1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, Cathy Alexander, brings this action against Defendant 

Reasonable Health Coverage LLC d/b/a Reasonable Insurance Group

(“Defendant”), to secure redress for violations of the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 and Florida Statute 

§ 501.059.

2. This is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., (the “TCPA”) and Fla. Stat. § 

Cathy Alexander, 

individually and on behalf of 

others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Reasonable Health Coverage 

LLC d/b/a Reasonable 

Insurance Group

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.:

CLASS ACTION

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

FOR 

1. VIOLATIONS OF THE 

TELEPHONE CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACT, 47 

U.S.C. § 227 2. VIOLATIONS OF 

FLORIDA STATUTE § 501.059

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 1 of 22
2

501.059. 

3. Defendant is a health insurance company. To promote its services, 

Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of 

consumers in the process. 

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

illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, 

harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of 

individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself

and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable 

remedies. 

5. Plaintiff makes these allegations on information and belief, with the 

exception of those allegations that pertain to Plaintiff, or to Plaintiff’s 

counsel, which Plaintiff alleges on personal knowledge.

6. While many violations are described below with specificity, this 

Complaint alleges violations of the statutes cited in its entirety. 

7. Unless otherwise stated, all the conduct engaged in by Defendant took 

place in the Southern District of Florida.

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 2 of 22
3

8. Any violations by Defendants were knowing, willful, and intentional, 

and Defendants did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid 

any such violation.

9. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendants’ names in this 

Complaint includes all agents, employees, officers, members, directors, 

heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, 

representatives, and insurers of Defendants’ named.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff alleges 

violations of a federal statute, the TCPA. Jurisdiction is also proper under 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because Plaintiff alleges a national class, which 

will result in at least one class member belonging to a different state than 

that of Defendant. Plaintiff seeks up to $1,500.00 (one-thousand-fivehundred dollars) in damages for each call in violation of the TCPA, 

which, when aggregated among a proposed class numbering in the tens 

of thousands, or more, exceeds the $5,000,000.00 (five-million dollars) 

threshold for federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness 

Act (“CAFA”). Therefore, both the elements of diversity jurisdiction and 

CAFA jurisdiction are present.

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 3 of 22
4

11. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida 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 the court’s personal jurisdiction, and because Defendant 

provides and markets its services within this district thereby establishing 

sufficient contacts to subject it to personal jurisdiction. Further, 

Defendant’s tortious conduct against Plaintiff occurred within the State 

of Florida and, on information and belief, Defendant has made the same 

phone calls complained of by Plaintiff to other individuals within this 

judicial district, such that some of Defendant’s acts in making such calls 

have occurred within this district, subjecting Defendant to jurisdiction in 

the State of Florida. 

PARTIES

12. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in the County of Pompano 

Beach, State of Florida. 

13. Defendant is a company based in Pompano Beach, Florida, 

conducting business in the health insurance field. 

//

//

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 4 of 22
5

THE TCPA

15. The TCPA prohibits: (1) any person from calling a cellular telephone 

number; (2) using an automatic telephone dialing system; (3) without the 

recipient’s prior express consent. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).

16. The TCPA defines an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) 

as “equipment that has the capacity - (A) to store or produce telephone 

numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; 

and (B) to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). 

17. In an action under the TCPA, a plaintiff must only show that the 

defendant “called a number assigned to a cellular telephone service using 

an automatic dialing system or prerecorded voice.” Breslow v. Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2012), aff'd, 

755 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2014). 

18. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is empowered to 

issue rules and regulations implementing the TCPA. According to the 

FCC’s findings, calls in violation of the TCPA 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. The FCC also recognized that 

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 5 of 22
6

wireless customers are charged for incoming calls whether they pay in 

advance or after the minutes are used. Rules and Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG 

Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014 (2003).

19. In 2012, the FCC issued an order tightening the restrictions for 

automated telemarketing calls, requiring “prior express written consent” 

for such calls to wireless numbers. See In the Matter of Rules & 

Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 27 

F.C.C.R. 1830, 1838 ¶ 20 (Feb. 15, 2012) (emphasis supplied).

20. To obtain express written consent for telemarketing calls, a defendant 

must establish that it secured the plaintiff’s signature in a form that gives 

the plaintiff a “‘clear and conspicuous disclosure’ of the consequences 

of providing the requested consent....and having received this 

information, agrees unambiguously to receive such calls at a telephone 

number the [plaintiff] designates.” In re Rules & Regulations 

Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 27 F.C.C.R. 1830, 

1837 ¶ 18, 1838 ¶ 20, 1844 ¶ 33, 1857 ¶ 66, 1858 ¶ 71 (F.C.C. Feb. 15, 

2012).

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 6 of 22
7

21. The TCPA regulations promulgated by the FCC define “telemarketing” 

as “the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of 

encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, 

or services.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12). In determining whether a 

communication constitutes telemarketing, a court must evaluate the 

ultimate purpose of the communication. See Golan v. Veritas Entm't, 

LLC, 788 F.3d 814, 820 (8th Cir. 2015). 

