IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

VIRGINIA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself

and others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

MEDIGAP LIFE, LLC, 

Defendant. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

/ 

 Plaintiff Virginia Johnson (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges on personal knowledge, investigation of her

counsel, and on information and belief, as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION

1. As the Supreme Court has explained, “Americans passionately disagree about 

many things. But they are largely united in their disdain for robocalls. The Federal Government 

receives a staggering number of complaints about robocalls—3.7 million complaints in 2019 

alone. The States likewise field a constant barrage of complaints. For nearly 30 years, the 

people’s representatives in Congress have been fighting back. As relevant here, the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act of 1991, known as the TCPA, generally prohibits robocalls to cell 

phones and home phones.” Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2343 

(2020). 

2. This case involves a campaign by MediGap Life, LLC (“MediGap Life”) to 

market its services through the use of pre-recorded telemarketing calls in plain violation of the 

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 1 of 12
2 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the 

“TCPA”). 

3. However, the TCPA doesn’t only restrict robocalls. 

4. Telemarketing calls are intrusive. A great many people object to these calls, 

which interfere with their lives, tie up their phone lines, and cause confusion and disruption on 

phone records. Faced with growing public criticism of abusive telephone marketing practices,

Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 

Stat. 2394 (1991) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227). As Congress explained, the law was a response 

to Americans “outraged over the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls to their homes from

telemarketers” id. § 2(6), and sought to strike a balance between “[i]ndividuals’ privacy rights,

public safety interests, and commercial freedoms” id. § 2(9). 

5. “The law opted for a consumer-driven process that would allow objecting 

individuals to prevent unwanted calls to their homes. The result of the telemarketing regulations 

was the national Do-Not-Call registry. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). Within the federal 

government’s web of indecipherable acronyms and byzantine programs, the Do-Not-Call registry

stands out as a model of clarity. It means what it says. If a person wishes to no longer receive 

telephone solicitations, he can add his number to the list. The TCPA then restricts the telephone 

solicitations that can be made to that number. See id.; 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(iii)(B) (‘It is an 

abusive telemarketing act or practice and a violation of this Rule for a telemarketer to . . . 

initiat[e] any outbound telephone call to a person when . . . [t]hat person’s telephone number is 

on the “do-not-call” registry, maintained by the Commission.’)...Private suits can seek either 

monetary or injunctive relief. Id...This private cause of action is a straightforward provision 

designed to achieve a straightforward result. Congress enacted the law to protect against 

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 2 of 12
3 

invasions of privacy that were harming people. The law empowers each person to protect his 

own personal rights. Violations of the law are clear, as is the remedy. Put simply, the TCPA 

affords relief to those persons who, despite efforts to avoid it, have suffered an intrusion upon 

their domestic peace.” Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 925 F.3d 643, 649-50 (4th Cir. 2019). 

6. Ms. Johnson alleges that MediGap Life made unsolicited pre-recorded

telemarketing calls to her residential telephone number that is listed on the National Do Not Call 

Registry.

7. The recipients of MediGap Life’s illegal calls, which include Plaintiff and the 

proposed class, are entitled to damages under the TCPA, and because the technology used by 

Supermarket Insurance makes calls en masse, the appropriate vehicle for their recovery is a class 

action lawsuit.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Virginia Johnson is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an individual. 

9. Defendant MediGap Life LLC is a Florida limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in this District.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 47 

U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because the company has 

its principal place of business in this District. 

12. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the telephone calls at issue 

were sent from this District and Defendant resides here. 

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 3 of 12
4 

TCPA BACKGROUND

The TCPA Prohibits Automated Telemarketing Calls

13. The TCPA makes it unlawful to make any call (other than a call made for 

emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an 

automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number 

assigned to a cellular telephone service or that is charged per the call. See 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

14. The TCPA provides a private cause of action to persons who receive calls in 

violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) or 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). 

15. According to findings by the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”), the 

agency Congress vested with authority to issue regulations implementing the TCPA, such calls 

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. 

16. In 2013, the FCC required prior express written consent for all autodialed or 

prerecorded telemarketing calls (“robocalls”) to wireless numbers and residential lines. 

Specifically, it ordered that:

[A] consumer’s written consent to receive telemarketing robocalls must be signed 

and be sufficient to show that the consumer: (1) received “clear and conspicuous 

disclosure” of the consequences of providing the requested consent, i.e., that the 

consumer will receive future calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf 

of a specific seller; and (2) having received this information, agrees unambiguously 

to receive such calls at a telephone number the consumer designates.[] In addition, 

the written agreement must be obtained “without requiring, directly or indirectly, 

that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service.[]”

In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 

27 F.C.C. Rcd. 1830, 1844 (2012) (footnotes omitted). 

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 4 of 12
5 

The National Do Not Call Registry

17. § 227(c) of the TCPA requires the FCC to “initiate a rulemaking proceeding 

concerning the need to protect residential telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving 

telephone solicitations to which they object.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1). 

18. 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). 

19. 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. 

20. 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 made. 47 

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

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

21. Defendant MediGap Life LLC is a “person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. 

§ 153(39). 

22. Plaintiff Johnson’s telephone number, XXX-XXX-0720 is assigned to a cellular 

telephone service.

23. That number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since January 7, 

2006. 

24. That number is residential and used for personal purposes only. 

25. That number is not associated with a business. 

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 5 of 12
6

26. The Plaintiff received at least two pre-recorded calls from the Defendant, on 

February 26 and July 27, 2022.

27. The pre-recorded messages stated:

Hi, I'm calling about your online inquiry for Medicare benefits. If you're 

like me, you want dental, vision, food benefits, and more, we've already 

gotten benefits for several in your area at no cost. What are you waiting 

for? Call us now. (844) 931-5005. Again, that's (844) 931-5005.

Hi. Looks like I missed you again. I know you're looking for things like 

dental, vision, over the counter benefits, and more, to go along with your 

Medicare. I have several plans you may qualify for at no cost. Call me 

now at 844-970-5005.

28. The Plaintiff did not make an “online inquiry” regarding Medicare benefits.

29. The call was clearly pre-recorded because (a) it was sent with automated 

technology that had a delay prior to the message being played, (b) it used a singular monotone 

voice, and (c) it was a generic message not personalized for the recipient.

30. Indeed, prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the 

Defendant regarding the automated calls.

31. The Defendant did not respond or deny the allegations.

32. A call back to the numbers left in the pre-recorded messages result in individuals 

identifying themselves as employee of MediGap Life and offering their insurance services.

33. The Plaintiff believes that she also received calls from the same Caller ID number 

that placed the February 26, 2022 call on March 9, 15, April 14, 19, 21, 2022.

34. The calls were not necessitated by an emergency.

35. Plaintiff and all members of the Class, defined below, have been harmed by the 

acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed. 

Plaintiff and the Class Members were also harmed by use of their telephone power and network 

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 6 of 12
7 

bandwidth and the intrusion on their telephone that occupied it from receiving legitimate 

communications. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

36. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the following classes (the 

“Class”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3). 

37. Plaintiff proposes the following Class definition, subject to amendment as 

appropriate: 

Robocall Class: All persons within the United States: (1) to whose cellular telephone 

number (2) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant) placed a telemarketing 

call (3) within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through trial (4) using an 

identical or substantially similar pre-recorded message used to place telephone calls to 

Plaintiff. 

National Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States whose (1) 

telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, 

(2) but who received more than one telemarketing calls from or on behalf of 

Defendant (3) within a 12-month period, (4) for substantially the same purpose as 

Defendant’s calls to Plaintiff, (5) from four years prior the filing of the Complaint.

38. Plaintiff is a member of and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the 

interests of the classes as she has no interests that conflict with any of the class members.

39. Excluded from the Classes are counsel, the Defendant, and any entities in which 

the Defendant has a controlling interest, the Defendant’s agents and employees, any judge to 

whom this action is assigned, and any member of such judge’s staff and immediate family. 

40. Plaintiff and all members of the Classes have been harmed by the acts of the 

Defendant, including, but not limited to, the invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of time, 

the use of their telephone power and network bandwidth, and the intrusion on their telephone that 

occupied it from receiving legitimate communications.

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 7 of 12
8

41. This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and money damages.

42. The Classes as defined above is identifiable through the Defendant’s dialer 

records, other phone records, and phone number databases. 

43. Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Classes, but Plaintiff 

reasonably believes Classes members number, at minimum, in the hundreds based on the fact 

that recorded messages were used to send the calls.

44. The joinder of all Classes members is impracticable due to the size of the Class and 

relatively modest value of each individual claim.

45. Additionally, the disposition of the claims in a class action will provide substantial 

benefit to the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits.

46. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and to the 

proposed Classes, including but not limited to the following:

(a) Whether the Defendant used pre-recorded message to send telemarketing 

calls;

(b) whether Defendant made multiple calls to numbers on the National Do Not 

Call Registry;

(c) whether Defendant made calls to Plaintiff and members of the Classes without 

first obtaining prior express written consent to make the calls;

(d) whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA; and 

(e) whether members of the Classes are entitled to treble damages based on the 

willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.

47. Further, Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of 

the Class. Plaintiff has no interests which are antagonistic to any member of the Classes.

48. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex 

litigation and class actions, and especially TCPA class actions. Plaintiff and her counsel are 

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 8 of 12
9 

committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the other members of the Classes, 

and have the financial resources to do so. 

49. Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only 

individual class members, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy. 

50. The likelihood that individual members of the Classes will prosecute separate 

actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual case. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

47 U.S.C. 227(b) on behalf of the Robocall Class

51. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

52. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and/or their 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 calls, except for emergency purposes, to the 

cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the Class delivering pre-recorded 

messages.

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

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

members of the Class presumptively are entitled to an award of $500 in damages for each and 

every call made to their residential or cellular telephone numbers using an artificial or 

prerecorded voice in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). 

54. If the Defendant’s conduct is found to be knowing or willful, the Plaintiff and 

members of the Class are entitled to an award of up to treble damages. 

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 9 of 12
10 

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

relief prohibiting Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on 

Defendant’s behalf from violating the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, by making calls, except for 

emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers using an artificial or prerecorded voice 

in the future.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

(Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227) 

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

56. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

57. 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.

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

59. 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.

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

relief prohibiting Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on 

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 10 of 12
11 

Defendant’s behalf 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 calling telephone numbers 

advertising their goods or services, except for emergency purposes, using a pre-record message

or to a number on the National Do Not Call Registry in the future;

B. That the Court enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff and all class members 

statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA and $1,500 for each knowing or 

willful violation; and 

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

of Civil Procedure 23, establishing Classes the Court deems appropriate, finding that Plaintiff is 

a proper representative of the Classes, and appointing the lawyers and law firms representing 

Plaintiff as counsel for the Classes; 

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. 

Dated: September 13, 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 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor 

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 11 of 12
12

Coral Gables, FL 33133

Telephone: (305) 469-5881

Case 9:22-cv-81427-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 12 of 12