1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-22307-BB 

MARIA FERNANDA SOTO LEIGUE, 

individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

 Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

v. 

EVERGLADES COLLEGE, INC. d/b/a 

KEISER UNIVERSITY, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Maria Fernanda Soto Leigue brings this class action against Defendant Everglades 

College, Inc. d/b/a Keiser University, and alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiff 

and Plaintiff’s own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief, 

including investigation conducted by Plaintiff’s attorneys. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is a putative class action pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act 

(“FTSA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.059. 

2. Defendant is a private university that provides educational services. 

3. Defendant charges consumers a tuition for its educational services. 

4. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging. 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 1 of 21
2 

5. 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. 

6. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf 

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

remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant. 

PARTIES 

7. 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 she was the regular user of telephone number ***-

***-1578 (the “1578 Number”) that received Defendant’s telephonic sales text messages. Plaintiff 

is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

8. Defendant is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Florida corporation and a 

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

of business and headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Defendant directs, markets, and provides 

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

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. This action is within the original jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to the Class 

Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), which grants district courts original 

jurisdiction over class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and any 

member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant. As set forth 

by Defendant in its Notice of Removal, this action satisfies each of the requirements of § 

1332(d)(2) for original jurisdiction under CAFA the required diversity of citizenship under CAFA 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 2 of 21
3 

is satisfied because “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any 

defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). See Notice of Removal, DE 1. 

10. Defendant is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Florida because it is is 

incorporated in Florida, and its principal place of business is in Florida. 

11. Venue is proper in this District 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 personal jurisdiction, 

and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this 

District. 

FACTS 

Defendant’s Background and Business Model 

12. Defendant is a purported nonprofit university with over 20,000 students, 66,000 

alumni, and 3,800 employees across dozens of campuses. 

13. Compared to its public non-profit counterparts, it is significantly more expensive 

to obtain a degree at Defendant’s institution. A degree in Business Administration costs 

approximately $60,000 at Defendant’s university, while a Bachelor’s degree in Business 

Administration at the University of Florida costs approximately $29,000. 

14. Despite claiming to be a nonprofit organization, a recent letter to General Counsel 

of the U.S. Department of Education by three members of Congress tells a different story: 

[Dr. Keiser’s] 2011 Keiser University-Everglades College conversion 

was (and continues to be) a prime example of a so-called “covert forprofit.” The nonprofit Everglades College—which Keiser led—agreed 

to pay $521 million to acquire Keiser’s own for-profit Keiser 

University. In the first year following the conversion, Dr. Keiser and his 

family members received payments totaling $34 million from the 

“nonprofit” college. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

report from April 2021, requested by Senator Durbin, highlighted this 

conversion among other problematic examples requiring additional 

scrutiny and protections. 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 3 of 21
4 

See correspondence dated February 18, 2022, attached as Exhibit A. 

15. Separately, a United States Senate study found that on average, approximately 60% 

of Defendant’s students withdraw after a period of seven months at Defendant’s institution. See 

www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/PartII/Keiser.pdf. 

16. That same study concluded: 

Given the high cost of tuition at Keiser and that the majority of students 

leave the company’s schools with no degree or diploma, the company’s 

high rate of student loan default is particularly troubling. It is unclear 

whether taxpayers or students are obtaining value from their 

investments in the company. Moreover, Keiser’s decision to convert to 

non-profit status should be more closely scrutinized. 

Id. 

17. As noted by the Senate study, almost of all Defendant’s students pay for their tuition 

through some form of federal and private student loans. Accordingly, Defendant derives almost 

all of its revenue from federal and private lenders. 

18. Due to its high turnover – which ranks in the top ten for the private university sector 

– Defendant is forced to implement aggressive marketing strategies to recruit new students so it 

can ultimately generate revenue (which is then utilized to pay back the loan issued by Dr. Keiser 

and his family members). 

19. Defendant’s annual advertising budget alone is over $50 million. 

20. Defendant advertises its services by utilizing Gragg Advertising, “a full service 

direct response agency that creates, implements, and manages integrated campaigns for both 

digital and traditional mediums.” See graggadv.com/about-us/. 

21. Defendant also utilizes a high-pressure call-center with daily calling quotas that has 

no shortage of on-line complaints by former employees, including the following: 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 4 of 21
5 

 Call center environment, sales driven, weekends and late nights 

 Admissions is run like a high pressure call center. You must call at 

least 80-100 people a day. It doesn't matter if the people in the past 

have said they're not interested because they might change their 

mind. What you learn at training is not what is practiced. The official 

phrase is 'policy vs practice.' The deans don't like to deal with 

students. Students are constantly dropping out and admissions make 

bets on how long they will last when they enroll them. Their phrase 

is students first, but it's really about the numbers and how many you 

can enroll. There is a lot of competition between the different 

campuses. It is a big deal when another campus 'steals students' and 

there is no teamwork. 

