IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JOANNE WALSH, on behalf of herself and 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DISABILITY HELP GROUP, LLC, 

Defendant. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

/ 

 Plaintiff Joanne Walsh (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 Disability Help Group, LLC (“Disability Help 

Group”) to market its services through the use of pre-recorded telemarketing calls in plain 

Case 0:22-cv-62276-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 1 of 11
2 

violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (hereinafter 

referred to as the “TCPA”). 

3. Ms. Walsh also alleges that Disability Help Group LLC uses automated systems 

to make telemarketing calls from Florida, including to individuals that have placed themselves 

on the National Do Not Call Registry, and that by doing so, Disability Help Group has violated 

the provisions of the Florida Telephone Solicitations Act, Fla. Sta § 501.059 (“FTSA”). 

4. The recipients of these illegal calls, which include Plaintiff and the proposed 

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

Disability Help Group makes calls en masse, the appropriate vehicle for their recovery is a class 

action lawsuit.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Joanne Walsh is an individual. 

6. Defendant Disability Help Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company

with its principal place of business located in this District. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 

8. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Disability Help Group because it 

resides here. 

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

were sent from this District.

Case 0:22-cv-62276-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 2 of 11
3 

TCPA BACKGROUND

The TCPA Prohibits Automated Telemarketing Calls

10. 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). 

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

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

12. 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. 

13. 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 0:22-cv-62276-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 3 of 11
4 

The Florida Telephone Solicitations Act 

14. The Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (“FTSA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.059 was 

amended by Senate Bill No. 1120 on July 1, 2021. 

15. 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). 

16. 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). 

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

of $500.00 for each violation. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18. Defendant Disability Help Group is a “person” as the term is defined by 47 

U.S.C. § 153(39). 

19. Disability Help Group offers assistance to individuals to try to make them qualify 

for Social Security disability benefits.

20. To increase its sales, and as part of a general cold-call based marketing scheme, 

Disability Help Group markets these services using pre-recorded voice calls to consumers. 

Case 0:22-cv-62276-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 4 of 11
5

21. Indeed, Disability Help Group has previously received complaints that its 

marketing conduct violated the TCPA.

22. Plaintiff Walsh’s telephone number, 240-367-XXXX is assigned to a cellular 

telephone service.

23. That number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2007.

24. The Plaintiff received pre-recorded calls from the Defendant on October 3, 5, 6

and 14, 2022.

25. Some of the calls came from similar Caller ID numbers, (240) 739-1921 and 

1922.

26. The calls each began with a pre-recorded message.

27. The pre-recorded message stated that the call was from Disability Health Group 

and advised the call recipient to press a number to speak to someone.

28. The calls were clearly pre-recorded because (a) it was sent with automated 

technology used to mask Caller IDs (b) it used a singular monotone voice (c) it was a generic 

message not personalized for the recipient (d) there was a pause prior to the recorded message 

being played and (e) the calls had the option to press a number in response to the message.

29. During the October 14, 2022 call, the Plaintiff spoke to “Hunter”.

30. “Hunter” promoted the Defendant’s services of being able to assist individuals 

apply for disability benefits.

31. “Hunter” explained that such services could be provided to the Plaintiff for a fee.

32. “Hunter” provided the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s website when asked more 

about the company.

Case 0:22-cv-62276-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 5 of 11
6 

33. Indeed, prior to filing this lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s counsel contacted the Defendant 

about the calls.

34. The Defendant didn’t deny making the calls or that they were pre-recorded. 

35. Instead, they claimed to have the Plaintiff’s consent to make such calls. 

36. However, the Plaintiff provided no such consent. 

37. The calls were not necessitated by an emergency.

38. Plaintiff and all members of the Classes, 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 

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

communications. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

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

“Classes”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 

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

appropriate: 

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

telephone number or other number for which they are charged for the call (2) Defendant

(or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant) placed a telemarketing call (3) from 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. 

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

received a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant’ goods and/or services, (2) using the 

same or substantially similar pre-recorded messaged or the same equipment or type of 

equipment utilized to call Plaintiff (3) since July 1, 2021. 

Case 0:22-cv-62276-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 6 of 11
7

41. 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.

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

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

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

43. 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.

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

45. The Classes as defined above are identifiable through the Defendant’ dialer 

records, other phone records, and phone number databases. 

46. Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Class, but Plaintiff 

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

recorded messages were used to send the calls.

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

relatively modest value of each individual claim.

48. 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.

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

proposed Class, including but not limited to the following:

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

calls;

Case 0:22-cv-62276-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 7 of 11
8 

(b) whether Defendant made calls to Plaintiff and members of the Class without 

first obtaining prior express written consent to make the calls; 

(c) whether Defendant’ conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA and FTSA; 

and 

(d) whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the 

willfulness of Defendant’ conduct. 

50. 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 Class. 

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

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

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

have the financial resources to do so.

52. 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. 

53. The likelihood that individual members of the Class 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

54. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from the prior paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein.

55. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and/or their affiliates, agents, 

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

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

Case 0:22-cv-62276-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 8 of 11
9 

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

messages.

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

entities acting on Defendant’ 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 cellular telephone numbers or numbers for which they were charged per 

call using an artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227(b)(3)(B).

57. If the Defendant’ 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. 

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

emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers or numbers for which they are charged 

per call using an artificial or prerecorded voice in the future.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.059 

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

59. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 53 as if 

fully set forth herein. 

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

Solicitation Act Autodial Class Members against Defendant. 

Case 0:22-cv-62276-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 9 of 11
10 

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

Members.

64. 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. 

65. 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. 

66. As a result of Defendant’ 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.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Case 0:22-cv-62276-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 10 of 11
11 

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

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 or FTSA 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 a Class the Court deems appropriate, finding that Plaintiff is a 

proper representative of the Class, and appointing the lawyers and law firms representing 

Plaintiff as counsel for the Class;

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: December 6, 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-62276-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 11 of 11