UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TODD BOBO, individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

CLOVER NETWORK, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________/

CLASS ACTION

Case No. 

 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff, Todd Bobo (“Plaintiff”), brings this action against Defendant, Clover 

Network, LLC (“Defendant”), to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2. This is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 

U.S.C. § 227 et seq., (the “TCPA”). 

3. Defendant is a point-of-sale platform retailer that provides e-commerce services to 

businesses. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of 

consumers in the process. 

4. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s illegal conduct, 

which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life 

of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members 

of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

Case 1:22-cv-22338-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 1 of 9
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff alleges violations of a federal 

statute. Jurisdiction is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because Plaintiff alleges a national class, 

which will result in at least one class member belonging to a different state than that of Defendant. 

Plaintiff seeks up to $1,500.00 (one-thousand-five-hundred dollars) in damages for each call in violation 

of the TCPA, which, when aggregated among a proposed class numbering in the tens of thousands, or 

more, exceeds the $5,000,000.00 (five-million dollars) threshold for federal court jurisdiction under the 

Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Therefore, both the elements of diversity jurisdiction and CAFA 

jurisdiction are present.

6. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because Defendant is deemed to reside in any judicial district 

in which it is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, and because Defendant provides and markets 

its services within this district thereby establishing sufficient contacts to subject it to personal 

jurisdiction. Further, Defendant’s tortious conduct against Plaintiff occurred within the State of Florida

and, on information and belief, Defendant has sent the same text messages complained of by Plaintiff 

to other individuals within this judicial district, such that some of Defendant’s acts in making such calls 

have occurred within this district, subjecting Defendant to jurisdiction in the State of Florida. 

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this action, was a resident of 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

8. Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company whose principal place of business is 

located at 187 Wolf Rd. Ste 101, Albany, NY 12205. 

9. Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the State of 

Florida. 

Case 1:22-cv-22338-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 2 of 9
10. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendant ’s name in this Complaint includes 

all agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, 

sureties, subrogees, representatives, vendors, and insurers of Defendant. 

FACTS

11. Over the past year, Defendant began bombarding Plaintiff with telemarketing text 

messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 3660 (the “3660 Number”), including but 

not limited to the following on May 3, 2022: 

12. Defendant’s text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, and within 

the time frame relevant to this action. 

13. Defendant’s text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future 

purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., advertising Defendant’s software application 

and the use of a reward system for Plaintiff’s purchases. 

14. The information contained in the text message advertises Defendant’s various 

promotions, which Defendant sends to promote its business.

Case 1:22-cv-22338-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 3 of 9
15. Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant’s 

violation of the TCPA occurred within this district. Upon information and belief, Defendant caused 

other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district. 

16. Defendant’s texts were not made for an emergency purpose or to collect on a debt 

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

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

be contacted. 

18. Plaintiff has no existing business relationship with Defendant. 

19. Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 3660 Number and is financially 

responsible for phone service to the 3660 Number. 

20. Plaintiff registered his 3660 Number with the national do-not-call registry on October 

7, 2011, and has been registered at all times relevant to this action. 

21. 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. 

22. The text messages originated from telephone numbers 73752, a number which upon 

information and belief is owned and operated by Defendant or on behalf of Defendant. 

23. Defendant’s unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm, including 

invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. 

Defendant’s text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

PROPOSED CLASS

Case 1:22-cv-22338-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 4 of 9
24. Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated.

25. Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a Class defined as follows:

Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United 

States who from four years prior to the filing of this action 

(1) were sent a 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.

26. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not 

know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number in the several 

thousands, if not more.

 NUMEROSITY

27. Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed violative calls to cellular telephone 

numbers belonging to thousands of consumers throughout the United States who are registered on the 

Do Not Call registry. The members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder 

of all members is impracticable.

28. The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time and can 

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

ministerial determination from Defendant’s callrecords.

 COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

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

over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and 

fact common to the Class are:

Case 1:22-cv-22338-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 5 of 9
a) Whether Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c);

b) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;

c) Whether Defendant violated the privacy rights of Plaintiff and members of the class;

d) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and

e) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.

30. The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s 

claim that Defendant routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers assigned to cellular 

telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of 

being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.

TYPICALITY

31. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all based 

on the same factual and legal theories.

 PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS MEMBERS

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

of the Class, and has retained competent counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff is an adequate representative 

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

 PROCEEDING VIA CLASS ACTION IS SUPERIOR AND ADVISABLE

33. 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 remote, 

and, even if every member of the Class could afford individual litigation, the court system would be 

unduly burdened by individual litigation of suchcases.

Case 1:22-cv-22338-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 6 of 9
34. 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 from performing the challenged acts, whereas another may not. 

Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the Class, although certain class 

members are not parties to such actions.

COUNT I

Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class) 

35. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the paragraphs 1 through 34 of this Complaint and 

incorporates them by reference herein.

36. 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.”

37. 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.”1

38. 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.”

39. 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 

1 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 1:22-cv-22338-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 7 of 9
protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they 

object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c).

40. 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 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. 

41. 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.

42. 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 statutory damages recoverable by 

the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Classes, prays for the following 

relief:

a) An order certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class as defined above, and 

appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Class and Plaintiff’s counsel as Class Counsel;

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

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

d) An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging activity, and to 

otherwise protect the interests of the Class;

Case 1:22-cv-22338-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 8 of 9
e) Such further and other relief as the Court deems necessary. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and Class Members hereby demand a trial by jury.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

Plaintiff demands that Defendant take affirmative steps to preserve all records, lists, electronic 

databases, or other itemizations associated with the allegations herein, including all records, lists, 

electronic databases, or other itemizations in the possession of any vendors, individuals, and/or 

companies contracted, hired, or directed by Defendant to assist in sending the alleged communications.

Dated: July 26, 2022 

Shamis & Gentile, P.A.

/s/ Andrew Shamis 

Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 101754

ashamis@shamisgentile.com

Garrett O. Berg, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1000427

gberg@shamisgentile.com

14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705

Miami, Florida 33132

Telephone: 305-479-2299

EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.

Scott Edelsberg, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0100537

Christopher Gold, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 088733 

scott@edelsberglaw.com

chris@edelsberglaw.com 

20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417

Aventura, FL 33180

Office: (786) 289-9471

Direct: (305) 975-3320

Fax: (786) 623-0915

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class

Case 1:22-cv-22338-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 9 of 9