UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DISTRICT COURT -- EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHIGAN URGENT CARE &

PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS, P.C.,

Plaintiff,

-vsMEDSOURCE INTERNATIONAL, LLC.,

and JOHN DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

MEDSOURCE INTERNATIONAL, LLC’S ANSWER TO 

MICHIGAN URGENT CARE & PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS’ COMPLAINT

In response to Plaintiff, Michigan Urgent Care & Primary Care Physicians, P.C.’s 

("Michigan Urgent Care"), complaint, Defendant Medsource International, LLC, by and through 

their attorneys, KELLER & ALMASSIAN, PLC, answers as follows:

1. Plaintiff, Michigan Urgent Care & Primary Care Physicians, P.C., brings this action to 

secure redress for the actions of Defendant Medsource International, LLC, in sending or causing 

the sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in violation of the

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §227 (“TCPA”).

ANSWER: Defendant admits that “Michigan Urgent Care & Primary Care Physicians, 

P.C., brings this action,” but denies the remaining statements in this paragraph as untrue.

2. The TCPA expressly prohibits unsolicited fax advertising. Unsolicited fax advertising 

damages the recipients. The recipient is deprived of its paper and ink or toner and the use of its 

fax machine. The recipient also wastes valuable time it would have spent on something else.

Unsolicited faxes prevent fax machines from receiving and sending authorized faxes, cause wear 

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 23
2

and tear on fax machines, and require labor to attempt to identify the source and purpose of the 

unsolicited faxes.

ANSWER: Paragraph 2 states a legal conclusion and Defendant neither admits nor denies 

the allegations on the basis that Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this statement.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Michigan Urgent Care & Primary Care Physicians, P.C., is a professional 

corporation with offices at 37595 7 Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152, where it maintains 

telephone facsimile equipment.

ANSWER: Neither admitted nor denied on the basis that Defendant does not have 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this 

statement.

4. Defendant Medsource International, LLC, is a Minnesota limited liability company that 

has offices at 5346 Shoreline Drive, Mound, Minnesota 55364.

ANSWER: Admitted.

5. Defendants John Does 1-10 are other natural or artificial persons that were involved in 

the sending of the facsimile advertisements described below. Plaintiff does not know who they 

are.

ANSWER: Neither admitted nor denied on the basis that Defendant does not have 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this 

statement.

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 2 of 10 Pg ID 24
3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1367. Mims v. Arrow Financial

Services, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740, 751-53 (2012).

ANSWER: Admitted.

7. Personal jurisdiction is proper because Defendant has committed tortuous acts in this 

District by causing the transmission of unlawful communications into the District.

ANSWER: Defendant denies this Paragraph as untrue.

8. Venue in this District is proper for the same reason.

ANSWER: Defendant denies this Paragraph as untrue.

FACTS

9. In 2011, Plaintiff Michigan Urgent Care & Primary Care Physicians, P.C. received the

unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit A on its facsimile machine.

ANSWER: Neither admitted nor denied on the basis that Defendant does not have 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this 

statement.

10. In early 2011, Plaintiff Michigan Urgent Care & Primary Care Physicians, P.C. received

the unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit B on its facsimile machine.

ANSWER: Neither admitted nor denied on the basis that Defendant does not have 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this 

statement.

11. Discovery may reveal the transmission of additional faxes as well.

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 3 of 10 Pg ID 25
4

ANSWER: Neither admitted nor denied on the basis that Defendant does not have 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this 

statement.

12. Defendant Medsource International, LLC, is responsible for sending or causing the

sending of the faxes.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

13. Defendant Medsource International, LLC, as the entity whose products or services were

advertised in the faxes, derived economic benefit from the sending of the faxes.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

14. Defendant Medsource International, LLC, either negligently or willfully violated the 

rights of Plaintiff and other recipients in sending the faxes.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

15. Each fax refers to a website registered to Defendant Medsource International, LLC.

ANSWER: Admitted.

16. The faxes have a “remove” number at the bottom that is associated with the mass

broadcasting of advertising faxes.

ANSWER: Admitted.

17. Plaintiff had no prior relationship with Defendant and had not authorized the sending of

fax advertisements to Plaintiff.

ANSWER: Neither admitted nor denied on the basis that Defendant does not have 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this 

statement.

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 4 of 10 Pg ID 26
5

18. On information and belief, the faxes attached hereto were sent as part of a mass

broadcasting of faxes.

ANSWER: Neither admitted nor denied on the basis that Defendant does not have 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this 

statement.

19. On information and belief, Defendant has transmitted similar unsolicited fax

advertisements to at least 40 other persons in Michigan.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

20. There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff or other recipients of Defendant’s unsolicited

advertising faxes to avoid receiving illegal faxes. Fax machines must be left on and ready to

receive the urgent communications authorized by their owners.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

COUNT I – TCPA

21. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-20.

ANSWER: Defendant incorporates its ANSWERS to ¶¶ 1-20.

22. The TCPA makes unlawful the “use of any telephone facsimile machine, computer or

other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine ...” 47 U.S.C.

§227(b)(1)(C).

ANSWER: Paragraph 22 states a legal conclusion and Defendant neither admits nor denies 

the allegations on the basis that Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this statement.

23. The TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3), provides:

Private right of action.

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 5 of 10 Pg ID 27
6

A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State,

bring in an appropriate court of that State–

(A) An action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations prescribed 

under this subsection to enjoin such violation,

(B) An action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to 

receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or

(C) Both such actions.

If the Court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the 

regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the 

amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available 

under the subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.

ANSWER: Paragraph 23 states a legal conclusion and Defendant neither admits nor denies 

the allegations on the basis that Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this statement.

24. Plaintiff and each class member suffered damages as a result of receipt of the unsolicited

faxes, in the form of paper and ink or toner consumed as a result. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s

statutory right of privacy was invaded.

ANSWER: Neither admitted nor denied on the basis that Defendant does not have 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this 

statement.

25. Plaintiff and each class member is entitled to statutory damages.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

26. Defendant violated the TCPA even if its actions were only negligent.

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 6 of 10 Pg ID 28
7

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

27. Defendant should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the future.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

28. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of a class,

consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action

(28 U.S.C. §1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendant Medsource International,

LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and with respect to whom Defendant cannot

provide evidence of express consent or an established business relationship prior to the faxing.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

29. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. Plaintiff alleges on

information and belief that there are more than 40 members of the class.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

30. There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual class members. The predominant common questions include:

a. Whether Defendant engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited fax 

advertisements;

b. The manner in which Defendant compiled or obtained its list of fax numbers;

c. Whether Defendant thereby violated the TCPA

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

31. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff has retained

counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business practices.

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 7 of 10 Pg ID 29
8

Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff's counsel have any interests which might cause them not to

vigorously pursue this action.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

32. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members. All are based on the

same factual and legal theories.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

33. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this

controversy. The interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate

claims against Defendant is small because it is not economically feasible to bring individual

actions.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

34. Several courts have certified class actions under the TCPA. Holtzman v. Turza, 08 C

2014, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95620 (N.D.Ill., Oct. 14, 2009), aff’d in relevant part, 728 F.3d 

682 (7th Cir. 2013); Sadowski v. Med1 Online, LLC, 07 C 2973, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41766

(N.D.Ill., May 27, 2008); CE Design Ltd. v Cy's Crabhouse North, Inc., 259 F.R.D. 135 (N.D.Ill.

2009); Targin Sign Sys. v Preferred Chiropractic Ctr., Ltd., 679 F. Supp. 2d 894 (N.D.Ill. 2010);

Garrett v. Ragle Dental Lab, Inc., 10 C 1315, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108339, 2010 WL 

4074379 (N.D.Ill., Oct. 12, 2010); Hinman v. M & M Rental Ctr., 545 F.Supp. 2d 802 (N.D.Ill. 

2008); Clearbrook v. Rooflifters, LLC, 08 C 3276, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72902 (N.D. Ill. July 

20, 2010) (Cox, M.J.); G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Group C Communs., Inc., 08 C 4521, 2010 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 17843 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2010); Kavu, Inc. v. Omnipak Corp., 246 F.R.D. 642

(W.D.Wash. 2007); Display South, Inc. v. Express Computer Supply, Inc., 961 So.2d 451, 455

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 30
9

(La. App. 1st Cir. 2007); Display South, Inc. v. Graphics House Sports Promotions, Inc., 992 So.

2d 510 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2008); Lampkin v. GGH, Inc., 146 P.3d 847 (Ok. App. 2006); ESI

Ergonomic Solutions, LLC v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 203 Ariz. (App.) 94, 50 P.3d

844 (2002); Core Funding Group, LLC v. Young, 792 N.E.2d 547 (Ind.App. 2003); Critchfield

Physical Therapy v. Taranto Group, Inc., 293 Kan. 285; 263 P.3d 767 (2011); Karen S. Little,

L.L.C. v. Drury Inns. Inc., 306 S.W.3d 577 (Mo. App. 2010).

ANSWER: Paragraph 34 states a legal conclusion and Defendant neither admits nor denies 

the allegations on the basis that Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a conclusion regarding the validity of this statement.

35. Management of this class action is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties that

those presented in many class actions, e.g. for securities fraud.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and 

denying Plaintiff’s requested relief.

Respectfully submitted, 

KELLER & ALMASSIAN, PLC

Attorneys for Defendant

Dated: January 21, 2015 By: /s/ Michael D. Almassian

Michael D. Almassian (P61478)

230 East Fulton Street

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

(616) 364-2100

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 9 of 10 Pg ID 31
10

SPECIAL AND/OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant has undertaken in good faith to identify all of the special and/or affirmative 

defenses that it may have with respect to Plaintiff’s claims. However, given the lack of 

specificity of Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant reserves the right to reevaluate, restate and/or 

delete any defenses and/or to assert additional defenses as it deems appropriate. 

1. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by lack of standing. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by waiver, release and/or 

equitable estoppel.

3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by failure to state a compensable 

injury. 

4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by unclean hands. 

5. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the statute of limitations.

6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate its 

damages. 

7. Plaintiff’s class action allegations are barred by Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim 

for proper class certification. 

Respectfully submitted, 

KELLER & ALMASSIAN, PLC

Attorneys for Defendant

Dated: January 21, 2015 By: /s/ Michael D. Almassian

Michael D. Almassian (P61478)

230 East Fulton Street

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

(616) 364-2100

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 10 of 10 Pg ID 32