 Management would rather use scare tactics and emotional abuse 

than lead with anything silly like encouragement or motivation. 

Work like a slave, never question anyone's decision, and be 

micromanaged like you're an idiot (took a 16 min break instead of a 

15 min break? You're getting a write up). Please don't mistake this 

for bitterness. This is truth. I work her because I have people to 

support and just haven't found a better job yet. There's this lovely 

culture of back-stabbing in this high-pressure, call center-like job. 

 Didn't take long to see the 'Keiser Way' is about numbersEnrollments/Starts. I get that, but the stress of the goals is a bit much. 

The premise is good, but overpriced. They would get more students 

into their other programs (besides nursing, radiology) and fill them, 

if they brought the tuition down. The lack of PTO the 1st year (1wk) 

They make your schedule & don't like to change it It really is a 'call 

center' in Admissions & they don't like you to spend to much time 

with a student if they aren't going to make an appt. w/in the next 3 

days 

 Call center, Broken process, phone harassment, expensive, bullpen 

mentality, schedule, unrealistic goals, SALES!! No commission, 

work life balance (no day off in summer) 

www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Keiser-University-call-center-Reviews 

EI_IE346101.0,17_KH18,29.htm 

22. Internally and in communications with this advertising agency, Defendant refers to 

prospective students as how it sees them: “leads”. 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 5 of 21
6 

Defendant Harasses Consumers with Telephonic Sales Calls 

23. On or about January 2, 2020, submitted a simple inquiry for information to 

Defendant through a form on its website. 

24. When she submitted her information, Plaintiff did not consent to receive automated 

text message solicitations on her cellular phone, and Defendant failed to secure Plaintiff’s express 

written consent for any such telemarketing. 

25. Consistent with aggressive telemarketing practices discussed above, employees 

from Defendant’s call center called Plaintiff eleven (11) times between January 2, 2020 and 

January 13, 2020, and sent solicitation emails to Plaintiff on January 2, 2020, January 4, 2020, July 

10, 2020, August 14, 2020, August 20, 2020, August 25, 2020, September 1, 2020, September 8, 

2020, September 14, 2020, September 21, 2020, October 15, 2020, November 27, 2020, December 

14, 2020, December 28, 2020, December 31, 2020, March 25, 2021, March 29, 2021, April 10, 

2021, and August 6, 2021. 

26. In addition to the calls, Defendant sent or attempted to send text message 

solicitations to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone on February 11, 2020, July 10, 2020, July 14, 2020, 

August 1, 2020, October 15, 2020, October 30, 2020, November 16, 2020, November 27, 2020, 

December 28, 2020 (twice), March 25, 2021, April 10, 2021, August 6, 2021 (twice), August 10, 

2021, August 14, 2021, August 17, 2021, and September 23, 2021. 

27. The following screenshots depict just some of the messages Plaintiff received: 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 6 of 21
7 

28. Notably, Defendant’s messages did not include instructions on how to opt-out of 

future messages. 

29. On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff responded with the words “Please remove me 

from your contact list,” in an attempt to opt-out of any further text message communications with 

Defendant: 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 7 of 21
8 

30. Despite Plaintiff’s use of clear opt-out language, Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s optout demand and continued to send or attempt to send Plaintiff promotional text messages, including 

on October 6, 2021, October 12, 2021, December 6, 2021, and December 17, 2021. 

31. As demonstrated by the above screenshots, the purpose of Defendant’s telephonic 

sales messages was to solicit the sale of consumer services. 

32. Defendant’s text messages constitute telephonic sales calls because they 

encouraged the future sale of consumers services, i.e., selling Plaintiff educational services in the 

form of university courses for which Plaintiff would have paid out-of-pocket and/or through 

student loans. Moreover, Plaintiff would have purchased such services for personal purposes only. 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 8 of 21
9 

33. Defendant’s text messages also constitute telephonic sales calls because the 

purpose was to obtain information that would be used by Defendant to directly solicit the sale of 

consumer educational services that Plaintiff would have purchased out-of-pocket and/or through 

student loans, and for personal purposes only. 

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

35. Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received the above 

telephonic sales calls. 

