IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

NANCY ANN MIERAU BUCKNER,

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MED 4 EVERYONE LLC, 

 Defendant.

Case No. 

CLASS ACTION 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff Nancy Ann Mierau Bucker (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Buckner”) brings this Class Action 

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against MED 4 Everyone LLC, (“Defendant” or “MED 4 

Everyone”) to stop the Defendant from violating the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (“FTSA”) 

and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by making telemarketing calls without consent 

to consumers who registered their phone numbers on the National Do Not Call registry (“DNC”). 

The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant violated the FTSA by making automated calls to Florida 

residents. 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Defendant’s 

conduct. Plaintiff, for this Complaint, alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to herself 

and her own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief, 

including investigation conducted by her attorneys. 

PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff Nancy Ann Mierau Buckner is a resident of Florida. 

2. Defendant MED 4 Everyone LLC is a Florida limited liability company located in 

this District. 

Case 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 1 of 12
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The Court has federal question jurisdiction because this matter arises under the 

TCPA, a federal statute. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction because the FTSA claim 

relates to the same telemarketing campaign as the TCPA.

4. The venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the Defendant resides and 

made the calls at issue from this District. 

BACKGROUND 

The Florida Telephone Solicitations Act 

5. The FTSA, Fla. Stat. § 501.059 was amended by Senate Bill No. 1120 on July 1, 

2021. 

6. 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 appears in the then-current quarterly listing published by the 

department.” This includes to a number listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Fla. Stat. § 

501.059(4) 

7. It is also 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). 

8. 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 

Case 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 2 of 12
3

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). 

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

of $500.00 for each violation. 

The National Do Not Call Registry 

10. The National Do Not Call Registry allows consumers to register their telephone 

numbers and thereby indicate their desire not to receive telephone solicitations at those numbers. 

See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). 

11. A listing on the Registry “must be honored indefinitely, or until the registration is 

cancelled by the consumer or the telephone number is removed by the database administrator.” 

Id. 

12. The TCPA and implementing regulations prohibit the initiation of telephone 

solicitations to residential telephone subscribers to the Registry and provides a private right of 

action against any entity that makes those calls, or “on whose behalf” such calls are promoted. 

47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). 

COMMON ALLEGATIONS 

13. Defendant MED 4 Everyone sells supplemental Medicare services. 

14. To promote its goods, Defendant MED 4 Everyone makes telemarketing calls to 

hundreds if not thousands of consumers across the U.S., including to consumers whose phone 

numbers are listed on the National Do Not Call Registry and Florida’s no sales solicitation list. 

PLAINTIFF BUCKNER’S ALLEGATIONS

15. Plaintiff Buckner is the subscriber and the sole user of the cellular phone number 

352-xxx-9537. 

Case 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 3 of 12
4

16. Plaintiff Buckner registered her phone number on the Do Not Call Registry on June 

9, 2022. 

17. The Plaintiff has no relationship with the Defendant and has never consented to be 

contacted by the Defendant. 

18. Despite that, the Defendant made at least three calls to the Plaintiff on August 16, 

2022. 

19. The Plaintiff advised the Defendant on the first call that she was not interested in 

receiving calls regarding their services. 

20. Despite this, the Defendant made two more calls. 

21. All of the calls followed a similar script. 

22. First, the Defendant would advise that they were calling from MED 4 Everyone, 

which they also called “Medicare For Everyone”. 

23. Then, the Defendant would ask the call recipient’s age to see if they qualified for 

their services. 

24. After that, the Defendant asked the call recipient if they had any serious illnesses 

or if they had any insurance other than Medicare. 

25. Finally, the Defendant asked the call recipient’s zip code to ensure they qualified 

for the services. 

26. On the final call, the Plaintiff received a name of the Defendant’s employee who 

called her, “Mark Woods”. 

27. Mr. Woods provided the Defendant’s website, https://med4everyone.com, for 

reference on the call as well. 

Case 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 4 of 12
5

28. The calls were sent with an automated system for the selection or dialing of 

telephone numbers as the Plaintiff answered the calls and there was a pause and audible click prior 

to anyone appearing on the line. 

29. This audible click and pause is indicative of the automated system selecting a 

number to call and then transferring the call to the telemarketing representative. 

