1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-22996

DANIEL COHEN, 

individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v. 

FIA LIQUIDATION COMPANY, INC. 

D/B/A FIORELLA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., 

Defendant.

________________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Daniel Cohen brings this class action against Defendant FIA LIQUIDATION 

COMPANY, INC. D/B/A FIORELLA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., and alleges as follows upon 

personal knowledge as to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, 

upon information and belief, including investigation conducted by Plaintiff’s 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 goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text 

messaging, 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-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 1 of 17
2 

3. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the requisite policies and 

procedures and training required under the TCPA and its implementing regulations. 

4. Defendant’s telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members 

harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and 

invasion of their privacy. 

5. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf 

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

remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a citizen and resident of MiamiDade County, Florida. 

7. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual and a “called party” 

as defined by Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(a) in that Plaintiff was the regular user of cellular telephone 

number that received Defendant’s telephonic sales calls. 

8. Defendant is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a citizen and resident of Martin 

County, Florida, and a “telephone solicitor” as defined by Fla. Stat. § 501.059(f). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

10. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FTSA claims pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

11. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida because this suit arises out 

of and relates to Defendant’s contacts with this state. Defendant initiated and directed 

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 2 of 17
3 

telemarketing and/or advertising text messages into Florida. Specifically, Defendant initiated and 

directed the transmission of unsolicited advertisement or telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff’s 

cellular telephone number to sell goods, services or products in Florida. Plaintiff’s telephone 

number has an area code that specifically coincides with locations in Florida, and Plaintiff received 

such messages while residing in and physically present in 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

13. Commencing in on or about September 7, 2022, Defendant sent telephonic sales 

call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number, including the following: 

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 3 of 17
4

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 4 of 17
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. Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received the above 

telephonic sales calls.

16. Plaintiff utilizes this cellular telephone number for personal purposes and the 

number is Plaintiff’s residential telephone line.

17. Plaintiff’s telephone number was registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry 

for over 30 days prior to Defendant’s first text message solicitation. 

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

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

19. 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 

Plaintiff and the Class members.

20. 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.

21. The number used by Defendant to transmit the subject text message solicitations is 

known as a “short code.” Short codes are short digit sequences, shorter than telephone numbers, 

that are used to address messages in the Multimedia Messaging System and short message service 

systems of mobile network operators. 

22. Text messages using a short code can only be sent using a computer, and cannot be 

sent using a standard telephone.

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 5 of 17
6

23. The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text message and the fact that it 

originated from a short-code demonstrates that Defendant utilized a computer software system that 

automatically selected and dialed Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ telephone numbers.

24. 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. 

25. Defendant was not required to and did not need to utilize the Platform to send 

messages to Plaintiff 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.

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

automated text messages to consumers.

27. 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. 

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

utilizing a non-automated text messaging system.

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

context of transmitting text messages. 

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

complies with the FTSA is nominal. 

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 6 of 17
7 

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

operations. 

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

of any goods or services it provides in the marketplace. 

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

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

34. 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. 

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

of numbers, which was in fact utilized by Defendant. 

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

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

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

transmission of text messages. 

38. Plaintiff never provided Defendant with express written consent authorizing 

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

automated system for the selection and dialing of telephone numbers. 

39. More specifically, Plaintiff 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. 

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

message solicitations to as many consumers in Florida. 

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 7 of 17
8 

41. Defendant’s failure to (1) maintain the required written policies and procedures, (2) 

provide training to its personnel engaged in telemarketing, and (3) maintain a standalone do-notcall list caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm.

42. Defendant’s telephonic sales calls caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, 

including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and 

violation of their statutory privacy rights.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

PROPOSED CLASSES

43. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as:

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) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, (2) placed more 

than one text message call within any 12-month period; (3) where 

the person’s telephone number that had been listed on the National 

Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (4) regarding 

Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services; (5) who did not 

purchase or transact business with Defendant during the eighteen 

months immediately preceding the date of the first message; and 

(6) 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. 

FTSA Class: All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic 

sales call regarding Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services, 

(2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call 

Plaintiff.

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

NUMEROSITY

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 8 of 17
9 

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

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

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

46. 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

47. 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: 

(a) Whether Defendant initiated telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff and the Class 

members; 

(b) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it had prior express written 

consent to make such calls; 

(c) Whether Defendants maintain an internal do-not-call list and instruct their 

employees on how to use the list; and 

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

48. The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If 

Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely transmits telephonic sales calls without prior express 

written consent is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of 

being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.

TYPICALITY

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 9 of 17
10

49. 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

50. 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.

SUPERIORITY

51. 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. 

52. 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 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 64.1200(c)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the DNC Class)

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 10 of 17
11

53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

52 as if fully set forth herein.

54. 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.”

55. 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.” 

56. 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). 

57. 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. 

58. 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.

59. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 11 of 17
12

$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.

COUNT II 

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 501.059

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FTSA Class)

60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

52 as if fully set forth herein. 

61. 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). 

62. 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).

63. “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;

3. Includes the telephone number to which the signatory authorizes a telephonic 

sales call to be delivered; and

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 12 of 17
13

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). 

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

members. 

65. 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. 

66. 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. 

67. 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. 

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

Prayer for Relief below.

COUNT III

Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the DNC Class)

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 13 of 17
14

69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

52 as if fully set forth herein. 

70. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5)(A), Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting

Defendant’s unlawful conduct in the future to protect Plaintiff and the DNC Class members from 

Defendant’s unsolicited calls and practices.

71. Defendant’s ongoing and continuing violations have caused, and in the absence of 

an injunction will continue to cause, harm to Plaintiff and the DNC Class members.

72. Plaintiff and the DNC Class members will suffer irreparable harm if Defendants 

are permitted to continue their practice of violating 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c). 

73. The injuries that the Plaintiff and the DNC Class members will suffer if Defendant 

is not prohibited from continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein far outweigh 

the harm that Defendant will suffer if it is enjoined from continuing this conduct. 

74. The public interest will be served by an injunction prohibiting Defendant from 

continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein. 

75. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the DNC Class members seek an injunction requiring 

Defendant to regularly scrub its database of telephone numbers against the National Do-Not-Call 

Registry before sending any text message solicitations. 

Plaintiff requests for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the Prayer for Relief 

below. 

COUNT IV

Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(a)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FTSA Class)

76. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

52 as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 14 of 17
15

77. Pursuant to section 501.059(10)(a), Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting 

Defendant’s unlawful conduct in the future to protect Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members from 

Defendant’s unsolicited calls and practices.

78. Defendant’s ongoing and continuing violations have caused, and in the absence of 

an injunction will continue to cause, harm to Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members.

79. Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members suffer irreparable harm if Defendant is 

permitted to continue its practice of violating the FTSA. 

80. The injuries that the Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members will suffer if Defendant 

is not prohibited from continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein far outweigh 

the harm that Defendant will suffer if it is enjoined from continuing this conduct. 

81. The public interest will be served by an injunction prohibiting Defendant from 

continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein. 

82. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members seek an injunction requiring 

Defendant to implement policies and procedures to secure express written consent before engaging 

in any text message solicitations, and to follow such consent requirements. 

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

Prayer for Relief below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

relief:

a) An order certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Classes as defined above, 

and appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Classes and Plaintiff’s counsel as 

Class Counsel;

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 15 of 17
16

b) An award of statutory damages for Plaintiff 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 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by (1) 

maintaining the required written policies; (2) providing training to their personnel 

engaged in telemarketing; and (3) maintaining a do-not-call list

f) Such further and other relief as the Court deems necessary.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, hereby demand a trial by jury.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

Plaintiff demands that Defendant take affirmative steps to preserve all records, lists, electronic 

databases or other itemization of telephone numbers associated with the communications or transmittal 

of the calls as alleged herein.

DATED: September 20, 2022

Respectfully Submitted,

DAPEER LAW, P.A.

/s/ Rachel Dapeer 

Rachel Dapeer

Florida Bar No. 108039

20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417

Aventura, FL 33180

T: 305-610-5223

rachel@dapeer.com

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 16 of 17
17

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

Case 1:22-cv-22996-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 17 of 17