1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO: 0:22-cv-62219-WPD 

JAMIL HINDI 

individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

 Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

v. 

MODANI FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________/ 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Jamil Hindi brings this class action against Defendant Modani Fort Lauderdale, 

LLC, 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 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. 

3. To promote its products and services, Defendant engages in text message 

solicitations and ignores opt-out requests. 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 1 of 12
2

4. Defendant’s unwanted text messages 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 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 

6. 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. 

7. The Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is incorporated 

and headquartered in Florida. 

8. Venue is proper in this District 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 

Broward County, Florida. 

10. Defendant is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Florida corporation. Defendant 

maintains its primary place of business and headquarters in Florida. Defendant directs, markets, and 

provides business activities throughout the State of Florida. 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 2 of 12
3

FACTS 

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

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number even after Plaintiff’s “stop” request as depicted below: 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 3 of 12
4

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 4 of 12
5

12. 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. 

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

violative conduct occurred in substantial part in Florida. 

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

of the cellular telephone that received the messages. 

15. 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. 

16. 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. 

17. 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. 

18. 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 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 5 of 12
6

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

marketing/solicitation calls on November 5, 2022 and November 19, 2022. 

20. 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. 

21. 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. 

22. 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. 

23. 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. 

24. 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. 

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

phone number. 

26. 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. 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 6 of 12
7

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

PROPOSED CLASS

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

Plaintiff and all others similarly situated. 

28. Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Class defined as follows: 

All persons within the United States who, within the four years 

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

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

person’s residential cellular telephone number, (4) after making a 

request to Defendant to not receive future calls. 

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

learned in further investigation and discovery. 

30. 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

31. Upon information and belief, Defendant has sent text messages to cellular telephone 

numbers belonging to at least 50 persons throughout the United States without their consent. The 

members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable. 

32. 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 call records. 

COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

33. 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’ 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 7 of 12
8

cellular telephones using a text message after “stop” requests; 

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 and willful; 

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. 

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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, 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 8 of 12
9

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. 

38. 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 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) 

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

through 38 as if fully set forth herein. 

40. 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. 

(3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or 

entity making a call for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf 

such a call is made) receives a request from a residential 

telephone subscriber not to receive calls from that person or entity, 

the person or entity must record the request and place 

the subscriber's name, if provided, and telephone number on the donot-call list at the time the request is made. Persons or entities 

making calls for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 9 of 12
10

calls are made) must honor a residential subscriber's do-not-call 

request within a reasonable time from the date such request is made. 

This period may not exceed thirty days from the date of such request. 

If such requests are recorded or maintained by a party other than the 

person or entity on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made, the 

person or entity on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made will 

be liable for any failures to honor the do-not-call request. A person 

or entity making a call for telemarketing purposes must obtain 

a consumer's prior express permission to share or forward 

the consumer's request not to be called to a party other than the 

person or entity on whose behalf a telemarketing call is made or 

an affiliated entity. 

41. 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. 

42. Plaintiff and the Class members made requests to Defendant not to receive calls from 

Defendant by replying “stop” or sending a similar request. 

43. Defendant failed to honor Plaintiff and the Class members’ opt-out requests. 

44. In addition to failing to comply with opt-out requests, Defendant’s refusal to honor optout requests is indicative of Defendant’s failure to implement a written policy for maintaining a do-notcall list and to train its personnel engaged in telemarketing on the existence and use of the do-not-calllist. 

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

46. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled 

to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every negligent violation. 

47. As a result of Defendant’s knowing or willful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class members 

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

48. Plaintiff and the Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting 

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

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 10 of 12
11

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 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 11 of 12
12

Dated: January 11, 2023 

 Respectfully submitted, 

EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 

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 

 

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 12 of 12