36. Upon information and belief, Defendant maintains and/or has access to outbound 

transmission reports for all text messages sent advertising/promoting its services and goods. These 

reports show the dates, times, target telephone numbers, and content of each message sent to 

Plaintiff and the Class members. 

37. As Defendant has conceded, it sent over 10,000 text message solicitations like the 

ones it sent to Plaintiff. 

38. The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text messages, coupled with their 

frequency, demonstrates that Defendant utilized a computer software system that automatically 

selected and dialed Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ telephone numbers. 

39. To send the text message, Defendant used a messaging platform (the “Platform”), 

which permitted Defendant to transmit thousands of text messages automatically and without any 

human involvement. 

40. Defendant was not required to and did not need to utilize the Platform to send 

messages to Plaintiff and the Class members. Instead, Defendant opted to use the Platform to 

maximize the reach of its text message advertisements at a nominal cost to Defendant. 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 9 of 21
10 

41. The Platform has the capacity to select and dial numbers automatically from a list 

of numbers. 

42. The Platform has the capacity to schedule the time and date for future transmission 

of text messages. 

43. The Platform also has an auto-reply function that results in the automatic 

transmission of text messages. 

44. Defendant was not required to and did not need to utilize the Platform to send 

messages to Plaintiff and the Class members. Instead, Defendant opted to use the Platform to 

maximize the reach of its text message advertisements at a nominal cost to Defendant. 

45. Defendant would be able to conduct its business operations without sending 

automated text messages to consumers. 

46. Defendant would be able to send automated text messages to consumers, and in 

compliance with the FTSA, by securing the proper consent from consumers prior to sending text 

messages. 

47. Defendant would be able to send text messages to consumers without consent by 

utilizing a non-automated text messaging system. 

48. Accordingly, it is not impossible for Defendant to comply with the FTSA in the 

context of transmitting text messages. 

49. The burden and cost to Defendant of securing consent from consumers that 

complies with the FTSA is nominal. 

50. Compliance with the FTSA will not result in Defendant having to cease its business 

operations. 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 10 of 21
11 

51. Compliance with the FTSA will not result in Defendant having the alter the prices 

of any goods or services it provides in the marketplace. 

52. Compliance with the FTSA will not force Defendant to seek regulatory approval 

from the State of Florida before undertaking any type of commercial transaction. 

53. Because a substantial part of Defendant’s FTSA violations occurred in Florida, 

requiring Defendant’s compliance with the FTSA will not have the practical effect of regulating 

commerce occurring wholly outside of Florida. 

54. 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. 

55. More specifically, Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or 

allowing the placement of a telephonic sales call by text message using an automated system for 

the selection or dialing of telephone numbers. 

56. The form utilized by Defendant to acquire Plaintiff’s and the Class members 

telephone numbers is depicted below: 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 11 of 21
12 

57. As demonstrated by the above, Defendant’s form fails to comply with the FTSA’s 

“express written consent” requirements in the following ways: 

(a) The disclosure language is not clear and conspicuous, but is instead concealed in 

small font below a large yellow “REQUEST INFO” call to action button; 

(b) The disclosure language fails to state that the consumer is agreeing to receive 

telephonic sales calls; and 

(c) The disclosure language fails to advise consumers that they are 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. 

58. Since Plaintiff’s prior lawsuit, Defendant has conceded that its prior form was 

deficient by attempting to remedy some of the deficiencies in the disclosure language: 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 12 of 21
13 

59. As reflected by the above, Defendant’s new disclosure language makes reference 

to “marketing” and that consumers are “not required to provide my phone number as a condition 

of purchasing any property, goods, or service.” In other words, Defendant itself concedes that its 

call-center’s solicitations are to market its services. 

60. Defendant’s telephonic sales calls caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, 

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

violation of their statutory privacy rights. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

PROPOSED CLASSES

61. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of herself individually and 

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

Procedure 23. The Classes that Plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as: 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 13 of 21
14 

FTSA Class: All persons within the United States who, (1) were sent 

more than one telephonic sales call regarding Defendant’s 

property, 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 more than one text message from Defendant or anyone on 

Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone number 

after making a request to Defendant to not receive future text 

messages. 

62. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Classes. 

NUMEROSITY

63. Defendant has placed telephonic sales calls to telephone numbers belonging to at 

least 10,001 consumers. The members of the Classes, therefore, are believed to be so numerous 

that joinder of all members is impracticable. 

64. Identification of the Class members is a matter capable of ministerial determination 

from Defendant’s call records. 

COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

65. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Classes which 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Classes. Among the 

questions of law and fact common to the Classes are: 

(a) Whether Defendant initiated telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff and the Class 

members; 

(b) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it had prior express written 

consent to make such calls; 

(c) Whether Defendant sent solicitations to individuals who had requested not to 

receive calls; and 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 14 of 21
15 

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

66. The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers, and 

Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of being efficiently adjudicated 

and administered in this case. 

TYPICALITY

67. 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

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

interests of the Classes and has retained competent counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff is an adequate 

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

SUPERIORITY

69. 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 Classes 

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

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

the Classes 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 Classes could afford individual litigation, the 

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

70. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Classes 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 15 of 21
16 

may not. Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the Classes, 

although certain class members are not parties to such actions. 

COUNT I 

Violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.059

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FTSA Class)

71. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

70 as if fully set forth herein. 

72. It is a violation of the FTSA to “make or knowingly allow a telephonic 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). 

73. A “telephonic sales call” is defined as a “telephone call, text message, 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 information that will 

or may 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)(i).

74. “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 voicemail 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: 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 16 of 21
17 

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 

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).

75. Defendant failed to secure prior express written consent from Plaintiff and the 

FTSA Class members. 

76. In violation of the FTSA, Defendant made and/or knowingly allowed telephonic 

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

Class members’ prior express written consent. 

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

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

of telephone numbers. 

78. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, and pursuant to § 501.059(10)(a) of the FTSA, 

Plaintiff and FTSA Class members were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00 

in damages for each violation. 

79. Plaintiff requests for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the 

Prayer for Relief below. 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 17 of 21
18 

COUNT II 

Violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.059 

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

80. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

70 as if fully set forth herein. 

81. It is a violation of the FTSA to initiate an outbound telephone call, text message, or 

voicemail transmission to a consumer, business, or donor or potential donor who has previously 

communicated to the telephone solicitor or other person that he or she does not wish to receive an 

outbound call, text message, or voicemail transmission: 

(a) Made by or on behalf of the seller whose goods or services are being offered; or 

(b) Made on behalf of a charitable organization for which a charitable contribution is 

being solicited. 

Fla. Stat. § 501.059(5) (a), (b). 

82. Plaintiff and the Class Members made requests to Defendant not to receive 

messages from Defendant. 

83. Defendant failed to honor Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members’ 

requests. 

84. In violation of the FTSA, Defendant made and/or knowingly allowed outbound text 

messages offering their services to be sent to Plaintiff and the Class members, after they had 

previously communicated to Defendant that he or she did not wish to receive any more calls, text 

messages, or voicemails from Defendant. 

85. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, and pursuant to § 501.059(10)(a) of the FTSA, 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 18 of 21
19 

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

against future calls. 

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

form of invasion of privacy.

COUNT III 

Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(a)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FTSA Class) 

87. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

70 as if fully set forth herein. 

88. Pursuant to section 501.059(10)(a), Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting 

Defendant’s unlawful conduct in the future to protect Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members from 

Defendant’s unsolicited calls and practices. 

89. Defendant’s ongoing and continuing violations have caused, and in the absence of 

an injunction will continue to cause, harm to Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members. 

90. Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members suffer irreparable harm if Defendant is 

permitted to continue its practice of violating the FTSA. 

91. The injuries that the Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members will suffer if Defendant 

is not prohibited from continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein far outweigh 

the harm that Defendant will suffer if it is enjoined from continuing this conduct. 

92. The public interest will be served by an injunction prohibiting Defendant from 

continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein. 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 19 of 21
20 

93. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members seek an injunction requiring 

Defendant to implement policies and procedures to secure express written consent before engaging 

in any text message solicitations, and to follow such consent requirements. 

94. Plaintiff requests for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the 

Prayer for Relief below. 

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 Classes as defined above, 

and appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Classes and Plaintiff’s counsel as 

Class Counsel; 

b) An award of statutory damages for Plaintiff and each member of the Classes as 

applicable under the FTSA; 

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

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

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

e) Such further and other relief as the Court deems necessary. 

JURY DEMAND 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 20 of 21
21 

DATED: August 15, 2022 

Respectfully Submitted, 

HIRALDO P.A. 

/s/ Manuel S. Hiraldo 

Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 030380 

401 E. Las Olas Boulevard 

Suite 1400 

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com 

Telephone: 954.400.4713 

SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 

/s/ Andrew Shamis 

Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 101754 

ashamis@shamisgentile.com 

/s/ Garrett Berg_ 

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. 

/s/ Scott Edelsberg_ 

Scott Edelsberg, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 0100537 

20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 

Aventura, Florida 33180 

Telephone: 305-975-3320 

Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 21 of 21