IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 

CENTRAL ALARM SIGNAL, INC., a 

Michigan corporation, individually and as 

the representative of a class of similarlysituated persons, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

NEW YORK ASSOCIATES INC. and 

JOHN DOES 1-10, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. ______________ 

 

CLASS ACTION 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff, CENTRAL ALARM SIGNAL, INC. (“Plaintiff”), brings this action on behalf 

of itself and all others similarly situated, through its attorneys, and except as to those allegations 

pertaining to Plaintiff or its attorneys, which allegations are based upon personal knowledge, 

alleges the following upon information and belief against Defendants, NEW YORK 

ASSOCIATES INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10 (“Defendants”): 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

 1. This case challenges Defendants’ practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. 

2. The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk 

Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 USC § 227 (“JFPA” or the “Act”), and the regulations 

promulgated under the Act, prohibit a person or entity from faxing or having an agent fax 

advertisements without the recipient’s prior express invitation or permission. The JFPA provides 

a private right of action and provides statutory damages of $500 per violation. Upon information 

and belief, Defendants have sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to 

Plaintiff and the Class in violation of the JFPA, including, but not limited to, the facsimile 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 13
2

transmission of unsolicited advertisements on or about June 19, 2014, June 26, 2014, July 8, 

2014, September 17, 2014 and September 22, 2014, and any other fax advertisements sent to 

Plaintiff and other members of the class (“the Faxes”), true and correct copies of which are 

attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof. The Faxes describe the commercial 

availability of Defendants’ goods and services. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such 

information and belief, avers that Defendants have sent, and continue to send, unsolicited 

advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the JFPA. 

3. Unsolicited faxes damage their recipients. A junk fax recipient loses the use of its 

fax machine, paper, and ink toner. An unsolicited fax wastes the recipient’s valuable time that 

would have been spent on something else. A junk fax interrupts the recipient’s privacy. 

Unsolicited faxes prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for 

authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the recipients’ fax machines, and 

require additional labor to attempt to discern the source and purpose of the unsolicited message. 

 4. On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff brings this case as a 

class action asserting claims against Defendants under the JFPA. 

 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief, avers 

that this action is based upon a common nucleus of operative facts because the facsimile 

transmission at issue was and is being done in the same or similar manner. This action is based 

on the same legal theory, namely liability under the JFPA. This action seeks relief expressly 

authorized by the JFPA: (i) injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, their employees, agents, 

representatives, contractors, affiliates, and all persons and entities acting in concert with them, 

from sending unsolicited advertisements in violation of the JFPA; and (ii) an award of statutory 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 13
3

damages in the minimum amount of $500 for each violation of the JFPA, and to have such 

damages trebled, as provided by § 227(b)(3) of the Act. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227. 

7. This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants transact 

business within this judicial district, have made contacts within this judicial district, and/or have 

committed tortious acts within this judicial district. 

PARTIES 

8. Plaintiff, CENTRAL ALARM SIGNAL, INC., is a Michigan Corporation. 

9. On information and belief, Defendant, NEW YORK ASSOCIATES INC., is a 

Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Pompano Beach, Florida. New York 

Associates Inc. is also known as Your New York Group., Florida Associates and Chicago Private 

Equity Group. 

 10. John Does 1-10 will be identified through discovery, but are not presently known. 

FACTS 

11. On information and belief, on or about June 19, 2014, June 26, 2014, July 8, 

2014, September 17, 2014 and September 22, 2014, Defendants transmitted by telephone 

facsimile machine unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff. Copies of the facsimiles are attached hereto 

as Exhibit A. 

12. Plaintiff had not invited or given permission to Defendants to send the faxes. 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 13
4

13. On June 25, 2014, June 26, 2014, July 8, 2014, September 18, 2014 and 

September 22, 2014, Plaintiff contacted Defendant New York Associates Inc. to be removed 

from its fax list. Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s requests. 

14. On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited 

facsimiles without the required opt out language to Plaintiff and more than 25 other recipients 

without first receiving the recipients’ express permission or invitation. 

15. There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other class member) to avoid 

receiving unauthorized faxes. Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the urgent 

communications their owners desire to receive. 

16. Defendants’ facsimiles did not display a proper opt-out notice as required by 47 

C.F.R. § 64.1200. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

 17. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this 

class action pursuant to the JFPA, on behalf of the following class of persons: 

All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this 

action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material 

advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or 

services by or on behalf of Defendants, (3) which Defendants did 

not have prior express permission or invitation, and (4) which did 

not display a proper opt-out notice. 

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their employees, agents and members of the 

Judiciary. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition upon completion of class 

certification discovery. 

18. Class Size (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)): Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon 

such information and belief, avers that the number of persons and entities of the Plaintiff Class is 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 13
5

numerous and joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and 

upon such information and belief avers, that the number of class members is at least forty. 

19. Commonality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (2)): Common questions of law and fact 

apply to the claims of all class members. Common material questions of fact and law include, 

but are not limited to, the following: 

(a) Whether the Defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements;

(b) Whether the Defendants’ faxes advertised the commercial availability of 

property, goods, or services; 

(c) The manner and method the Defendants used to compile or obtain the list 

of fax numbers to which they sent Exhibit A and other unsolicited faxed advertisements; 

(d) Whether the Defendants faxed advertisements without first obtaining the 

recipient's prior permission or invitation; 

(e) Whether the Defendants sent the faxed advertisements knowingly; 

(f) Whether the Defendants violated the provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 and 

the regulations promulgated thereunder; 

(g) Whether the faxes contain an “opt-out notice” that complies with the 

requirements of § (b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 

and the effect of the failure to comply with such requirements;

(h) Whether the Defendants should be enjoined from faxing advertisements in 

the future; 

(i) Whether the Plaintiff and the other members of the class are entitled to 

statutory damages; and 

(j) Whether the Court should award treble damages. 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 13
6

20. Typicality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (3)): The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the 

claims of all class members. The Plaintiff received the same faxes as the faxes sent by or on 

behalf of the Defendants advertising goods and services of the Defendants during the Class 

Period. The Plaintiff is making the same claims and seeking the same relief for itself and all class 

members based upon the same federal statute. The Defendants have acted in the same or in a 

similar manner with respect to the Plaintiff and all the class members by sending Plaintiff and 

each member of the class the same faxes. 

21. Fair and Adequate Representation (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4)): The Plaintiff will 

fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. It is interested in this 

matter, has no conflicts and has retained experienced class counsel to represent the class. 

22. Need for Consistent Standards and Practical Effect of Adjudication (Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23 (b) (1)): Class certification is appropriate because the prosecution of individual actions by 

class members would: (a) create the risk of inconsistent adjudications that could establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) as a practical matter, 

adjudication of the Plaintiff's claims will be dispositive of the interests of class members who are 

not parties. 

23. Common Conduct (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2)): Class certification is also 

appropriate because the Defendants have acted and refused to act in the same or similar manner 

with respect to all class members thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate. 

The Plaintiff demands such relief as authorized by 47 U.S.C. §227. 

24. Predominance and Superiority (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (3)): Common questions of 

law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 13
7

action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy 

because: 

(a) Proof of the claims of the Plaintiff will also prove the claims of the class 

without the need for separate or individualized proceedings; 

(b) Evidence regarding defenses or any exceptions to liability that the 

Defendants may assert and attempt to prove will come from the Defendants’ records and 

will not require individualized or separate inquiries or proceedings; 

(c) The Defendants have acted and are continuing to act pursuant to common 

policies or practices in the same or similar manner with respect to all class members; 

(d) The amount likely to be recovered by individual class members does not 

support individual litigation. A class action will permit a large number of relatively small 

claims involving virtually identical facts and legal issues to be resolved efficiently in one 

(1) proceeding based upon common proofs; and 

(e) This case is inherently manageable as a class action in that: 

(i) The Defendants identified persons or entities to receive the fax 

transmissions and it is believed that the Defendants’ computer and business 

records will enable the Plaintiff to readily identify class members and establish 

liability and damages; 

(ii) Liability and damages can be established for the Plaintiff and the 

class with the same common proofs; 

(iii) Statutory damages are provided for in the statute and are the same 

for all class members and can be calculated in the same or a similar manner; 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.7 Page 7 of 13
8

(iv) A class action will result in an orderly and expeditious 

administration of claims and it will foster economics of time, effort and expense; 

(v) A class action will contribute to uniformity of decisions 

concerning the Defendants’ practices; and 

(vi) As a practical matter, the claims of the class are likely to go 

unaddressed absent class certification. 

Claim for Relief for Violation of the JFPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 

25. The JFPA makes it unlawful for any person to “use any telephone facsimile 

machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited 

advertisement . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). 

26. The JFPA defines “unsolicited advertisement” as “any material advertising the 

commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any 

person without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.” 47 

U.S.C. § 227 (a) (5). 

27. Opt-Out Notice Requirements. The JFPA strengthened the prohibitions against 

the sending of unsolicited advertisements by requiring, in § (b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that senders 

of faxed advertisements place a clear and conspicuous notice on the first page of the transmission 

that contains the following among other things (hereinafter collectively the “Opt-Out Notice 

Requirements”): 

1. A statement that the recipient is legally entitled to opt-out of receiving 

future faxed advertisements – knowing that he or she has the legal right to request an optout gives impetus for recipients to make such a request, if desired; 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.8 Page 8 of 13
9

2. A statement that the sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within 

30 days and the sender’s failure to do so is unlawful – thereby encouraging recipients to 

opt-out, if they did not want future faxes, by advising them that their opt-out requests will 

have legal “teeth”; 

3. A statement advising the recipient that he or she may opt-out with respect 

to all of his or her facsimile telephone numbers and not just the ones that receive a faxed 

advertisement from the sender – thereby instructing a recipient on how to make a valid 

opt-out request for all of his or her fax machines. 

 The requirement of (1) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act. The 

requirement of (2) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act and the rules and 

regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) in ¶ 31 of its 2006 Report 

and Order (In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, Junk Prevention Act of 2005, 21 F.C.C.R. 3787, 2006 WL 901720, which rules 

and regulations took effect on August 1, 2006). The requirements of (3) above are contained in 

§ (b)(2)(E) of the Act and incorporated into the Opt-Out Notice Requirements via § (b)(2)(D)(ii). 

Compliance with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements is neither difficult nor costly. The Opt-Out 

Notice Requirements are important consumer protections bestowed by Congress upon the 

owners of the telephone lines and fax machines giving them the right, and means, to stop 

unwanted faxed advertisements. 

 28. 2006 FCC Report and Order. The JFPA, in § (b)(2) of the Act, directed the 

FCC to implement regulations regarding the JFPA, including the JFPA’s Opt-Out Notice 

Requirements and the FCC did so in its 2006 Report and Order, which in addition provides 

among other things: 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.9 Page 9 of 13
10

A. The definition of, and the requirements for, an established business 

relationship for purposes of the first of the three prongs of an exemption to liability under 

§ (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and provides that the lack of an “established business 

relationship” precludes the ability to invoke the exemption contained in § (b)(1)(C) of the 

Act (See 2006 Report and Order ¶¶ 8-12 and 17-20); 

B. The required means by which a recipient’s facsimile telephone number 

must be obtained for purposes of the second of the three prongs of the exemption under § 

(b)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act and provides that the failure to comply with these requirements 

precludes the ability to invoke the exemption contained in § (b)(1)(C) of the Act (See

2006 Report and Order ¶¶ 13-16); 

C. The things that must be done in order to comply with the Opt-Out Notice 

Requirements for the purposes of the third of the three prongs of the exemption under § 

(b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act and provides that the failure to comply with these requirements 

precludes the ability to invoke the exemption contained in § (b)(1)(C) of the Act (See

2006 Report and Order ¶¶ 24-34); 

D. The failure of a sender to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements 

precludes the sender from claiming that a recipient gave “prior express permission or 

invitation” to receive the sender’s fax (See Report and Order ¶ 48); 

 As a result thereof, a sender of a faxed advertisement who fails to comply with the OptOut Notice Requirements has, by definition, transmitted an unsolicited advertisement under the 

JFPA. This is because such a sender can neither claim that the recipients of the faxed 

advertisement gave “prior express permission or invitation” to receive the fax nor can the sender 

claim the exemption from liability contained in § (b)(C)(1) of the Act. 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.10 Page 10 of 13
11

 29. The Faxes. Defendants sent on or about June 19, 2014, June 26, 2014, July 8, 

2014, September 17, 2014 and September 22, 2014, advertisements and any other advertisements 

sent to Plaintiff and other members of the class via facsimile transmission from telephone 

facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to the telephone lines and facsimile machines of 

Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class. The Faxes constituted advertisements under the 

Act. Defendants failed to comply with the Opt-Out Requirements in connection with the Faxes. 

The Faxes were transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express permission or 

invitation and/or Defendants are precluded from asserting any prior express permission or 

invitation because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements. By virtue 

thereof, Defendants violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder by sending 

the Faxes via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff and members of the Class. 

 30. Defendants’ Other Violations. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such 

information and belief, avers that during the period preceding four years of the filing of this 

Complaint and repeatedly thereafter, Defendants have sent via facsimile transmission from 

telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to telephone facsimile machines of 

members of the Plaintiff Class faxes that constitute advertisements under the JFPA that were 

transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express permission or invitation (and/or that 

Defendants are precluded from asserting any prior express permission or invitation because of 

the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements in connection with such 

transmissions). By virtue thereof, Defendants violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated 

thereunder. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief, avers that 

Defendants may be continuing to send unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in 

violation of the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and absent intervention by 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.11 Page 11 of 13
12

this Court, will do so in the future. 

 31. The TCPA/JFPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf 

of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class to redress Defendants’ violations of the Act, and provides for 

statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The Act also provides that injunctive relief is 

appropriate. Id. 

32. The JFPA is a strict liability statute, so the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff 

and the other class members even if their actions were only negligent. 

33. The Defendants knew or should have known that (a) the Plaintiff and the other 

class members had not given express invitation or permission for the Defendants or anybody else 

to fax advertisements about the Defendants’ goods or services; (b) the Plaintiff and the other 

class members did not have an established business relationship; (c) Defendants transmitted 

advertisements; (d) the Faxes did not contain the required Opt-Out Notice; and (e) Defendants’ 

transmission of advertisements that did not contain the required opt-out notice was unlawful. 

34. The Defendants’ actions caused damages to the Plaintiff and the other class 

members. Receiving the Defendants’ junk faxes caused the recipients to lose paper and toner 

consumed in the printing of the Defendants’ faxes. Moreover, the Defendants’ faxes used the 

Plaintiff's and the other class members’ telephone lines and fax machine. The Defendants’ faxes 

cost the Plaintiff and the other class members time, as the Plaintiff and the other class members 

and their employees wasted their time receiving, reviewing and routing the Defendants’ 

unauthorized faxes. That time otherwise would have been spent on the Plaintiff's and the other 

class members’ business activities. The Defendants’ faxes unlawfully interrupted the Plaintiff's 

and other class members' privacy interests in being left alone. Finally, the injury and property 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.12 Page 12 of 13
13

damage sustained by Plaintiff and the other class members from the sending of Defendants’ 

advertisements occurred outside of Defendants’ premises. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CENTRAL ALARM SIGNAL, INC., individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants, 

NEW YORK ASSOCIATES INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, jointly and severally, as follows: 

A. That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be properly 

maintained as a class action, appoint the Plaintiff as the representative of the class, and appoint 

the Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for the class; 

B. That the Court award actual monetary loss from such violations or the sum of five 

hundred dollars ($500.00) for each violation, whichever is greater; 

C. That Court enjoin the Defendants from additional violations; and 

D. That the Court award pre-judgment interest, costs, and such further relief as the 

Court may deem just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

CENTRAL ALARM SIGNAL, INC., individually 

and as the representative of a class of similarlysituated persons, 

By: s/Brian J. Wanca 

 

Brian J. Wanca 

ANDERSON + WANCA 

3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 

Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 

Telephone: 847-368-1500 / Fax: 847-368-1501 

 

Jason J. Thompson (P47184) 

SOMMERS SCHWARTZ 

2000 Town Center, Suite 900 

Southfield, MI 48075 

Telephone: 248-355-0300 / Fax: 248-436-8453 

 

Case 2:15-cv-10681-GCS-APP ECF No. 1 filed 02/24/15 PageID.13 Page 13 of 13