1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

JENNIFER APELIAN, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

 Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

v. 

THE BEAUTY HUT, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Jennifer Apelian brings this class action against Defendant The Beauty Hut, 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 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 cannabis products and dispensaries, Defendant engages in 

unsolicited text messaging, including to individuals who have registered their telephone numbers 

on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, to those who have not provided Defendant with their prior 

express written consent as required by the FTSA, and to consumers who have requested for the 

messages to stop. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 1 of 21
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 himself 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 Palm Beach 

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 he 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 Florida corporation 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 general personal jurisdiction in Florida because it is a 

Florida corporation. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 2 of 21
3 

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 on or about September 2022, Defendant sent the following telephonic 

sales communications to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number: 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 3 of 21
4 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 4 of 21
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. As demonstrated by the above screenshots, when it sent its text message 

solicitations to Plaintiff, Defendant failed to identify (1) the name of the individual caller; (2) the 

name of the legal entity on whose behalf the call was being made; and (3) a telephone number or 

address at which Defendant may be contacted. 

16. Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received the above 

telephonic sales calls. 

17. Plaintiff utilizes her cellular telephone number for personal purposes and the 

number is Plaintiff’s residential telephone line. 

18. Plaintiff registered her cellular telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call 

Registry over 30 days prior to the receipt of Defendant’s first text message. 

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

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

20. 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. 

21. As demonstrated by the text message screenshots above, Defendant refused to 

honor Plaintiff’s multiple opt-out requests. 

22. 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 5 of 21
6 

23. 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. 

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

sent using a standard telephone. 

25. 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. 

26. 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. 

27. 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. 

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

automated text messages to consumers. 

29. 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 6 of 21
7 

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

utilizing a non-automated text messaging system. 

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

context of transmitting text messages. 

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

complies with the FTSA is nominal. 

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

operations. 

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

of any goods or services it provides in the marketplace. 

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

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

36. 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. 

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

of numbers, which was in fact utilized by Defendant. 

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

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

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

transmission of text messages. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 7 of 21
8 

40. 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. 

41. 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. 

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

message solicitations to as many consumers in Florida. 

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

caused Plaintiff harm in the form of harassment and invasion of privacy 

44. 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

45. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of herself 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) were sent more than one text message call within any 12-month 

period; (2) where the person’s telephone number that had been 

listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; 

(3) regarding Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services; (4) who 

did not purchase or transact business with Defendant during the 

eighteen months immediately preceding the date of the first 

message; and (5) who did not contact Defendant during the three 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 8 of 21
9 

months immediately preceding the date of the first message with an 

inquiry about a product, good, or service offered by Defendant. 

IDNC Class: All persons within the United States who, within the 

four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date 

of class certification, (1) were sent two or more text messages 

within any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant’s 

property, goods, and/or services, (3) after sending a “stop” or 

similar request to 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. 

Seller Identification Class: All persons within the United States 

who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint 

through the date of class certification, (1) were sent two or more 

text messages within any 12-month period, (2) regarding 

Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services, (3) that did not 

disclose the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or 

entity on whose behalf the call is being made, or a telephone 

number or address at which the person or entity may be contacted. 

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

NUMEROSITY

47. 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. 

48. 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 9 of 21
10 

COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

49. 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. 

50. 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

51. 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

52. 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 10 of 21
11 

SUPERIORITY

53. 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. 

54. 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)

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

54 as if fully set forth herein. 

56. 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.” 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 11 of 21
12 

57. 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.” 

58. 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). 

59. 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. 

60. 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. 

61. 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 

$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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 12 of 21
13 

COUNT II 

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 501.059

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FTSA Class)

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

54 as if fully set forth herein. 

63. 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). 

64. 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).

65. “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 

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 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 13 of 21
14 

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).

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

members. 

67. 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. 

68. 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. 

69. 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. 

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

Prayer for Relief below. 

COUNT III 

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

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the IDNC Class)

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

54 as if fully set forth herein. 

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

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 14 of 21
15 

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 do-not-call list at the time the request is made. 

Persons or entities making calls for telemarketing purposes (or on 

whose behalf such 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. 

73. Pursuant to 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. 

74. Defendant violated the requirements of section 64.1200(d) by failing to honor 

Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ opt-out requests. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 15 of 21
16 

75. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the IDNC Class members 

are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each text message sent by Defendant. 

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 IDNC Class. 

76. 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 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the DNC Class)

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

54 as if fully set forth herein. 

78. 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. 

79. 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. 

80. 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). 

81. 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. 

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

continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 16 of 21
17 

83. 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 V 

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

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the IDNC Class)

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

54 as if fully set forth herein. 

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

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

Defendant’s unsolicited calls and practices. 

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

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

87. Plaintiff and the IDNC Class members suffer irreparable harm if Defendant is 

permitted to continue its practice of violating 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). 

88. The injuries that the Plaintiff and the IDNC 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. 

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

continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein. 

90. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the IDNC Class members seek an injunction requiring 

Defendant to (1) implement policies and procedures as required under the TCPA and its 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 17 of 21
18 

implementing regulations; (2) honor consumer opt-out requests; (3) to implement a standalone 

internal do-not-call list; and (4) train its personnel on use of the list and abide by the list. 

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

Prayer for Relief below. 

COUNT VI 

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

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FTSA Class)

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

54 as if fully set forth herein. 

93. 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. 

94. 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. 

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

permitted to continue its practice of violating the FTSA. 

96. 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. 

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

continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein. 

98. 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 18 of 21
19 

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

Prayer for Relief below. 

COUNT VII 

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

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Seller Identification Class)

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

54 as if fully set forth herein. 

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

(4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or entity 

making a call for telemarketing purposes must provide the called party 

with the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity 

on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone number or 

address at which the person or entity may be contacted. The telephone 

number provided may not be a 900 number or any other number for 

which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. 

102. Pursuant to 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. 

103. Defendant violated the requirements of section 64.1200(d)(4) by failing to identify 

(1) the name of the individual caller; (2) the name of the legal entity on whose behalf the call was 

being made; and (3) a telephone number or address at which Defendant may be contacted. 

104. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the IDNC Class members 

are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each text message sent by Defendant. 

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 IDNC Class. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 19 of 21
20 

105. 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; 

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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 20 of 21
21 

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: November 9, 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

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 

THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 

Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 118259 

110 SE 6th Street 

Suite 1744 

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

Case 9:22-cv-81745-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 21 of 21