30. The unauthorized telephonic sales calls that Plaintiff received from Defendant, as 

alleged herein, have harmed the Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of 

privacy, and occupied and otherwise disturbed the use and enjoyment of her phone. 

31. Seeking redress for these injuries, Plaintiff Buckner, on behalf of herself and 

Classes of similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the FTSA and TCPA. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

32. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3), the Plaintiff brings this action 

on behalf of the following putative classes (the “Class”): 

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

who received a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant’s 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 trial. 

Florida Telephone Solicitation Act Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in 

the U.S. (1) who received a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant’s goods 

and/or services (2) to a number listed on Florida’s “no sales solicitation calls” list 

(3) from July 1, 2021 through the date of trial. 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons 

in the U.S. (1) whose telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry 

for at least 31 days (2) but who received more than one telemarketing call from or 

Case 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 5 of 12
6

on behalf of Defendant (3) within a 12-month period (4) from the four years prior 

to the filing of the complaint through the date of trial. 

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

reserves the right to modify or amend the Class definition, as appropriate, during the course of this 

litigation. 

34. Plaintiff brings all claims in this action individually and on behalf of Class 

Members against Defendant.

Numerosity

35. Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual joinder is impracticable. 

36. On information and belief, based on the technology used to call Plaintiff, which is 

used to make calls en masse, Members of the Class number in the thousands. 

37. The precise number of Class Members and their identities are unknown to Plaintiff 

at this time but may be determined through discovery. 

38. Class Members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail and/or 

publication through the distribution records of Defendant. 

Commonality

39. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class Members and predominate 

over questions affecting only individual Class Members. 

40. Common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to, whether 

Defendant have violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act or Florida Telephone Solicitation 

Act, and whether Class Members are entitled to actual and/or statutory damages for the 

aforementioned violations.

Case 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 6 of 12
7

Typicality

41. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class because the 

named Plaintiff, like all other Class Members, received unsolicited telephonic sales calls from the 

Defendant without giving them her consent to receive such calls.

Adequacy of Representation

42. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because her interests do not 

conflict with the interests of the Class Members he seeks to represent, she has retained competent 

counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and she intends to prosecute this action 

vigorously. 

43. The interests of Class Members will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff 

and her counsel.

Superiority

44. The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the claims of Class Members. 

45. Many of the Class Members likely lack the ability and/or resources to undertake 

the burden and expense of individually prosecuting what may be a complex and extensive action 

to establish Defendant’s liability. 

46. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and 

multiplies the burden on the judicial system. This strain on the parties and the judicial system 

would be heightened in this case, given the complex legal and factual issues at play. 

47. Individualized litigation also presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory 

judgments. 

Case 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 7 of 12
8

48. In contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and 

provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by 

a single court on the issue of Defendant’s liability. 

49. Class treatment of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and claimants are 

before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability issues.

COUNT I 

Violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.059 

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

50. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

49 as if fully set forth herein. 

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

Solicitation Act Autodial Class Members against Defendant. 

52. 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). 

53. 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). 

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

Members. 

Case 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 8 of 12
9

55. 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. 

56. 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. 

57. 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.

COUNT II 

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 

58. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

49 as if fully set forth herein. 

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

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

60. 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). 

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 

Case 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 9 of 12
10

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 even though the Class members were on the National Do 

Not Call Registry. 

64. 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.

COUNT III 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

(Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227) 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the National Do Not Call Registry Class) 

65. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

49 as if fully set forth herein. 

66. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or 

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

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

purposes, to the Plaintiff and the Class despite their numbers being on the National Do Not Call 

Registry. 

67. The Defendant’s violations were negligent, willful, or knowing. 

Case 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 10 of 12
11

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

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

members of the Class presumptively are entitled to an award of between $500 and $1,500 in 

damages for each and every call made. 

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

relief prohibiting Defendant from making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do 

Not Call Registry, except for emergency purposes, in the future. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

following relief: 

A. Injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from using an autodialer to advertise their 

goods or services; 

B. 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; 

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

of Civil Procedure 23, establishing an appropriate Class the Court deems appropriate, finding 

that Plaintiff are a proper representative of the Class, and appointing the lawyers and law firms 

representing Plaintiff as counsel for the Class; and 

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. 

Case 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 11 of 12
12

DATED this 28th day of October, 2022. 

PLAINTIFF, on behalf of herself 

 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 0:22-cv-62005-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 12 of 12