Class should 

be expanded or otherwise modified.

54. Numerosity: At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact number of Class 

Members, but among other things, given the nature of the claims and that Defendant’s conduct 

consisted of a standardized SPAM pre-recorded and/or artificial voice scripts calls to particular 

telephone numbers, Plaintiff believes, at a minimum, there are greater than forty (40) Class 

Members. Plaintiff believes that the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members of the Class 

is impracticable and the disposition of their claims in a class action rather than incremental 

individual actions will benefit the Parties and the Court by eliminating the possibility of 

inconsistent or varying adjudications of individual actions.

55. Upon information and belief, a more precise Class size and the identities of the 

individual members thereof are ascertainable through Defendants’ records, including, but not 

limited to Defendant’s call logs, vendor records and marketing records.

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 10 of 20
11

56. Members of the Class may additionally or alternatively be notified of the pendency 

of this action by techniques and forms commonly used in class actions, such as by published notice, 

e-mail notice, website notice, fax notice, first class mail, or combinations thereof, or by other 

methods suitable to this class and deemed necessary and/or appropriate by the Court.

57. The Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and Law: 

Class-wide adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims is appropriate to prevent inconsistent or varying 

adjudications concerning individual members of the class, which would establish incompatible 

standards of conduct for Defendant. Additionally, adjudications concerning individual members 

of the class would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other members of the 

class who are not named parties to the case, or substantially impair or impede the ability of other 

members of the class who are not parties to the adjudication to protect their interest.

58. The Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and Law: 

There is a well-defined community of common questions of fact and law affecting the Plaintiff 

and members of the Class. Common questions of law and/or fact exist as to all members of the 

Class and predominate over the questions affecting individual Class members. These common 

legal and/or factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Whether Plaintiff and Class Members registered a phone number on the National 

Do Not Call Registry;

b. Whether, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendant or

its agents made phone calls to a Class member using an automatic telephone dialing 

system;

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 11 of 20
12

c. Whether, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendant or

its agents made phone calls to a Class member using a pre-recorded message or 

artificial voice;

d. Whether, during the class period Defendant or its agents called (other than a phone 

call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior consent of the called 

party) to a Class member using any automatic dialing system to any cellular 

telephone number;

e. How Defendant obtained the numbers of Plaintiff and Class Members;

f. Whether Plaintiff and Class Members registered a phone number on the National 

Do Not Call Registry;

g. Whether Defendant, either directly or through persons acting on its behalf, willfully 

or knowingly placed the phone calls;

h. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to statutory damages, 

treble damages, and attorney fees and costs for Defendant’s acts and conduct; 

i. Whether Defendant had prior express consent under the TCPA to call the phone 

numbers of Plaintiff Class Members;

j. Whether Defendant instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who 

request not to receive telemarketing calls that met the standards set forth in 47 

C.F.R. § 64.1200(d);

k. Whether Defendant engaged in telemarketing content when it made the calls which 

are the subject of this lawsuit;

l. Whether the calls made to Plaintiff and Class Members violate the TCPA and its 

regulations;

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 12 of 20
13

m. Whether Defendant willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA or the rules 

prescribed under it;

n. Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to a permanent injunction 

enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage in its unlawful conduct; and

o. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to any other relief. 

59. One or more questions or issues of law and/or fact regarding Defendants’ liability 

are common to all Class Members and predominate over any individual issues that may exist and 

may serve as a basis for class certification.

60. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. 

The claims of the Plaintiff and members of the Class are based on the same legal theories and arise 

from the same course of conduct that violates the TCPA.

61. Plaintiff and members of the Class each received at least one telephonic sales and/or 

telemarketing call, advertising Defendants’ services without prior express consent, which 

Defendants sent or caused to be sent to Plaintiff and the members of the Class.

62. Plaintiff and members of the Do-Not-Call-Registry Class each received more than 

one phone call within a 12-month time period, which Defendant placed or caused to be placed to 

Plaintiff and the members of the Class

63. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class 

because Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff 

will fairly, adequately and vigorously represent and protect the interests of the members of the 

Class and has no interests antagonistic to the members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel, 

who are competent and experienced in litigation in TCPA litigation and class action litigation.

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 13 of 20
14

64. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the claims of the Class. While the aggregate damages which may be 

awarded to the members of the Class are likely to be substantial, the damages suffered by 

individual members of the Class are relatively small. As a result, the expense and burden of 

individual litigation makes it economically infeasible and procedurally impracticable for each 

member of the Class to individually seek redress for the wrongs done to them. Plaintiff does not 

know of any other litigation concerning this controversy already commenced against Defendants

by any member of the Class. The likelihood of the individual members of the Class prosecuting 

separate claims is remote. Individualized litigation would also present the potential for varying, 

inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and would increase the delay and expense to all parties 

and the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same factual issues. In contrast, the 

conduct of this matter as a class action presents fewer management difficulties, conserves the 

resources of the parties and the court system, and would protect the rights of each member of the 

Class. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of this action that 

would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

65. Class-Wide Injunctive Relief and Rule 23(b)(2): Moreover, as an alternative to 

or in addition to certification of the Class under Rule 23(b)(3), class certification is warranted 

under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and 

members of Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and 

Class Members as a whole. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of Class Members on grounds 

generally applicable to the entire Class in order to enjoin and prevent Defendants’ ongoing 

violations of the TCPA, and to order Defendants to provide notice to them of their rights under the 

TCPA to statutory damages and to be free from unwanted calls.