22. “‘Telemarketing’ occurs when the context of a call indicates that it was 

initiated and transmitted to a person for the purpose of promoting 

property, goods, or services.” Golan, 788 F.3d at 820 (citing 47 C.F.R. 

§ 64.1200(a)(2)(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12); In re Rules and 

Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991, 18 F.C.C. Rcd at 14098 ¶ 141, 2003 WL 21517853, at *49).

23. The FCC has explained that calls motivated in part by the intent to sell 

property, goods, or services are considered telemarketing under the 

TCPA. See In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, ¶¶ 139-142 

(2003). This is true whether call recipients are encouraged to purchase, 

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 7 of 22
8

rent, or invest in property, goods, or services during the call or in the 

future. Id. 

24. In other words, offers “that are part of an overall marketing campaign 

to sell property, goods, or services constitute” telemarketing under the 

TCPA. See In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, ¶ 136 (2003).

25. If a call is not deemed telemarketing, a defendant must nevertheless 

demonstrate that it obtained the plaintiff’s prior express consent. See In 

the Matter of Rules and Regulaions Implementing the Tel. Consumer 

Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 7991-92 (2015) (requiring express 

consent “for non-telemarketing and non-advertising calls.”)

26. As recently held by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit: “Unsolicited telemarketing phone calls or text messages, by their 

nature, invade the privacy and disturb the solitude of their recipients. A 

plaintiff alleging a violation under the TCPA ‘need not allege any 

additional harm beyond the one Congress has identified.’” Van Patten 

v. Vertical Fitness Grp., No. 14-55980, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1591, at 

*12 (9th Cir. May 4, 2016) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 

1540, 1549 (2016) (emphasis original)).

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 8 of 22
9

FLA. STAT. § 501.059

27.It is a violation of the FTSA to “make or knowingly allow a telephonic 

sales call to be made if such call involves . . . the playing of a recorded 

message when a connection is completed to a number without the prior 

express written consent of the called party.” Fla. Stat § 501.059(8)(A).

28.The statute defines “telephonic sales call” 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 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).

29. A person will be defined as a “called party” if they are a “person who is 

the regular user of the telephone number that receives a telephonic sales 

call,” under Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(A).

30.An “unsolicited telephonic sales call” is one that is made other than in 

direct response to the express request of the person who is called. under 

Fla. Stat. § 501.059(4)(K).

//

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 9 of 22
10

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

31.At all times relevant, Plaintiff was an individual residing within the State 

of Florida.

32. At all times relevant, Defendants conducted business in the State of 

Florida.

33. On or around May 3, 2022, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant 

who attempted to ask her questions. Plaintiff picked up and stated that 

she was not interested.

34. On or around May 3, 2022, Plaintiff received another call from 

Defendant that she rejected.

35. On or around May 13, 2022, Plaintiff received another call from 

Defendant where she talked to an agent of Defendants who asked her a 

variety of questions. The questions included whether she was 65 years

of age or older, whether she had Medicare, whether she had other

insurance, and other similar questions. The phone call was then 

transferred to another agent of Defendant who asked for more 

information from Plaintiff.

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 10 of 22
11

36. Plaintiff has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2021.

Defendant is required to check the National Do Not Call Registry before

attempting to call. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(3)(F). 

37. Defendant’s phone calls constitute telephone solicitation because it

encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or 

services under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4), i.e., attempting to sell Plaintiff 

health insurance.

38. Plaintiff received the phone calls within this judicial district and, 

therefore, Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this 

district. Upon information and belief, Defendant made other phone calls 

to individuals residing within this judicial district and throughout the 

United States.

39. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her express 

written consent to be contacted. This is in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 

227(a)(5). 

40. Defendant’s unsolicited phone calls caused Plaintiff actual harm, 

including invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on 

seclusion, trespass, and conversion. 

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 11 of 22
12

41. Defendant’s phone calls also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused 

disruption to her daily life. 

42. Defendant’s unsolicited phone calls caused Plaintiff actual harm. 

Specifically, Plaintiff estimates that she spent numerous hours 

investigating the unwanted phone calls including how they obtained her

number and who the Defendant was.

43. Furthermore, Defendant’s phone calls took up memory on Plaintiff’s 

cellular phone. The cumulative effect of unsolicited phone calls and 

voicemails like Defendant’s poses a real risk of ultimately rendering the 

phone unusable for other purposes as a result of the phone’s memory 

being taken up. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

PROPOSED CLASS

46. Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, 

on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated.

47. Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of two Classes defined as follows:

The Federal TCPA Class

All persons within the United States who received any 

solicitation/telemarketing phone calls from Defendant to said person’s 

cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone 

dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such person had 

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 12 of 22
13

not previously consented to receiving such calls within the four years 

prior to the filing of this Complaint.

 The Florida TCPA Class

All persons within the State of Florida who received any 

solicitation/telemarketing phone calls from Defendant to said person’s 

cellular telephone and such person had not previously consented to 

receiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing of this 

Complaint.

48. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. 

Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Class but believes 

the Class members number in the several thousands, if not more.

NUMEROSITY

49. Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed automated and/or 

prerecorded calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands 

of consumers throughout the United States without their prior express 

consent. The members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

50. The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at 

this time and can only be ascertained through discovery. Identification 

of the Class members is a matter capable of ministerial determination 

from Defendant’s call records.

//

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 13 of 22
14

 COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

51. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class 

which predominate over any questions affecting only individual 

members of the Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to 

the Class are:

(1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff’s and 

Class members’ cellular telephones using an ATDS or pre-recorded 

voice;

(2) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it 

obtained prior express written consent to make such calls;

(3) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;

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

damages; and

(5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the 

future.

52. The common questions in this case are capable of having common 

answers. If Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely made phone calls 

to telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephone services is accurate, 

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 14 of 22
15

Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of 

being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.

TYPICALITY

53. Plaintiff’s 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

54. Plaintiff is a representative who will fully and adequately assert and 

protect the interests of the Class and has retained competent counsel. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is an adequate representative and will fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the Class.

 PROCEEDING VIA CLASS ACTION IS SUPERIOR AND 

ADVISABLE

55. 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 

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 15 of 22
16

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.

56. 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

VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(B)

(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS)

57. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully 

set forth herein. 

58. It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made 

for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the 

called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or preCase 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 16 of 22
17

recorded voice ... to any telephone number assigned to a ... cellular 

telephone service ....” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

59. Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment 

having the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention to make 

non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and 

the other members of the Class defined below. 

60. These calls were made without regard to whether or not Defendant had 

first obtained express permission from the called party to make such 

calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior express consent to call the 

cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class when 

its calls were made. 

61. Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by 

using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or pre-recorded voice 

messages to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of 

Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior 

express written consent.

62. Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these 

calls and knew or should have known that it was using equipment that at 

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 17 of 22
18

constituted an automatic telephone dialing system. The violations were 

therefore willful or knowing. 

63. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the 

TCPA, Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were 

harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00 in damages for 

each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an injunction 

against future calls. Id. 

COUNT II

KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §

227(B)

(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS)

64. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully 

set forth herein.

65. At all times relevant, Defendant knew or should have known that its 

conduct as alleged herein violated the TCPA.

66. Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these 

calls and knew or should have known that its conduct was a violation of 

the TCPA.

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 18 of 22
19

67. Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class 

Members had not given prior express consent to receive its autodialed 

calls with pre-recorded voice messages, the Court should treble the 

amount of statutory damages available to Plaintiff and the other members 

of the putative Class pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.

68. As a result of Defendant’s violations, Plaintiff and the Class Members 

are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each and 

every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(3)(C).

COUNT III

VIOLATIONS OF FLA. STAT. § 501.059

(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS)

69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully 

set forth herein. 

70.Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment 

having the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention to 

make non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of 

Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in violation of Fla. Stat §

501.059(8)(A).

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 19 of 22
20

71.Under Fla. Stat § 501.059(1)(G), prior consent includes the signature of 

the called party, the telephone of the called party, as well as clear 

authorization to the person making or allowing the telephonic sales call 

to make the call. Defendant did not have prior express consent to call 

the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class 

when these telephonic sales calls were made. Id.

72.Defendant has, therefore, violated Fla. Stat § 501.059(8)(A) AND Fla. 

Stat § 501.059(1)(G) by using an automatic telephone dialing system 

and/or pre-recorded voice messages to make non-emergency telephone 

calls to the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the 

putative Class without their prior express written consent.

73.Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these 

calls, and knew or should have known that it was using equipment that 

at constituted an automatic telephone dialing system. The violations 

were therefore willful or knowing. 

74.As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to Fla. Stat §

501.059(10)(B), Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class 

were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00 in damages 

for each violation.

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 20 of 22
21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members of 

the Class, prays for the following relief: 

a. A declaration that Defendant’s practices described herein violate the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 and Florida 

Statute § 501.059; 

b. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from using a telephone dialing 

system to call and text message telephone numbers assigned to 

cellular telephones without the prior express permission of the called 

party; 

c. An award of actual and statutory damages; and 

d. Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 21 of 22
22

TRIAL BY JURY

69.Pursuant to the seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States of America, Plaintiff is entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury.

 Respectfully submitted,

BY: /S/ RYAN L. MCBRIDE______ RYAN L. MCBRIDE, ESQ. TRIAL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Mohammad Kazerouni (1034549)

Kazerouni Law Grouo, APC

245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Telephone: (800) 400-6808

Facsimile: (800) 520-5523

mike@kazlg.com

Ryan L. McBride (1010101)

Kazerouni Law Group, APC 301 E. Bethany Home Road Suite C-195

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Telephone: (800) 400-6808

Facsimile: (800) 520-5523

ryan@kazlg.com

Dated: October 27, 2022

Case 2:22-cv-14364 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 22 of 22