1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

YESENIA VALIENTE and 

YISHAI MIZRAHI, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

 Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

v. 

BIMINI SUPERFAST OPERATIONS, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs Yesenia Valiente and Yishai Mizrahi bring this class action against Defendant Bimini 

Superfast Operations, LLC, and allege as follows upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiffs and 

Plaintiffs’ own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including 

investigation conducted by Plaintiffs’ attorneys. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

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

47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq. (the “TCPA”), and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (“FTSA”), 

Fla. Stat. § 501.059. 

2. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text 

messaging to those who have not provided Defendant with their prior express written consent as 

required by the FTSA. 

3. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the requisite policies and 

procedures and training required under the TCPA and its implementing regulations. 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 1 of 24
2 

4. Defendant’s telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiffs and the Class members 

harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and 

invasion of their privacy. 

5. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek an injunction and statutory damages on behalf 

of themselves 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 Valiente is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a citizen and resident of 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

7. Plaintiff Mizrahi is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a citizen and resident of 

Palm Beach County, Florida 

8. 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 cellular telephone number 

that received Defendant’s telephonic sales calls. 

9. Defendant is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a foreign corporation and a 

“telephone solicitor” as defined by Fla. Stat. § 501.059(f). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

10. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ TCPA 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

11. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FTSA claims pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

12. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida because this suit arises out 

of and relates to Defendant’s contacts with this state. Defendant initiated and directed 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 2 of 24
3 

telemarketing and/or advertising text messages into Florida. Specifically, Defendant initiated and 

directed the transmission of unsolicited advertisement or telemarketing text messages to Plaintiffs’ 

cellular telephone number to sell goods, services or products in Florida. Plaintiffs’ telephone 

number has an area code that specifically coincides with locations in Florida, and Plaintiffs 

received such messages while residing in and physically present in Florida. 

13. 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 

14. On or about July 2022, Defendant sent the following telephonic sales calls to 

Plaintiff Mizrahi’s cellular telephone: 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 3 of 24
4 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 4 of 24
5 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 5 of 24
6 

15. On or about July 2022, Defendant sent the following telephonic sales calls to 

Plaintiff Valiente’s cellular telephone 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 6 of 24
7 

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

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

17. As demonstrated by the above screenshots, when it sent its text message 

solicitations to Plaintiffs, Defendant failed to identify (1) the name of the individual caller; (2) the 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 7 of 24
8 

name of the legal entity on whose behalf the call was being made; and (3) a telephone number or 

address at which Defendant may be contacted. 

18. Plaintiffs are the regular user of the telephone numbers that received the above 

telephonic sales calls. 

19. Plaintiffs utilize their cellular telephone numbers for personal purposes and the 

number is Plaintiffs’ residential telephone line. 

20. Plaintiffs were in Florida when she received the above text message call, and 

Defendant’s violative conduct occurred in substantial part in Florida. 

21. Plaintiff Valiente registered her cellular telephone number on the National Do Not 

Call Registry on or about July 24, 2008 and the number has been consistently registered since that 

date. 

22. 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 

Plaintiffs and the Class members. 

23. As demonstrated by the text message screenshots above, Defendant did not provide 

Plaintiffs and the Class members with instructions on how to opt-out of future text messages by, 

for example, advising them that they could text “Stop” to get the messages to stop, which is a 

standard requirement outlined in the Principles and Best Practices manual published by CTIA, the 

trade association that represents every major wireless carrier in the country. See 190719-CTIAMessaging-Principles-and-Best-Practices-FINAL.pdf at 15 (“Message Senders should state in the 

message how and what words effect an opt-out. Standardized ‘STOP’ wording should be used for 

opt-out instructions, however opt-out requests with normal language (i.e., stop, end, unsubscribe, 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 8 of 24
9 

cancel, quit, ‘please opt me out’) should also be read and acted upon by a Message Sender except 

where a specific word can result in unintentional opt-out. The validity of a Consumer opt-out 

should not be impacted by any de minimis variances in the Consumer opt-out response, such as 

capitalization, punctuation, or any letter-case sensitivities.”). 

24. Defendant’s failure to provide opt-out instructions to Plaintiffs and the Class 

members is indicative of Defendant’s failure to 1) maintain written policies and procedures 

regarding its text messaging marketing; (2) provide training to its personnel engaged in 

telemarketing; and (3) maintain a standalone do-not-call list. 

25. To transmit the above telephonic sales text message call, Defendant utilized a 

computer software system that automatically selected and dialed Plaintiffs’ and the Class 

members’ telephone numbers. 

26. The number used by Defendant to transmit the subject text message solicitations 

(81452) is known as a “short code.” Short codes are short digit sequences, shorter than telephone 

numbers, that are used to address messages in the Multimedia Messaging System and short 

message service systems of mobile network operators. 