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 14 of 20
15

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE TCPA

47 U.S.C. § 227

(Against MF on Behalf of Plaintiff and the

Do Not Call Registry Class)

66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 

through 65 of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.

67. 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.”

68. 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

69. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that “[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 telemarketing 

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

70. 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” 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).

2

. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG 

Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014 (2003) Available at 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.pdf

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 15 of 20
16

71. MF 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 Registry 

Class members 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 maintained 

by the federal government. 

72. MF 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 MF in 

violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. 

73. As a result of MF’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.

74. To the extent MF’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 statutory damages recoverable by 

the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant Plaintiff and the Class relief 

against MF, as set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.

COUNT II

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)

(Against MF on behalf of Plaintiff and the Robocall Class)

102. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 

through 65 above as though fully stated herein. 

103. It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for 

emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any 

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 16 of 20
17

automatic telephone dialing system. . .to any telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone 

service . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

104. Automatic telephone dialing system refers to “equipment which has the capacity--

-(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number 

generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).

105. MF – or third parties directed or authorized by MF – used equipment having the 

capacity to randomly or sequentially generate telephone numbers and to dial such numbers without 

human intervention to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class defined above.

106. MF – or third parties directed by MF – used an artificial or prerecorded voice to 

deliver messages to Plaintiff and other Class Members without prior consent.

107. These calls were made without regard to whether or not MF had first obtained 

express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, MF did not have prior express 

consent to call the cellular phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class when 

its calls were made.

108. MF has, therefore, violated Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an 

automatic telephone dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular phones 

of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express written consent.

109. Furthermore, it is a violation of the TCPA “to initiate any telephone call to any 

residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the 

prior consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes. . . .” 47 U.S.C.

227(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3).

110. The foregoing acts and omissions of MF constitutes numerous and multiple 

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 17 of 20
18

violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the above-cited 

provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 

111. As a result of MF’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and the 

Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). 

112. At all relevant times, MF knew or should have known that its conduct as alleged 

herein violated the TCPA.

113. MF knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these calls, and knew 

or should have known that its conduct was a violation of the TCPA.

114. Because MF knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members did not 

give prior express consent to receive autodialed pre-recorded calls, the Court should treble the 

amount of statutory damages available to Plaintiff and members of the Putative Class pursuant to 

section 227(b)(3)(C) of the TCPA. 

115. Likewise, since MF knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members 

did not give prior express consent to receive calls using an ATDS, the Court should treble the 

amount of statutory damages available to Plaintiff and members of the Putative Class pursuant to 

section 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.

116. As a result of MF knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), Plaintiff 

and the Class are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every 

violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).

117. Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such 

conduct in the future. 

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 18 of 20
19

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant Plaintiff and the Class 

Members relief against Defendant, MF, individually, and jointly and severally, as set forth in the 

Prayer for Relief below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and in favor 

of the class, against Defendants for:

a. An order certifying this case as a class action, certifying Plaintiff as representative 

of the Class, and designating Plaintiff’s attorneys Class counsel;

b. Statutory damages of $500 per call in violation of the TCPA;

c. Willful damages at $1,500 per call in violation of the TCPA

d. Statutory damages of $500 per call in violation of the DNC provisions of the TCPA;

e. Willful damages at $1,500 per call in violation of the DNC provisions of the TCPA;

f. A declaration that Defendants’ practices described herein violate the TCPA;

g. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from placing telemarketing calls to 

individuals registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry;

h. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

i. Such further and other relief as this Court deems reasonable and just.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff is entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury.

Dated: September 16, 2022 /s/ Joshua H. Eggnatz 

Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. 

Fla. Bar. No.: 0067926

Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.

Fla. Bar. No.: 83397

Steven N. Saul, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No.: 1002827

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 19 of 20
20

EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI

7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230

Davie, FL 33314

Tel: (954) 889-3359

Fax: (954) 889-5913

MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com

JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

SSaul@JusticeEarned.com

SGizzie@JusticeEarned.com

Jordan Richards 

Fla. Bar No. 108372

JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC

1800 Southeast 10th Ave., Suite 205

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316

Tel: (954) 871-0050

Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

Seth M. Lehrman 

(To be Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Fla. Bar No.: 178303

EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 

425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Tel: (954) 524-2820

Fax: (954) 524-2822

seth@epllc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class

Case 0:22-cv-61745-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 20 of 20