1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: 

JAMIL HINDI CLASS ACTION

individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v. 

MODANI FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, 

Defendant.

__________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jamil Hindi (“Plaintiff”) brings this class action against Defendant Modani Fort 

Lauderdale, LLC. (“Defendant”) 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 class action under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (“FTSA”), Fla. 

Stat. § 501.059, as amended by Senate Bill No. 1120.1 and the Telephone Consumer Protection 

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

2. Defendant is a furniture retailer owned by Modani Holdings, LLC which has multiple 

locations throughout the State of Florida.

1 The amendment to the FTSA became effective on July 1, 2021.

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 1 of 15
2

3. To promote its loan products and services, Defendant engages in telephonic sales 

calls using text messages. Defendant also ignores requests to stop calling those it calls with 

marketing messages. 

4. Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured 

prior express written consent as required by the FTSA and TCPA. 

5. 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. 

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

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

remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the action arises under the TCPA and also has jurisdiction over the FTSA claims.

8. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant and venue is proper in this District 

because Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities to this District, and because 

Defendant’s unauthorized marketing scheme was directed by Defendant to consumers in this District, 

including Plaintiff and Defendant is a Florida corporation. 

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this action, was a resident of 

Florida within the Southern District of Florida. 

10. 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 he was the regular user of telephone number that received 

Defendant’s telephonic sales calls.

11. Defendant is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Florida corporation and a “telephone 

solicitor” as defined by Fla. Stat. § 501.059(f). Defendant maintains its primary place of business and 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 2 of 15
3

headquarters in Florida. Defendant directs, markets, and provides business activities throughout the 

State of Florida.

12. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendant’s name in this Complaint includes all 

agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, 

subrogees, representatives, vendors, and insurers of Defendant.

FACTS 

13. Since on or about May 27, 2022, Defendant has continued to send telephonic sales calls 

to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number. The following are screenshots of some of the messages received 

by Plaintiff:

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 3 of 15
4

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 4 of 15
5

14. As demonstrated by the above screenshots, the purpose of Defendant’s telephonic sales 

calls was to solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services.

15. Plaintiff was in Florida when he received the above text message calls, and Defendant’s 

violative conduct occurred in substantial part in Florida. 

16. Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number has an area code that corresponds with geographic 

locations in Florida. Accordingly, Defendant knew or should have known that it was sending text 

messages to an individual located in Florida. 

17. At the time Plaintiff received the text messages, he was the subscriber and/or sole user 

of the cellular telephone that received the messages. 

18. To transmit the above telephonic sales text message calls, Defendant utilized a computer 

software system that automatically selected and dialed Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ telephone 

numbers.

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

(9544515310) is known as a “long code.” A standard 10-digit phone number that enabled Defendant to 

send SMS text messages en masse, while deceiving recipients into believing that the message was 

personalized and sent from a telephone number operated by an individual. 

20. Long codes work as follows: Private companies known as SMS gateway providers 

have contractual arrangements with mobile carriers to transmit two-way SMS traffic. These SMS 

gateway providers send and receive SMS traffic to and from the mobile phone networks' SMS centers, 

which are responsible for relaying those messages to the intended mobile phone. This allows for the 

transmission of a large number of SMS messages to and from a long code. 

21. The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text messages, coupled with their 

frequency, and the fact that they originated from a long-code, with automated responses, demonstrates 

that Defendant utilized a computer software system that automatically selected and dialed Plaintiff’s 

and the Class members’ telephone numbers.

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 5 of 15
6

22. Indeed, to send the text message, Defendant used a messaging platform (the 

“Platform”), which permitted Defendant to transmit blasts of thousands of text messages automatically 

and without any human involvement.

23. 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.

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

text messages to consumers.

25. 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. 

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

utilizing a non-automated text messaging system.

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

of transmitting text messages. 

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

with the FTSA is nominal.

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

operations. 

30. Compliance with the FTSA will not result in Defendant having the alter the prices of 

any goods or services it provides in the marketplace. 

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

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

32. 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. 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 6 of 15
7

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

numbers.

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

text messages.

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

of text messages. 

36. 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 or dialing of telephone numbers.

37. 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 or dialing of telephone numbers.

38. Since July 1, 2021, Defendant sent at least 50 text message solicitations to as many 

consumers in Florida. 

39. Plaintiff also revoked any type of consent or permission Defendant may have had to 

contact him on August 2, 2022 by replying STOP to Defendant’s text message. 

40. As also shown below, Defendant received the stop request because it confirmed that 

Plaintiff was unsubscribed through an automated response:

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 7 of 15
8

41. Despite receiving Plaintiff’s stop request, Defendant continued sending Plaintiff 

marketing/solicitation calls on November 5, 2022, November 19, 2022 an November 25, 2022. 

42. Defendant failed to honor or abide by Plaintiff’s opt-out requests and continued to 

repeatedly text message Plaintiff after he asked for the communications to stop.

43. Defendant’s failure to abide by Plaintiff’s opt-out requests is indicative of Defendant’s 

lack of a written policy for maintaining internal do not call procedures.

44. Defendant’s failure to abide by Plaintiff’s opt-out requests is indicative of Defendant’s 

failure to institute procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing 

calls. 