27. Text messages using a short code can only be sent using a computer, and cannot be 

sent using a standard telephone. 

28. The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text message and the fact that it 

originated from a short-code demonstrates that Defendant utilized a computer software system that 

automatically selected and dialed Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ telephone numbers. 

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

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

human involvement. The Platform automatically made a series of calls to Plaintiffs’ and the Class 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 9 of 24
10 

members’ stored telephone numbers with no human involvement after the series of calls were 

initiated utilizing the Platform. 

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

messages to Plaintiffs 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. 

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

automated text messages to consumers. 

32. 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. 

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

utilizing a non-automated text messaging system. 

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

context of transmitting text messages. 

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

complies with the FTSA is nominal. 

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

operations. 

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

of any goods or services it provides in the marketplace. 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 10 of 24
11 

39. 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. 

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

of numbers, which was in fact utilized by Defendant. 

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

of text messages, which was in fact utilized by Defendant. 

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

transmission of text messages. 

43. Plaintiffs never provided Defendant with express written consent authorizing 

Defendant to transmit telephonic sales calls to Plaintiffs’ cellular telephone numbers utilizing an 

automated system for the selection and dialing of telephone numbers. 

44. More specifically, Plaintiffs 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 and dialing of telephone numbers. 

45. Since July 1, 2021, on information and belief, Defendant sent at least 50 text 

message solicitations to as many consumers in Florida. 

46. Defendant’s failure to (1) maintain the required written policies and procedures, (2) 

provide training to its personnel engaged in telemarketing, (3) maintain a standalone do-not-call 

list, (4) provide Plaintiffs and the Class members with instructions on how to opt out of 

Defendant’s text message solicitations, (5) identify the individual caller, (6) identify the legal name 

of the entity calling, and (7) identify a telephone number or address at which the caller may be 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 11 of 24
12 

contacted, caused Plaintiffs and the Class members harm, including because they had no idea how 

to stop Defendant’s unsolicited text message calls or who to contact to get the messages to stop. 

47. Defendant’s telephonic sales calls caused Plaintiffs 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

48. Plaintiffs bring 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 Plaintiffs seek to represent are defined as: 

IDNC Class: All persons within the United States who, within the 

four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date 

of class certification, (1) received two or more text messages 

within any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant’s 

property, goods, and/or services, (3) to said person’s residential 

telephone number. 

FTSA Class: All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic 

sales call regarding Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services, 

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

Plaintiffs. 

Seller Identification Class: All persons within the United States 

who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint 

through the date of class certification, (1) received two or more 

text messages within any 12-month period, (2) regarding 

Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services, (3) to said 

person’s residential telephone number, (4) that did not disclose 

the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity 

on whose behalf the call is being made, or a telephone number or 

address at which the person or entity may be contacted. 

DNC Class: All persons in the United States who from four years 

prior to the filing of this action (1) Defendant, or anyone on 

Defendant’s behalf, (2) placed more than one text message call 

within any 12-month period; (3) where the person’s telephone 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 12 of 24
13 

number that had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry 

for at least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of encouraging the 

purchase or rental of, or investment in, Defendant’s property, 

goods, or services; (5) who did not purchase or transact business 

with Defendant during the eighteen months immediately preceding 

the date of the first message; and (6) who did not contact Defendant 

during the three months immediately preceding the date of the first 

message with an inquiry about a product, good, or service offered 

by Defendant. 

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

NUMEROSITY

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

telephone numbers belonging to at least 50 persons. The members of the Class, therefore, are 

believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 

51. 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

52. 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 Class are: 

(a) Whether Defendant initiated telephonic sales calls to Plaintiffs 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 Defendants maintain an internal do-not-call list and instruct their 

employees on how to use the list; and 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 13 of 24
14 

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

53. The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If 

Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant routinely transmits telephonic sales calls without prior express 

written consent is accurate, Plaintiffs and the Class members will have identical claims capable of 

being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case. 

TYPICALITY

54. Plaintiffs’ 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

55. Plaintiffs are representatives who will fully and adequately assert and protect the 

interests of the Class and has retained competent counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are adequate 

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

SUPERIORITY

56. 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 14 of 24
15 

57. 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 FLA. STAT. § 501.059

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the FTSA Class)

58. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

59. 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). 

60. 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).

61. “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; 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 15 of 24
16 

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: 

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).

62. Defendant failed to secure prior express written consent from Plaintiffs and the 

Class members. 

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

sales calls to be made to Plaintiffs and the Class members without Plaintiffs’ and the Class 

members’ prior express written consent. 

64. Defendant made and/or knowingly allowed the telephonic sales calls to Plaintiffs 

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

telephone numbers. 

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

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

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

against future calls. Id. 

66. Plaintiffs request for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the 

Prayer for Relief below. 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 16 of 24
17 

COUNT II 

Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the IDNC Class)

67. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

57 as if fully set forth herein. 

