1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ALAN GROCHOWSKI, SR., individually 

and on behalf of all those similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

v. 

RESORT LEGAL SERVICE, L.L.C., 

Defendant.

/

Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Alan Grochowski, Sr., appearing both individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, by and through his attorneys, brings this class action against Defendant, Resort 

Legal Service, L.L.C. based upon personal knowledge as to his own acts and experiences and, as 

to all other matters, based upon information and belief, including the investigation conducted by 

his counsel, and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a class action under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (“FTSA”), Fla.

Stat. § 501.059, as amended by Senate Bill No. 1120.1

2. This is also a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 

47 U.S.C. § 227, a federal statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage about the 

proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. See Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC,

132 S. Ct. 740, 745 (2012). 

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

Case 2:22-cv-14321-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 1 of 9
2

3. Defendant Resort Legal Service offers a service where they solicit individuals to 

sell or cancel their time shares.

4. Defendant Resort Legal Service uses automated systems to make outbound 

telemarketing calls to hundreds if not thousands of consumers across U.S., soliciting consumers to 

solicit the purchase of their services.

5. By doing so, Defendant Resort Legal Service has violated the provisions of the 

Florida Telephone Solicitations Act, Fla. Sta § 501.059 and it violated the TCPA when it contacted 

numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Defendant has caused Plaintiff and Class Members 

to suffer injuries as a result of placing unwanted telephonic sales calls to their phones.

6. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s unlawful 

telemarketing calls. Plaintiff additionally seeks damages as authorized by the FTSA and TCPA 

on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies 

resulting from the actions of Defendant described herein.

THE PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Alan Grochowski is a citizen of Florida residing in this District.

8. Defendant Resort Legal Service, L.L.C. is a Missouri limited liability company.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 47 

U.S.C. § 227 et seq.

10. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Resort Legal Service, L.L.C. 

because the company sends telemarketing calls into this District.

11. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the telephone calls at 

issue were made into this District.

Case 2:22-cv-14321-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 2 of 9
3

STATEMENT OF FACTS

12. Plaintiff Grochowski is the subscriber and the sole user of the cell phone number 

ending with xxx-xxx-2001.

13. This number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since July 2003.

14. The number is not associated with any business.

15. The number is for personal use.

16. On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff Grochowski received two calls from Resort Legal 

Service.

17. The Plaintiff answered both calls.

18. The Defendant offered Plaintiff their time share services.

19. The Defendant wanted to know the location and value of the Plaintiff’s timeshare.

20. The Plaintiff informed the Defendant that he wasn’t interested.

21. Despite that, the Defendant called again on July 28, 2022.

22. The Defendant offered the same sales pitch on the call.

23. The Defendant’s offer this time invited the Plaintiff to intend a meeting in 

Manchester, NH so the Plaintiff could hear more detail about their services.

24. All of the calls started with silence before a click and a pause sound before someone 

came on the telephone line.

25. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, counsel for the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant 

about the calls.

26. The Defendant did not deny the calls.

27. Instead, the “Director of Legal Services” for the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff 

and inquired if counsel for the Plaintiff was a lawyer.

28. After that, no substantive response was provided.

Case 2:22-cv-14321-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 3 of 9
4

29. In response to these unsolicited telephonic calls, Plaintiff files this lawsuit seeking 

injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease violating the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, as well as an award of statutory damages to the 

members of the Class, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

30. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. (b)(2) and (b)(3), consisting of:

Florida Telephone Solicitation Act Autodial Class: All persons in Florida, who, 

(1) received a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant’s goods and/or services, 

(2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff (3) since 

July 1, 2021.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons 

in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call 

Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing 

calls from or on behalf of Defendant (3) within a 12-month period (4) from the four 

years prior to the filing of the complaint through the date of trial.

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

reserves the right to modify or amend the Class definitions, as appropriate, during the course of 

this litigation.

32. Plaintiff brings all claims in this action individually and on behalf of Class 

Members against Defendant.

Numerosity

33. Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual joinder is impracticable.