45. Defendant’s failure to abide by Plaintiff’s opt-out requests is indicative of Defendant’s 

failure to maintain an internal do not call list, as well as inform and train its personnel engaged in 

telemarking in the existence and the use of any internal do not call list. 

46. Defendant’s failure to abide by Plaintiff’s opt-out requests demonstrates that Defendant 

does not record opt-out requests or place subscribers’ names and telephone number on any do-not-call 

list at the time the requests are made.

47. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff’s telephone number has been a residential 

phone number.

48. Defendant’s unsolicited text message calls caused Plaintiff harm, including invasion of 

privacy, aggravation, and annoyance. Defendant’s call also inconvenienced Plaintiff, caused disruptions 

to Plaintiff’s daily life, caused Plaintiff to waste time dealing with Defendant’s unsolicited text message 

calls. Additionally, Defendant’s unsolicited messages violated Plaintiff’s substantive rights under the 

FTSA from be free from harassing calls like Defendant’s. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

PROPOSED CLASS

49. Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of 

Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 8 of 15
9

50. Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Classes defined as follows:

TCPA CLASS: All persons within the United States who, within the four years 

prior to the filing of this Complaint, (1) were sent a text message or prerecorded 

or artificial voice message from Defendant or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, (2) 

regarding Defendant’s goods, products or services, (3) to said person’s residential 

telephone number, (4) after making a request to Defendant to not receive future 

calls. 

FTSA Class: All persons in the United States who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales 

call regarding Defendant’s goods and/or services, (2) using the same equipment 

or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff.

51. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the Class definitions as warranted as facts are 

learned in further investigation and discovery. 

52. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Classes. Plaintiff does not 

know the number of members in each the Class but believes the Class members number in the several

thousands, if not more.

NUMEROSITY

53. Upon information and belief, Defendant has sent prerecorded messages 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.

54. The exact number and identities of the members of the Class 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 callrecords.

COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

55. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to members of the Class which 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. Among the questions 

of law and fact common to the members of the Class are:

a) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Class members’ 

cellular telephones using a text message; 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 9 of 15
10

b) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it obtained prior express 

written consent to make such calls;

c) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing andwillful;

d) Whether Defendant initiated telemarketing calls to telephone numbers who 

requested to not receive such calls;

e) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and

f) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.

56. The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s

claim that Defendant routinely transmits prerecorded messages to telephone numbers assigned to 

cellular telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims 

capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.

TYPICALITY

57. 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

58. 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

59. 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 suchcases.

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 10 of 15
11

60. 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

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 501.059

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FTSA Class)

61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

62. 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).

63. 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). 

64. “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 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 11 of 15
12

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).

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

members. 

66. 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. 

67. 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.

68. 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 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the TCPA Class)

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

through 60 as if fully set forth herein.

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 12 of 15
13

70. In pertinent part, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) provides: 

No person or entity shall initiate any call for telemarketing purposes to 

a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has 

instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not 

to receive telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of that person or 

entity. The procedures instituted must meet the following minimum 

standards: 

(1) Written policy. Persons or entities making calls for 

telemarketing purposes must have a written policy, available upon 

demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list.

(2) Training of personnel engaged in telemarketing. Personnel 

engaged in any aspect of telemarketing must be informed and 

trained in the existence and use of the do-not-call list.

71. Under 47 C.F.R § 64.1200(e), the rules set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) are applicable 

to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone 

numbers.

72. Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members made requests to Defendant not 

to receive calls from Defendant.

73. Defendant failed to honor Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members opt-out 

requests. 

74. Defendant’s refusal to honor opt-out requests is indicative of Defendant’s failure to 

implement a written policy for maintaining a do-not-call list and to train its personnel engaged in 

telemarketing on the existence and use of the do-not-call-list.

75. Thus, Defendant has violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). 

76. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class 

members are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every negligent 

violation.

77. As a result of Defendant’s knowing or willful conduct, Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not 

Call Class members are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages per violation.

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 13 of 15
14

78. Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members are also entitled to and seek 

injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant’s illegal conduct in the future, pursuant to section 227(c)(5).

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 Class as defined above, 

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

Counsel;

b) An award of actual and statutory damages for Plaintiff and each member of the Class;

c) As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq., and 47 

C.F.R. § 64.1200, Plaintiff seeks for Plaintiff and each member of the Class $500.00 in 

statutory damages for each and every violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

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

seq., and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, Plaintiff seeks for Plaintiff and each member of the Class 

treble damages, as provided by statute, up to $1,500.00 for each and every violation 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

e) An order declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set out above, violate the TCPA;

f) An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited call activity without obtaining 

consent first and to otherwise protect the interests of the Class;

g) An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited call activity without obtaining 

consent first, cease initiating calls to telephone numbers listed on the National Do Not 

Call Registry and to cease all activity to individuals who have requested to be removed 

from Defendant’s consent list and to otherwise protect the interests of the Class;

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

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 14 of 15
15

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

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

databases or other itemizations associated with the allegations herein, including all records, lists, 

electronic databases or other itemizations in the possession of any vendors, individuals, and/or 

companies contracted, hired, or directed by Defendant to assist in sending the alleged communications.

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: November 28, 2022 

EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 

/s/Michael Eisenband

Michael Eisenband 

Florida Bar No. 94235 

515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com 

Telephone: 954.533.4092

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

Attorney for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2022 Page 15 of 15