68. In pertinent part, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) provides: 

No 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 the following 

minimum standards: 

(1) Written policy. Persons or entities making calls for telemarketing 

purposes must have a written policy, available upon demand, for 

maintaining a do-not-call list. 

(2) Training of personnel engaged in telemarketing. Personnel 

engaged in any aspect of telemarketing must be informed and 

trained in the existence and use of the do-not-call list. 

(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. If such requests are recorded or maintained by a party other than 

the person or entity on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made, the 

person or entity on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made will be 

liable for any failures to honor the do-not-call request. A person or entity 

making a call for telemarketing purposes must obtain a consumer's prior 

express permission to share or forward the consumer's request not to be 

called to a party other than the person or entity on whose behalf a 

telemarketing call is made or an affiliated entity. 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 17 of 24
18 

69. Pursuant to 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. 

70. Defendant violated the requirements of section 64.1200(d) by failing to (1) 

maintain the required written policies; (2) provide training to its personnel engaged in 

telemarketing; and (3) maintain a standalone do-not-call list. 

71. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, Plaintiffs and the IDNC Class members 

are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each text message sent by Defendant. 

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 IDNC Class. 

72. Plaintiffs request for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the 

Prayer for Relief below. 

COUNT III 

Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) 

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the IDNC Class)

73. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

57 as if fully set forth herein. 

74. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5)(A), Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief prohibiting 

Defendant’s unlawful conduct in the future to protect Plaintiffs and the IDNC Class members from 

Defendant’s unsolicited calls and practices. 

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

an injunction will continue to cause, harm to Plaintiffs and the IDNC Class members. 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 18 of 24
19 

76. Plaintiffs and the IDNC Class members suffer irreparable harm if Defendant is 

permitted to continue its practice of violating 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). 

77. The injuries that the Plaintiffs and the IDNC 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. 

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

continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein. 

79. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the IDNC Class members seek an injunction requiring 

Defendant to (1) implement policies and procedures as required under the TCPA and its 

implementing regulations; (2) honor consumer opt-out requests; (3) to implement a standalone 

internal do-not-call list; and (4) train its personnel on use of the list and abide by the list. 

80. Plaintiffs request for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the 

Prayer for Relief below. 

COUNT IV 

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

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the FTSA Class)

81. Plaintiffs re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 

through 57 as if fully set forth herein. 

82. Pursuant to section 501.059(10)(a), Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief prohibiting 

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

Defendant’s unsolicited calls and practices. 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 19 of 24
20 

84. Plaintiffs and the FTSA Class members suffer irreparable harm if Defendant is 

permitted to continue its practice of violating the FTSA. 

85. The injuries that the Plaintiffs 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. 

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

continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein. 

87. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 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. 

88. Plaintiffs request for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the 

Prayer for Relief below. 

COUNT V 

Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Seller Identification Class)

89. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

57 as if fully set forth herein. 

90. In pertinent part, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) provides: 

(4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or entity 

making a call for telemarketing purposes must provide the called party 

with the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity 

on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone number or 

address at which the person or entity may be contacted. The telephone 

number provided may not be a 900 number or any other number for 

which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 20 of 24
21 

91. Pursuant to 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. 

92. Defendant violated the requirements of section 64.1200(d)(4) by failing to identify 

(1) the name of the individual caller; (2) the name of the legal entity on whose behalf the call was 

being made; and (3) a telephone number or address at which Defendant may be contacted. 

93. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, Plaintiffs and the IDNC Class members 

are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each text message sent by Defendant. 

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 IDNC Class. 

94. Plaintiffs request for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the 

Prayer for Relief below. 

COUNT VI

Violations of TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Valiente and the DNC Class)

95. Plaintiff Valiente re-allege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 

through 57 as if fully set forth herein. 

96. 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.” 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 21 of 24
22 

97. 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

98. 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.” 

99. 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). 

100. 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 DNC 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. 

101. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the DNC 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 

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-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 22 of 24
23 

herein, Plaintiff and the DNC 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. 

102. 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, Plaintiffs, 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 Classes as defined above, 

and appointing Plaintiffs as the representatives of the Classes and Plaintiffs’ counsel as 

Class Counsel; 

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

applicable under the FTSA and/or TCPA; 

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

TCPA; 

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; 

e) An injunction requiring Defendant to comply with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by (1) 

maintaining the required written policies; (2) providing training to their personnel 

engaged in telemarketing; and (3) maintaining a do-not-call list 

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

JURY DEMAND 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 23 of 24
24 

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND 

Plaintiffs demand 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: August 29, 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 

THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 

Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 118259 

110 SE 6th Street 

Suite 1744 

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

DAPEER LAW, P.A. 

Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq. 

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 417 

Aventura, Florida 333180 

Email: rachel@dapeer.com 

Telephone: 305-610-5223 

Case 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 24 of 24