Case 2:22-cv-14321-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 4 of 9
5

34. On information and belief, based on the technology used to call Plaintiff, which is 

used to make calls en masse, Members of the Class number in the thousands. 

35. The precise number of Class Members and their identities are unknown to Plaintiff 

at this time but may be determined through discovery.

36. Class Members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail and/or 

publication through the distribution records of Defendant.

Commonality

37. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class Members and predominate 

over questions affecting only individual Class Members. 

38. Common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to, whether 

Defendant have violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act or Florida Telephone Solicitation 

Act; and whether Class Members are entitled to statutory damages for the aforementioned 

violations.

Typicality

39. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class because the 

named Plaintiff, like all other Class Members, received unsolicited telephonic sales calls from the 

Defendant without giving them his consent to receive such calls.

Adequacy of Representation

40. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests do not 

conflict with the interests of the Class Members he seeks to represent, he has retained competent 

counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and he intends to prosecute this action 

vigorously. 

Case 2:22-cv-14321-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 5 of 9
6 

41. The interests of Class Members will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff 

and his counsel.

Superiority

42. The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the claims of Class Members. 

43. Many of the Class Members likely lack the ability and/or resources to undertake 

the burden and expense of individually prosecuting what may be a complex and extensive action 

to establish Defendant’s liability. 

44. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and 

multiplies the burden on the judicial system. This strain on the parties and the judicial system 

would be heightened in this case, given the complex legal and factual issues at play. 

45. Individualized litigation also presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory 

judgments. 

46. In contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and 

provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by 

a single court on the issue of Defendant’s liability. 

47. Class treatment of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and claimants are

before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability issues.

COUNT I

Violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.059 

On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act Autodial Class

48. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

47 as if fully set forth herein.

Case 2:22-cv-14321-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 6 of 9
7

49. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Florida Telephone 

Solicitation Act Autodial Class Members against Defendant. 

50. 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).

51. 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).

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

Members.

53. 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.

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

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

telephone numbers.

55. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, and 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.

Case 2:22-cv-14321-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 7 of 9
8 

COUNT II

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

(Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227) 

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

56. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

47 as if fully set forth herein.

57. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or 

other persons or entities acting on Defendant’s behalf constitute numerous and multiple 

violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, by making telemarketing calls, except for emergency 

purposes, to the Plaintiff and the Class despite their numbers being on the National Do Not Call 

Registry.

58. The Defendant’s violations were negligent, willful, or knowing. 

59. As a result of Defendant’s and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or 

entities acting on Defendant’s behalf violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, Plaintiff and 

members of the Class presumptively are entitled to an award of between $500 and $1,500 in 

damages for each and every call made.

60. Plaintiff and members of the Class are also entitled to and do seek injunctive 

relief prohibiting Defendant from making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do 

Not Call Registry, except for emergency purposes, in the future. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks 

judgment against Defendant, as follows:

(a) For an order certifying the Classes and naming Plaintiff as the representative of the 

Classes and Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class Counsel to represent the Classes; 

Case 2:22-cv-14321-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 8 of 9
9 

(b) For an award of statutory damages for Plaintiff and each member of the Classes;

(c) For an order declaring that the Defendant’s conduct violates the statutes referenced 

herein;

(d) For an order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Classes on all Counts asserted 

herein;

(e) For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded;

(f) For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief;

(g) For injunctive relief as pleaded or as the Court may deem proper; and

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

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and Class Members hereby demand a trial by jury. 

Dated: September 13, 2022 PLAINTIFF, on behalf of himself

and others similarly situated,

/s/ Avi R. Kaufman 

 Avi R. Kaufman (FL Bar no. 84382) 

kaufman@kaufmanpa.com 

Rachel E. Kaufman (FL Bar no. 87406) 

rachel@kaufmanpa.com

KAUFMAN P.A.

237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor 

Coral Gables, FL 33133 

Telephone: (305) 469-5881 

Case 2:22-cv-14321-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 9 of 9