IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CAMERON MOSER, on behalf of himself 

and others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALLEVIATE TAX, LLC 

Defendant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 

COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 / 

 Plaintiff Cameron Moser (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges on personal knowledge, investigation of his 

counsel, and on information and belief, as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION 

1. As the Supreme Court has explained, “Americans passionately disagree about 

many things. But they are largely united in their disdain for robocalls. The Federal Government 

receives a staggering number of complaints about robocalls—3.7 million complaints in 2019 

alone. The States likewise field a constant barrage of complaints. For nearly 30 years, the 

people’s representatives in Congress have been fighting back. As relevant here, the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act of 1991, known as the TCPA, generally prohibits robocalls to cell 

phones and home phones.” Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2343 

(2020). 

2. This case involves a campaign by Alleviate Tax, LLC (“Alleviate Tax”) to market 

its services through the use of pre-recorded telemarketing calls in plain violation of the 

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 1 of 13
 2 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the 

“TCPA”). 

3. Mr. Moser also alleges that Alleviate Tax LLC uses automated systems to make 

telemarketing calls into Florida as well as to Florida residents that have placed themselves on the 

National Do Not Call Registry, and that by doing so, Alleviate Tax has violated the provisions of 

the Florida Telephone Solicitations Act, Fla. Sta § 501.059 (“FTSA”). 

4. The recipients of these illegal calls, which include Plaintiff and the proposed 

class, are entitled to damages under the TCPA and FTSA, and because the technology used by 

Alleviate Tax makes calls en masse, the appropriate vehicle for their recovery is a class action 

lawsuit. 

PARTIES 

5. Plaintiff Cameron Moser is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an individual 

citizen of the state of Florida in this District. 

6. Defendant Alleviate Tax LLC is a California limited liability company. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

U.S.C. § 227 et seq. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the FTSA claims because they 

arise from the same calls as the TCPA claim. 

8. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Alleviate Tax because it made 

calls into this District. 

9. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the telephone calls at issue 

were sent into this District. 

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 2 of 13
 3 

TCPA BACKGROUND 

The TCPA Prohibits Automated Telemarketing Calls 

10. The TCPA makes it unlawful to make any call (other than a call made for 

emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an 

automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number 

assigned to a cellular telephone service or that is charged per the call. See 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

11. The TCPA provides a private cause of action to persons who receive calls in 

violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). 

12. According to findings by the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”), the 

agency Congress vested with authority to issue regulations implementing the TCPA, such calls 

are prohibited because, as Congress found, automated or prerecorded telephone calls are a 

greater nuisance and invasion of privacy than live solicitation calls, and such calls can be costly 

and inconvenient. 

13. In 2013, the FCC required prior express written consent for all autodialed or 

prerecorded telemarketing calls (“robocalls”) to wireless numbers and residential lines. 

Specifically, it ordered that: 

[A] consumer’s written consent to receive telemarketing robocalls must be signed 

and be sufficient to show that the consumer: (1) received “clear and conspicuous 

disclosure” of the consequences of providing the requested consent, i.e., that the 

consumer will receive future calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf 

of a specific seller; and (2) having received this information, agrees unambiguously 

to receive such calls at a telephone number the consumer designates.[] In addition, 

the written agreement must be obtained “without requiring, directly or indirectly, 

that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service.[]” 

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 3 of 13
 4 

In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 

27 F.C.C. Rcd. 1830, 1844 (2012) (footnotes omitted). 

The Florida Telephone Solicitations Act 

14. The Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (“FTSA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.059 was 

amended by Senate Bill No. 1120 on July 1, 2021. 

15. 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). 

16. It is also a violation to make a call to a Florida number on the National Do Not 

Call Registry. 

17. 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). 

18. Pursuant to § 501.059(10)(a) of the FTSA, damages are available at a minimum 

of $500.00 for each violation. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

19. Defendant Alleviate Tax is a “person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. 

§ 153(39). 

20. Alleviate Tax offers tax and debt relief services. 

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 4 of 13
 5 

21. To increase its sales, and as part of a general cold-call based marketing scheme, 

Alleviate Tax markets these services using pre-recorded voice calls to consumers. 

22. Indeed, Alleviate Tax has previously received complaints that its marketing 

conduct violated the TCPA. 

23. Plaintiff Moser’s telephone number, 813-883-XXXX is assigned to a cellular 

telephone service. 

24. That number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since July of 2005. 

25. The Plaintiff received three calls from the Defendant on September 26, 2022. 

26. The Plaintiff did not answer the calls, which were all from the same Caller ID, 

813-939-4378. 

27. The final call left a pre-recorded message on his voicemail, which stated: 

Hello this is Courtney Cash from credit loan center. My phone number is 888 681 1436. I 

was giving you a call to let you know that we have your pre approval from advantage 

program. We want to get you approval for up to $55,000. Call 888-681-1436. 

28. The Plaintiff received another pre-recorded message call on the same number the 

next day, September 27, 2022. 

29. This time, the Plaintiff answered the call. 

30. The pre-recorded message was basically the same as the prior day’s calls, it 

stated: 

Hello this is Courtney Cash from credit loan center. I was giving you a call to let you 

know that we have your pre approval from advantage program. We want to get you 

approval for up to $55,000. Please press () to talk to a representative.

31. The Plaintiff responded to this call by pressing the number directed. 

32. The calls were clearly pre-recorded because (a) it was sent with automated 

technology used to mask Caller IDs (b) it used a singular monotone voice (c) it was a generic 

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 5 of 13
 6 

message not personalized for the recipient (d) there was a pause prior to the recorded message 

being played (e) on the last call, it had the option to press a number in response to the message. 

