UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. __________________

ALAN GROCHOWSKI, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

SAFE HOME SECURITY, INC.,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2:22-cv-14267

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 1 of 12
1 

Plaintiff Alan Grochowski (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, alleging the following on information and belief against Safe Home Security, Inc. 

(“Safe Home” or “Defendant”) regarding Defendant’s violations of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the “TCPA”), the Florida Do Not Call Act, § 501.059, et seq., 

and the Florida Telemarketing Act, § 501.616, Fla. Stat., et seq. (collectively, the Florida Do Not 

Call Act and Florida Telemarketing Act will be referred to herein as the “FTCPA”). Plaintiff 

brings this Complaint to: (1) stop Defendant’s practice of placing calls using an artificial or 

prerecorded voice to the cellular and landline telephones of consumers nationwide without their 

prior express written consent; (2) enjoin Defendant from continuing to call consumers using prerecorded messages who did not provide their prior express written consent to receive them; and 

(3) obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class 

Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2 Stat. 4 (“CAFA”), which, inter alia, amends 28 

U.S.C. § 1332, at new subsection (d), conferring federal jurisdiction over class actions where, as 

here: (a) there are 100 or more members in the proposed class; (b) some members of the 

proposed Class have a different citizenship from Defendant; and (c) the claims of the proposed 

class members exceed the sum or value of five million dollars ($5,000,000) in aggregate. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) and (6). 

2. This Court also has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

because this action involves violations of a federal statute, the TCPA. 

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because the wrongful conduct 

giving rise to this case occurred in, was directed to, and/or emanated from this District.

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 2 of 12
2 

4. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Plaintiff 

resides in this District and because the wrongful conduct giving rise to this case occurred in, was 

directed to, and/or emanated from this District.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Alan Grochowski, at all times mentioned herein, has resided in and has 

been a citizen of the State of Florida living in Sebastian, Florida. 

6. Defendant Safe Home Security, Inc is a corporation organized under the laws of 

Connecticut, with a principal place at 1125 Middle Street #201, Middletown, CT 06457. 

Defendant conducts business in this District and throughout the United States. 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

7. Plaintiff’s phone number has been registered with the National Do-Not-Call 

Registry since July 1, 2003. 

8. According to the Better Business Bureau, Defendant has a C- rating, with over 

700 consumer complaints.1

9. Defendant called Plaintiff on his cellular telephone from the number (603) 403-

7289 on September 17, 2021. 

10. Defendant placed this call using an automated system for the selection or dialing 

of telephone numbers and the playing of an artificial or prerecorded voice without Mr. 

Grochowski’s prior consent. 

11. When Plaintiff answered Defendant’s call it began immediately, using a prerecorded voice. 

1 https://www.bbb.org/us/ct/middletown/profile/security-systems/safe-home-security-inc-0111-

47000796/complaints 

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 3 of 12
3

12. Thereafter, a recording played with an artificial and/or pre-recorded message

seeking to sell home security equipment. Plaintiff was then transferred to a live agent making a 

telemarketing call to Plaintiff for the sale and installation of an ADT security system.

13. On October 18, 2021, Defendant made another telemarketing call to Plaintiff from 

the number 603-429-2190 for the purposes of selling home security equipment. Plaintiff told 

Defendant that he was not interested in their services.

14. On October 20, 2021, Defendant made another telemarketing call to Plaintiff from 

the number 904-834-0447 for the purposes of selling home security equipment. Plaintiff told 

Defendant he was not interested in their services.

15. On November 19 and 20, 2021, Defendant made another telemarketing call to 

Plaintiff from the number 800-833-3211 for the purposes of selling home security equipment. 

Plaintiff again told Defendant he was not interested in their services.

16. Prior to the calls at issue in this action, Mr. Grochowski had not had any contact 

with Defendant nor used any of Defendant’s services. He has never consented in writing, or 

otherwise, to receive prerecorded telephone calls from Defendant. 

17. Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) prerecorded and unsolicited 

telemarketing calls to the telephones of Plaintiff and other consumers without the prior express 

written consent of the call recipients. 

18. In making these calls, Defendant not only invaded the personal privacy of 

Plaintiff and members of the putative Class, but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the 

TCPA and FTCPA.

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 4 of 12
4 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

19. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly 

situated.

20. Class Definitions: Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendant, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of himself and the following Classes:

National Telemarketing Class: All persons within the United 

States who (a) received a telephone call on his or her landline or 

cellular telephone; (b) made by or on behalf of Defendant; (c) in 

which an artificial or prerecorded voice was played; (d) at any time 

in the period that begins four years before the filing of the complaint 

in this action to the date that class notice is disseminated (the “Class 

Period”). 

National DNC Class: All persons in the United States whose 

numbers are listed on the national do-not-call registry, and received 

two or more telemarketing calls within any 12-month period from 

Defendant or its agents to their residential telephone number 90 or 

more days after the telephone number was listed on the national donot-call registry throughout the Class Period. 

Florida Subclass: All Florida residents that received a telephonic 

sales call from Defendant or its agents using an automated system 

for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers and/or the playing 

of a recorded message at any time during the Class Period for whom 

Defendant does not possess a written agreement that (1) bears the 

signature of the called party, (2) clearly authorizes Defendant or its 

agents to place telephonic sales calls using an automated system for 

the selection or dialing of telephone numbers, (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 t agree to enter 

into such an agreement as a condition of purchasing any property, 

goods, or services. 

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 5 of 12
5 

21. Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the proposed Classes. Excluded from the 

Classes are Defendant and any entities in which Defendant has a controlling interest, 

Defendant’s agents and employees, any Judge and/or Magistrate Judge to whom this action is 

assigned, and any member of such Judges’ staffs and immediate families. 

