1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

ANTONYA V. WILLIAMS, on behalf of 

herself and all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

FULCRUM RETAIL ENERGY, LLC d/b/a 

AMIGO ENERGY, 

 Defendant. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00460 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

 NOW comes ANTONYA V. WILLIAMS (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned, 

on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, complaining as to the conduct of FULCRUM 

RETAIL ENERGY, LLC d/b/a AMIGO ENERGY (“Defendant”), as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and numerous other similarly situated 

individuals against Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) 

under 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq., and the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”) under Tex. Fin. Code 

§ 392.001 et seq., for Defendant’s unlawful conduct. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This action arises under and is brought pursuant to the TCPA. Subject matter jurisdiction 

is conferred upon this Court by 47 U.S.C §227, 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1337, as the action arises 

under the laws of the United States. Supplemental jurisdiction exists for Plaintiff’s state law claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Case 3:22-cv-00460-S Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1
2 

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as Defendant conducts business 

in the Northern District of Texas and a substantial portion the events or omissions giving rise to 

the claims occurred within the Northern District of Texas.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a natural person over 18 years-of-age residing in Dallas, Texas, which lies 

within the Northern District of Texas. 

5. Plaintiff is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(39). 

6. Defendant is an energy company that provides services to consumers throughout the state 

of Texas, and in connection therewith, routinely attempts to collect debts owed to it in connection 

with the services it provides consumers. Defendant is a limited liability company organized under 

the laws of the state of Texas whose agent for service of process is located at 211 East 7th Street, 

Suite 620, Austin, Texas. 

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

8. Defendant acted through its agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, 

successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives and insurers at all 

times relevant to the instant action. 

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

9. Beginning in approximately mid-November 2021, Plaintiff began receiving calls from 

Defendant to her cellular phone, (214) XXX-0209. 

10. At all times relevant to the instant action, Plaintiff was the sole subscriber, owner, and 

operator of the cellular phone ending in -0209. Plaintiff is and has always been financially 

responsible for the cellular phone and its services. 

Case 3:22-cv-00460-S Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
3 

11. Defendant has primarily used the phone number (281) 247-0966 when placing calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular phone, but upon belief, it has used other numbers as well. 

12. Upon information and belief, the above-referenced phone number is regularly utilized by 

Defendant in connection with its communications with consumers, including its efforts to collect 

debts from consumers. 

13. On unanswered calls from Defendant, Plaintiff is left pre-recorded voicemail messages 

asking for a return call. 

14. These voicemail messages came from Defendant and request that Plaintiff call back the 

number (866) 527-7179. 

15. Upon speaking with Defendant, Plaintiff was informed that Defendant was calling seeking 

to collect upon past due payments said to be owed by an individual named “Pedro.” 

16. Plaintiff never had services with Defendant, does not know this individual named Pedro, 

and informed Defendant that it had the wrong number, she was not the party it was seeking, and 

further demanded that Defendant stop contacting her cellular phone. 

17. Defendant apologized and advised that Claimant’s phone number would be removed from 

its list. 

18. However, notwithstanding Defendant’s acknowledgement and representation that the calls 

would cease, Plaintiff continued to be subjected to repeated and continuous telephone calls from 

Defendant. 

19. Since the calls began, Defendant frequently placed upwards of 3 phone calls per day to 

Plaintiff’s cellular phone, leaving pre-recorded or artificial voicemail messages with each call. 

Case 3:22-cv-00460-S Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
4 

20. Plaintiff has reiterated her information and demands that Defendant’s phone calls cease on 

multiple occasions, and Defendant has acknowledged its error on a number of occasions, yet 

Defendant has persisted in bombarding Plaintiff with unnecessary and unwanted collection efforts. 

21. Defendant’s multiple daily calls have also often been placed in short succession. 

22. In total, Plaintiff has received well over 100 phone calls to her cellular phone from 

Defendant despite having no business relationship with Defendant and despite repeatedly 

informing Defendant that they were calling the wrong person and their contacts needed to stop. 

23. Plaintiff has suffered significant distress and aggravation as a result of Defendant’s conduct 

in bombarding Plaintiff with unnecessary and unconsented-to automated messages. 

24. Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm as a result of Defendant’s actions, including but not 

limited to, invasion of privacy, aggravation that accompanies unconsented-to telephone calls, 

emotional distress, aggravation, frustration, increased risk of personal injury resulting from the 

distraction caused by the never-ending calls, increased usage of her telephone services, and 

diminished space for data storage on her cellular phone. 

25. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s conduct directed towards Plaintiff is indicative 

of a pattern and practice wherein Defendant contacts consumers with which it shares no preexisting 

business relationship, and continues calling such consumers even after such consumers have 

requested that no further calls occur. 

26. All of Defendant’s phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone number subject to this action 

occurred within the four years preceding the date of the filing of the Complaint in this matter. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

27. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against 

Defendant for its violations of the TCPA and TDCA. 

Case 3:22-cv-00460-S Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
5 

28. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant, both on her own behalf and as a class action 

on behalf of the following Class: 

All persons residing in the State of Texas to whom Defendant placed 

collection calls, to such persons’ cellular phones, using prerecorded 

or artificial voice messages, absent prior express consent, within 

four years preceding the filing of this Complaint through the date of 

class certification. 

29. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(a). 

30. Upon information and belief, the Class outlined above consists of hundreds or more 

persons throughout the State of Texas such that joinder of the respective Class members is 

impracticable. 

31. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the respective Class members that 

relate to Defendant’s violations of the TCPA and TDCA, particularly because the questions of law 

and fact are based on a common course of conduct by Defendant as it relates to the respective 

Class members. 

32. Plaintiff and the members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in, inter alia, 

the following ways: Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff and putative Class members via their 

cellular phones thereby causing Plaintiff and the respective Class members to incur certain charges 

or reduced telephone time by having to retrieve or administer messages left by Defendant during 

those illegal calls, and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and Class members. 

33. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the proposed Class because they are 

based on the same legal theories and course of conduct, and Plaintiff has no interests that are 

antagonistic to the interests of the respective Class members. 

Case 3:22-cv-00460-S Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
6 

34. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class and has retained competent legal 

counsel experienced in class actions and complex litigation. 

35. The questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual Class members, particularly because the focus of the litigation will be on 

the conduct of Defendant. The predominant questions of law and fact as they relate to the Class 

include, but are not limited to: (i) whether Defendant utilized prerecorded or artificial voice 

technology when calling Plaintiff and putative Class members; (ii) whether Defendant had the 

requisite prior express consent to contact Plaintiff and putative Class members using prerecorded 

or artificial voice messages; (iii) whether Defendant violated the TCPA and TDCA by placing 

unconsented calls to Plaintiff’s and putative Class members’ cellular phones using prerecorded or 

artificial voice technology; and (iv) the type and amount of relief to which the Plaintiff and Class 

members are entitled. 

36. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of this controversy, as the pursuit of hundreds of individual lawsuits would cause a strain on 

judicial resources and could result in inconsistent or varying adjudications, yet each respective 

Class member would be required to prove an identical set of facts in order to recover damages. 

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

37. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 36 as though fully set forth herein. 

38. The TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(iii), prohibits calling persons on their 

cellular phone using prerecorded or artificial voice messages without their consent. 

39. Defendant’s use of prerecorded messages in its contacts made towards Plaintiff and the 

Class underscores that its conduct in relation to such Class is within the ambit of the TCPA. 

Case 3:22-cv-00460-S Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
7 

40. Defendant violated the TCPA by placing repeated and persistent phone calls using 

prerecorded messages to Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ cellular phones absent prior express 

consent. Plaintiff never consented to receiving any calls from Defendant as she had no previous 

relationship with Defendant. As such, Plaintiff and the Class class members never consented to 

receiving phone calls from Defendant, and similarly revoked any consent that Defendant may have 

had for its calls, which illustrates the extent to which Defendant’s contact efforts with Plaintiff and 

the Class members were made absent the requisite prior express consent for such calls. 

41. The calls placed by Defendant to Plaintiff and the Class members were regarding business 

activity and were not for emergency purposes as defined by the TCPA under 47 U.S.C. 

§227(b)(1)(A)(i). 

42. Under the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), