1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23320-JEM 

DIANNA CRAVENER and 

CHRISTIANAH ADARAMAJA, 

individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

 Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

v. 

SEDUCTION COSMETIC CENTER CORP, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

FIRST CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs Dianna Cravener and Christianah Adaramaja bring this class action against Defendant 

Seduction Cosmetic Center Corp. 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 cosmetic services and goods, Defendant engages in unsolicited text 

message marketing, including to individuals who have registered their telephone numbers on the 

National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to those who have not provided Defendant with their prior 

express written consent as required by the FTSA. 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 1 of 19
2 

3. Defendant’s unsolicited text message spam caused Plaintiffs and the Class 

members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, 

invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion. Defendant’s text messages also occupied 

storage space on Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ telephones. 

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

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

remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant. 

PARTIES 

5. Plaintiff Dianna Cravener is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a citizen and 

resident of Pasco County, Florida. 

6. Plaintiff Christianah Adaramaja is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a citizen 

and resident of Hillsborough County, Florida. 

7. Plaintiffs are, and at all times relevant hereto were, individuals and “called 

part[ies]” as defined by Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(a) in that Plaintiffs were the regular users of the 

cellular telephone numbers that received Defendant’s telephonic sales calls. 

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 Miami, Florida. Defendant directs, markets, and provides business 

activities throughout the State of Florida. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff 

Christianah Adaramaja’s TCPA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 2 of 19
3 

10. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Dianna Cravener’s FTSA 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

11. Defendant is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Florida because Defendant 

is incorporated and headquartered in Miami, Florida. 

12. 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 PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF DIANNA CRAVENER 

13. Commencing on or about September 8, 2022, and at other times approximately 

around that date, Defendant sent telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff Dianna Cravener’s cellular 

telephone number, including the following: 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 3 of 19
4 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 4 of 19
5 

14. 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. 

15. The messages also advertise and call attention to Defendant’s products and related 

services. 

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

telephonic sales calls. 

17. Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number for personal purposes and the 

number is Plaintiff’s residential telephone line. 

18. Plaintiff was in Florida when Plaintiff received the above text message call, and 

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

FACTS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF CHRISTIANAH ADARAMAJA

19. Commencing on or about October 2022, and at other times approximately around 

that date, Defendant sent the following telephonic sales communications to Plaintiff Christianah 

Adaramaja’s cellular telephone number: 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 5 of 19
6 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 6 of 19
7 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 7 of 19
8 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 8 of 19
9 

20. 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. 

21. The messages also advertise and call attention to Defendant’s products and related 

services. 

22. Plaintiff utilizes her cellular telephone number for personal purposes and the 

number is Plaintiff’s residential telephone line. In other words, Plaintiff’s cellular telephone is 

Plaintiff’s home telephone number and Plaintiff makes and receives personal calls on her cellular 

telephone. Moreover, Plaintiff’s cellular telephone is the primary means of reaching Plaintiff at 

her residence. 

23. Plaintiff registered her cellular telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call 

Registry and the number was listed on the registry for over 30 days prior to Defendant’s first text 

message solicitation. 

24. Plaintiff was in Florida when Plaintiff received the above text message calls, and 

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

25. Plaintiff has never had any type of business relationship with Defendant and never 

inquired regarding Defendant’s products or services. 

FACTS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFFS AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS

26. 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 9 of 19
10 

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

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

members’ telephone numbers. 

28. 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 Plaintiff’s and the Class 

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

initiated utilizing the Platform. 

29. Indeed, the lengthy and generic nature of the messages depicted above, along with 

the “Reply to STOP to be Removed” instructions – a telltale sign of automated platform – supports 

the conclusion that Defendant utilized an automated system to mass transmit the messages to 

Plaintiff and other consumers. Moreover, on its website, Defendant admits to using an “automatic 

telephone dialer” to solicit consumers. See www.seductioncosmetic.com. 