22. Numerosity. Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the 

proposed Classes, but reasonably believes, based on the scale of Defendant’s business, that the 

Classes are so numerous that individual joinder would be impracticable. 

23. Existence and predominance of common questions of law and fact. Plaintiff 

and all members of the proposed Classes have been harmed by the acts of Defendant in the form 

of multiple involuntary telephone and electrical charges, the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion 

of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, 

and violations of their statutory rights.

24. The disposition of the claims in a class action will provide substantial benefit to 

the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits. 

25. The proposed Classes can be identified easily through records maintained by 

Defendant.

26. There are well defined, nearly identical, questions of law and fact affecting all 

parties. The questions of law and fact involving the class claims predominate over questions 

which may affect individual members of the proposed class. Those common question of law and 

fact include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. Whether Defendant made telephone calls to Plaintiff and class members using

an artificial or prerecorded voice without their prior express consent; 

b. Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and/or willful; 

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 6 of 12
6

c. Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; 

and

d. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the 

future.

27. Typicality. Plaintiff asserts claims that are typical of each member of the Classes

because they are all persons who received pre-recorded calls on their telephones without their 

prior express written consent. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the 

interests of the proposed classes and has no interests which are antagonistic to any member of the 

proposed classes.

28. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of the proposed Classes, and has no interests which are antagonistic to any 

member of the proposed Classes.

29. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims 

involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes.

30. Superiority. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. 

31. Classwide relief is essential to compel Defendant to comply with the TCPA. 

32. The interest of the members of the proposed Classes in individually controlling 

the prosecution of separate claims against Defendant is small because the statutory damages in 

an individual action for violation of the TCPA are relatively small. 

33. Management of these claims is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties 

than are presented in many class claims because the calls at issue are all automated and the 

members of the Classes, by definition, did not provide the prior express consent required under 

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 7 of 12
7 

the statute to authorize calls to their telephones.

34. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the proposed Classes, 

thereby making final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the 

proposed Classes as a whole appropriate. 

35. Moreover, on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the TCPA violations 

complained of herein are substantially likely to continue in the future if an injunction is not 

entered.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. 

36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the National 

Telemarketing Class and National DNC Class against Defendant.

37. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple 

knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the abovecited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 

38. As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et 

seq., Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes are entitled to treble damages of up to 

$1,500.00 for each and every call made in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(3)(C).

39. Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes are also entitled to and do seek 

injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendant in the future. 

40. Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes are also entitled to an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs.

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 8 of 12
8 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 

U.S.C. § 227, et seq. 

41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the National 

Telemarketing Class and National DNC Class against Defendant.

42. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple 

violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47 

U.S.C. § 227 et seq.

43. As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and 

members of the proposed Classes are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages for 

each and every call made in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).

44. Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes are also entitled to, and do, seek 

injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendant in the future. 

45. Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes are also entitled to an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATIONS OF THE § 501.059(8)(a), Fla. Stat. 

46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. Plaintiff asserts this claim individually and on behalf of the Florida 

Subclass against Defendant. 

47. The FTCPA provides that a “person may not 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.” § 

501.059(8)(a). 

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 9 of 12
9 

48. Defendant and its agents knowingly and willfully called Plaintiff and members of 

the Florida Subclass in violation of § 501.059(8)(a) using an automated system for the selection 

or dialing of telephone numbers for telemarketing purposes. Defendant and its agents also 

knowingly and willfully called Plaintiff and members of the Florida Subclass in violation of § 

501.059(8)(a) using a recorded message for telemarketing purposes. Further, for Plaintiff and 

members of the Florida Subclass, Defendant does not possess a written agreement that (1) bears 

the signature of the called party, (2) clearly authorizes Defendant or its agents to place telephonic 

sales calls using an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers, (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 t agree to enter into 

such an agreement as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services.

49. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the members of the Florida Subclass, seeks 

to recover statutory damages (including treble damages for willful violations), as well as 

injunctive and equitable relief under § 501.059(10)(a). Plaintiff also seeks to recover attorney’s 

fees and costs under § 501.059(11)(a).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiff and all 

members of the proposed Class the following relief against Defendant: 

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 10 of 12
10

a. Injunctive relief prohibiting such violations of the TCPA by Defendant in the 

future;

b. As a result of Defendant’s willful and/or knowing violations of the TCPA, 

Plaintiff seeks for himself and each member of the proposed Classes treble 

damages, as provided by statute, of up to $1,500.00 for each and every call that 

violated the TCPA;

c. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff seeks for himself 

and each member of the proposed Classes $500.00 in statutory damages for 

each and every call that violated the TCPA;

d. Judgment against Defendant, and in favor of Plaintiff and the other Class 

Members in the amount of $500 per violation of the FTCPA as proven at trial;

e. Judgment against Defendant, and in favor of Plaintiff and the other Class 

Members in the amount of $1,500 per knowing and willful violation of the 

FTCPA as proven at trial;

f. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs to counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed 

Classes;

g. An order certifying this action to be a proper class action pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23, establishing appropriate the Classes, finding that 

Plaintiff is a proper representative of the Classes, and appointing the lawyers 

and law firm representing Plaintiff as counsel for the Classes;

h. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 11 of 12
11 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any 

and all issues in this action so triable of right.

Dated: July 26, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Stephen A. Beck 

Stephen A. Beck

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A

Scott A. Bursor (Fla. Bar No. 68362) 

Stephen A. Beck (Fla. Bar No. 1010183) 

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 330-5512 

Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 

E-Mail: sbeck@bursor.com 

 scott@bursor.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 12 of 12