1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

RAY BUENO, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ALPINE FUNDING PARTNERS, LLC

 Defendant. 

______________________________________/

CLASS ACTION

 

Case No. 

 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Ray Bueno brings this class action against Defendant, Alpine Funding Partners, LLC, 

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 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 amended by Senate Bill No. 1120.1

 

2. Defendant is an alternative finance company that provides commercial financing 

for small businesses. According to Defendant’s website, Defendant “works with hundreds of small 

businesses all over the United States across multiple industries....” 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 1 of 16
2 

3. To promote its goods and 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. 

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 seeks 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. 

PARTIES

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 786-

***-6427 (the “6427 Number”) that received Defendant’s telephonic sales calls.

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

company and a “telephone solicitor” as defined by Fla. Stat. § 501.059(f). Defendant maintains 

its primary place of business and headquarters in New York, New York. Defendant directs, 

markets, and provides business activities throughout the State of Florida and the United States. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 2 of 16
3 

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.. 

9. 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. 

FACTS

10. Over the past several months preceding the filing of this action, Defendant began 

sending telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number from Defendant’s 385-354-

6228 number, including but not limited to the following on April 1, 2022: 

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 3 of 16
4

 

11. Defendant’s messages concluded with the following opt-out instructions: “STOP 

to opt out.”

12. The same day that Defendant sent these text messages, on or about April 1, 2022, 

Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s 385-354-6228 number with the word “Stop” in an attempt to

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

13. Immediately after Plaintiff sent his stop request, Defendant, within seconds, 

responded with an automated opt-out confirmation text confirming that Plaintiff had opted out of 

future communications: “You have successfully been unsubscribed.”

14. Despite Plaintiff’s use of Defendant’s preferred opt-out language, Defendant 

ignored Plaintiff’s opt-out demand and continued to send Plaintiff another promotional text 

message on April 28, 2022. This message came from a different number belonging to Defendant: 

786-699-8373. A screenshot of the April 28, 2022 message is below:

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 4 of 16
5

15. On or about April 28, 2022, Plaintiff again responded to Defendant’s 786-699-8373

number with the word “Stop” in a second attempt to opt-out of any further communications from 

Defendant. 

16. Immediately after Plaintiff sent his second stop request, Defendant, again, within 

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

opted out of future communications: “You have been successfully unsubscribed.”

17. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated use of Defendant’s preferred opt-out language, 

Defendant again ignored Plaintiff’s opt-out demand and continued to send Plaintiff another 

promotional text message on June 20, 2022. This message came from a different number belonging 

to Defendant: 786-933-5460. A screenshot of the June 20, 2022 message is below:

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 5 of 16
6 

18. Defendant’s use of automated, instantaneous opt-out confirmations show that 

Defendant has the capability of immediately complying with Plaintiff’s opt-out requests. 

19. These facts strongly suggest that Defendant uses multiple telephone numbers to 

send marketing text messages to Plaintiff and members of the Class and fails to ensure that requests 

by Plaintiff and Class members to opt-out of future communications are honored, regardless of 

which telephone number Defendant utilizes for its marketing solicitation.

20. For example, these facts suggest that Defendant may have failed to maintain a 

master opt-out list and/or failed to maintain internal policies to sufficiently cross-reference 

Defendant’s various marketing telephone numbers with the opt-out requests made by Plaintiff and 

members of the Class.

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

sales calls was to solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services. 

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 6 of 16
7 

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

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

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

within the time frame relevant to this action. 

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

received the above text messages.

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

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

funding. 

26. 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). 

27. Upon information and belief, Defendant does not inform and train its personnel 

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

U.S.C. § 64.1200(d)(2). 

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

to be contacted. 

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

expressly revoked when Plaintiff responded with “STOP” on April 1, 2022 and on April 28, 2022. 

30. Upon information and belief, Defendant caused similar telephonic sales calls to be 

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

31. To transmit the above telephonic sales calls, Defendant utilized a computer 

software system that automatically selected and dialed Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ 

telephone numbers. 

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 7 of 16
8 

32. Defendant’s text messages originated from telephone numbers (385) 354-6228, 

(786) 699-8373, and (786) 935-5460, numbers which upon information and belief are owned and 

operated by Defendant or on behalf of Defendant. 

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

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

34. Next, Plaintiff wasted approximately fifteen minutes locating and retaining counsel 

for this case in order to stop Defendant’s unwanted calls. 

35. In all, Defendant’s violations of the TCPA caused Plaintiff to waste at least fifteen 

minutes of his time in addressing and attempting to stop Defendant’s solicitations. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

PROPOSED CLASS

36. Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf 

of himself and all others similarly situated. The “Class” that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined 

as:

No Consent Class: All persons in the United States 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 

behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone number after making a 

request to Defendant to not receive future text messages.

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

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

several thousands, if not more. 

NUMEROSITY

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 8 of 16
9 

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

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

their prior express written consent, and/or after they had requested to be opt-out. The members of 

the Class, therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

39. 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 determination from Defendant’s call records.

COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

40. 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: 

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

[2] Whether Defendant can meet 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); 

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

to their telephone numbers; 

[6] Whether Defendant keeps records of text recipients who revoked 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 knowing and willful; and 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 9 of 16
10

41. The common 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. 

TYPICALITY

42. 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

43. 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. 

SUPERIORITY

44. 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 such cases. 

45. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 10 of 16
11

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 FLA. STAT. § 501.059

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent Class)

46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

47. 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).

48. 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)(g).

49. “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-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 11 of 16
12

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).

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

members. 

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

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

members’ prior express written consent. 

52. 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. 

53. 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 

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

against future calls. Id. 

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(2)

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

54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-45 as if fully set forth herein. 

55. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 12 of 16
13

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 which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

56. 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 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 purposes (or on whose behalf such a call is made) receives a request from 

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 made. 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 telemarketing 

purposes 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 from the time the 

request is made.

47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3), (6).

57. 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:

(e) The rules set forth in paragraph (c) and (d) of this 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 Docket No. 

02-278, FCC 03-153, “Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act of 1991.

47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e).

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 13 of 16
14

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

not to receive calls from Defendant. 

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

requests. 

60. Upon information and belief, Defendant has not instituted procedures for 

maintaining 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). 

61. 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). 

62. 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). 

63. 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 statutory damages,

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

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

form of invasion of privacy. 

65. Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members 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

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 14 of 16
15

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, 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 statutory damages for Plaintiff and each member 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 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.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

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

databases or other itemization of telephone numbers associated with the communications or transmittal 

of the calls as alleged herein.

Dated:July 26, 2022 

Respectfully Submitted,

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

Case 1:22-cv-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 15 of 16
16

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-22336-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 16 of 16