30. The exact details regarding the capabilities of the equipment utilized by Defendant 

to text message Plaintiffs and the class members is solely within Defendant’s knowledge and 

possession. 

31. 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. 

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

automated text messages to consumers. 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 10 of 19
11 

33. 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. 

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

utilizing a non-automated text messaging system. 

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

context of transmitting text messages. 

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

complies with the FTSA is nominal. 

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

operations. 

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

of any goods or services it provides in the marketplace. 

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

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

40. 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. 

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

of numbers, which was in fact utilized by Defendant. 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 11 of 19
12 

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

transmission of text messages. 

44. Plaintiffs never provided Defendant with express written consent authorizing 

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

automated system for the selection and dialing of telephone numbers. 

45. Plaintiffs never invited or expressly authorized Defendant’s transmission of 

automated text message solicitations to their cellular telephones. 

46. 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. 

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

message solicitations to as many consumers in Florida. 

48. Defendant’s unsolicited text message spam caused Plaintiffs and the Class 

members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, 

invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion. Defendant’s text messages also occupied 

storage space on Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ telephones. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

PROPOSED CLASSES

49. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiffs 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: 

FTSA National Class: All persons in the United States who, (1) were 

sent more than one text message regarding Defendant’s property, 

goods, and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 12 of 19
13 

equipment utilized to call Plaintiff, (3) from July 1, 2021 through 

the date of class certification. 

FTSA Florida Subclass: All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent 

more than one text message regarding Defendant’s property, 

goods, and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of 

equipment utilized to call Plaintiff, (3) from July 1, 2021 through 

the date of class certification. 

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

prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification 

(1) received more than one text message call within any 12-month 

period; (2) where the person’s telephone number that had been 

listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; 

(3) regarding Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services; (4) who 

did not purchase or transact business with Defendant during the 

eighteen months immediately preceding the date of the first 

message; and (5) 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. 

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

NUMEROSITY

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

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

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

52. 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

53. 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: [1] Whether Defendant initiated telephonic 

sales calls to Plaintiffs and the Class members; [2] Whether Defendant can meet its burden of 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 13 of 19
14 

showing that it had prior express written consent to make such calls; [3] Whether Defendant is 

liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and [4] Whether Defendant properly placed 

calls in violation of the TCPA’s National Do-Not-Call Registry. 

54. 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

55. 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

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

interests of the Classes and have retained competent counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are adequate 

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

SUPERIORITY

57. 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-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 14 of 19
15 

58. 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 Plaintiff Dianna Cravener and the FTSA Classes)

59. Plaintiff Dianna Cravener re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as 

if fully set forth herein. 

60. 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). 

61. 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).

62. “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-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 15 of 19
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). 

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

members. 

64. 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. 

65. 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 and dialing of 

telephone numbers. 

66. 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. 

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

Prayer for Relief below. 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 16 of 19
17 

COUNT II 

VIOLATIONS OF 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) AND 64.1200(c)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Christianah Adaramaja and the DNC Class)

68. Plaintiff Christianah Adaramaja re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth 

in paragraphs 1 through 58 as if fully set forth herein. 

69. The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides in 

pertinent part 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.” 

70. Per 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), § 64.1200(c) is “applicable to any person or entity 

making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone numbers.” 

71. 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). 

72. Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating 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. 

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

members received more than one text message in a 12-month period from Defendant in violation 

of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 17 of 19
18 

74. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the DNC Class 

members suffered actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled receive up to 

$500 in damages for such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. 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 DNC Class. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Classes, pray 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 representative 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 the TCPA’s do-not-call requirements 

and registry; and 

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-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 18 of 19
19 

DATED: April 28, 2023 

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 

DAPEER LAW, P.A. 

Rachel Dapeer 

Florida Bar No. 108039 

20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 

Aventura, FL 33180 

T: 305-610-5223 

rachel@dapeer.com 

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 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 19 of 19