IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GERARD JACKSON, on behalf of himself

and others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

PAGIDEM, LLC 

Defendant. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 

COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

/ 

 Plaintiff Gerard Jackson (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, alleges on personal knowledge, investigation of his counsel, and 

on information and belief, as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION

1. 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). 

2. “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 

Case 9:22-cv-81893-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 1 of 9
2 

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 

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). 

3. Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the 

TCPA alleging that Pagidem, LLC d/b/a MediGap Healthcare Insurance Company (“MediGap”) 

made telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, including his own.

4. Because telemarketing campaigns typically use technology capable of generating 

thousands of similar calls per day, Plaintiff sues on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of 

other persons who received similar calls. 

5. A class action is the best means of obtaining redress for the Defendant’s illegal 

telemarketing and is consistent both with the private right of action afforded by the TCPA and 

the fairness and efficiency goals of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 9:22-cv-81893-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 2 of 9
3 

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Gerard Jackson is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an individual. 

7. Defendant MediGap is a Florida limited liability company that has its principal 

place of business in this District.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 

9. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over MediGap because the company 

has its principal place of business in this District. 

10. 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. 

TCPA BACKGROUND

11. In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA to regulate the explosive growth of the 

telemarketing industry. In so doing, Congress recognized that “[u]nrestricted telemarketing . . . 

can be an intrusive invasion of privacy [.]” Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. 

No. 102-243, § 2(5) (1991) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227). 

The National Do Not Call Registry

12. § 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). 

13. 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). 

Case 9:22-cv-81893-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 3 of 9
4 

14. 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. 

15. 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

16. Defendant is a “person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

17. At no point has the Plaintiff sought out or solicited information regarding 

Defendant’s goods and services, or consented to calls regarding Defendant’s goods and services, 

prior to receiving the telemarketing calls at issue.

Calls to Plaintiff

18. Plaintiff Jackson’s telephone number, 814-876-XXXX, is a residential telephone 

line.

19. It is not associated with a business and is used by Mr. Jackson only. 

20. The telephone number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since 

December 4, 2006. 

21. Mr. Jackson personally registered, or had the number registered on his behalf, on 

the National Do Not Call Registry in 2006. 

22. Despite this, Mr. Jackson received more than two telemarketing calls from 

MediGap, including calls from the telephone number (754) 218-0990 on March 12 (twice), April 

12 (twice), May 13, and May 18, 2021. 

Case 9:22-cv-81893-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 4 of 9
5 

23. Other individuals have complained about receiving telemarketing calls from those 

numbers. See, e.g., https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/754-218-0990. 

24. To ultimately confirm MediGap’s identity, Plaintiff eventually engaged with the 

telemarketer and was subsequently sent an e-mail confirming the telephone solicitation.

25. During the call, MediGap’s supplemental insurance product was promoted. 

26. Mr. Jackson received an e-mail from Brandon Maiorino that stated the following: 

“https://t65healthcare.com/ Thats my website for my agency, BBB approved, medicare health 

insurance.” 

27. t65healthcare.com is a website for MediGap.

28. Prior to filing this lawsuit Mr. Jackson contacted MediGap about making the 

calls.

29. MediGap did not deny making the calls at issue.

30. The calls received by Plaintiff were sent for the purpose of encouraging the 

purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services as they seek to have him 

obtain goods and services from MEDIGAP to be billed to his insurance. 

31. These calls qualified as telemarketing. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12). 

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 subjected to annoying and 

harassing calls that constitute a nuisance. The calls also occupied Plaintiff’s and class members’ 

telephone lines and prevented them from received legitimate communication.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

32. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the following class (the 

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

Case 9:22-cv-81893-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 5 of 9
6

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

appropriate: 

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 

call from or on behalf of Defendant (3) within a 12-month period (4) from the four years 

prior to the filing of the complaint through the date of trial.

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

interests of this class as he has no interests that conflict with any of the class members.

35. Excluded from the Class 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.

36. Plaintiff and all members of the Class 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.

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

38. The Class as defined above is identifiable through the Defendant’s dialer records, 

other phone records, and phone number databases. 

39. 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 

the calls were made as part of a telemarketing campaign.

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

relatively modest value of each individual claim.

41. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81893-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 6 of 9
7 

42. 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 made telemarketing calls; 

(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’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA; and 

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

willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.

43. 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. 

44. 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.

45. 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. 

46. 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

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

(Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227) 

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

47. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the forgoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

Case 9:22-cv-81893-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 7 of 9
8 

48. 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.

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

50. 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.

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

relief prohibiting Defendant 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 on the 

National Do Not Call Registry advertising their goods or services 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 a Class the Court deems appropriate, finding that Plaintiff is a 

Case 9:22-cv-81893-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 8 of 9
9 

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 himself

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 9:22-cv-81893-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 9 of 9