33. After the recorded message was played, the Plaintiff spoke with “Peter”, who 

indicated that he worked for Alleviate Tax. 

34. “Peter” offered the Defendant’s services by asking the Plaintiff the amount of his 

debts, if he has filed bankruptcy recently and what his credit score is. 

35. “Peter” then had the following text exchange with the Plaintiff: 

36. The calls were not necessitated by an emergency. 

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 6 of 13
 7 

37. Plaintiff and all members of the Classes, defined below, have been harmed by the 

acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed. 

Plaintiff and the Class Members were also harmed by use of their telephone power and network 

bandwidth and the intrusion on their telephone that occupied it from receiving legitimate 

communications. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

38. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the following classes (the 

“Classes”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 

39. Plaintiff proposes the following Class definition, subject to amendment as 

appropriate: 

TCPA Robocall Class: All persons within the United States: (1) to whose cellular 

telephone number (2) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant) placed a call 

(3) from four years prior to the filing of the complaint through trial (4) using an identical 

or substantially similar pre-recorded message used to place telephone calls to Plaintiff. 

Florida Telephone Solicitation Act Autodial Class: All persons in the U.S., who, (1) 

received a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant’ goods and/or services made from or 

into Florida, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff 

(3) since July 1, 2021. 

Florida Telephone Solicitation Act Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the U.S., 

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

from or into Florida, (2) to a Florida number on the National Do Not Call Registry (3) since 

July 1, 2021. 

40. Plaintiff is a member of and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the 

interests of the Classes as he has no interests that conflict with any of the class members. 

41. Excluded from the Classes are counsel, the Defendant, and any entities in which 

the Defendant have a controlling interest, the Defendant’ agents and employees, any judge to 

whom this action is assigned, and any member of such judge’s staff and immediate family. 

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 7 of 13
 8 

42. Plaintiff and all members of the Classes have been harmed by the acts of the 

Defendant, including, but not limited to, the invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of time, 

the use of their telephone power and network bandwidth, and the intrusion on their telephone that 

occupied it from receiving legitimate communications. 

43. This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and money damages. 

44. The Classes as defined above are identifiable through the Defendant’ dialer 

records, other phone records, and phone number databases. 

45. Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Class, but Plaintiff 

reasonably believes Class members number, at minimum, in the hundreds based on the fact that 

recorded messages were used to send the calls. 

46. The joinder of all Class members is impracticable due to the size of the Class and 

relatively modest value of each individual claim. 

47. Additionally, 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. 

48. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and to the 

proposed Class, including but not limited to the following: 

(a) Whether the Defendant used pre-recorded message to send telemarketing 

calls; 

(b) Whether Defendant called Florida numbers on the National Do Not Call 

Registry; 

(c) whether Defendant made calls to Plaintiff and members of the Class without 

first obtaining prior express written consent to make the calls; 

(d) whether Defendant’ conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA and FTSA; 

and 

(e) whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the 

willfulness of Defendant’ conduct. 

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 8 of 13
 9 

49. Further, Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of 

the Class. Plaintiff has no interests which are antagonistic to any member of the Class. 

50. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex 

litigation and class actions, and especially TCPA class actions. Plaintiff and his counsel are 

committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the other members of the Class, and 

have the financial resources to do so. 

51. Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only 

individual class members, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy. 

52. The likelihood that individual members of the Class will prosecute separate actions 

is remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual case. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

47 U.S.C. 227(b) on behalf of the Robocall Class 

53. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from the prior paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

54. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and/or their affiliates, agents, 

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

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

cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the Class delivering pre-recorded 

messages. 

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 9 of 13
 10 

members of the Class presumptively are entitled to an award of $500 in damages for each and 

every call made to their cellular telephone numbers or numbers for which they were charged per 

call using an artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227(b)(3)(B). 

56. If the Defendant’ conduct is found to be knowing or willful, the Plaintiff and 

members of the Class are entitled to an award of up to treble damages. 

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

relief prohibiting Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on 

Defendant’ behalf from violating the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, by making calls, except for 

emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers or numbers for which they are charged 

per call using an artificial or prerecorded voice in the future. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.059 

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

58. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 52 as if 

fully set forth herein. 

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

Solicitation Act Autodial Class Members against Defendant. 

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). 

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 10 of 13
 11 

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

Members. 

63. 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. 

64. 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. 

65. As a result of Defendant’ 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.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.059 

On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Florida Telephone Solicitation 

Act National Do Not Registry Call Class 

66. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 52 as if 

fully set forth herein. 

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 11 of 13
 12 

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

Solicitation Act National Do Not Call Registry Class Members against Defendant. 

68. It is a violation of the FTSA to “make or cause to be made any unsolicited 

telephonic sales call to any residential, mobile, or telephonic paging device telephone number if 

the number for that telephone” on the National Do Not Call Registry. See Fla. Stat. § 501.059(4). 

69. 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). 

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

Members. 

71. 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 even though the Class members were on the National Do 

Not Call Registry. 

72. As a result of Defendant’ 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 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 12 of 13
 13 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, prays for the 

following relief: 

A. Injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from calling telephone numbers 

advertising their goods or services, except for emergency purposes, using a pre-record message 

in the future; 

B. That the Court enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff and all class members 

statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or FTSA and $1,500 for each knowing 

or willful violation; and 

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

of Civil Procedure 23, establishing a Class the Court deems appropriate, finding that Plaintiff is a 

proper representative of the Class, and appointing the lawyers and law firms representing 

Plaintiff as counsel for the Class; 

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

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff requests a jury trial as to all claims of the complaint so triable. 

Dated: October 28, 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 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 13 of 13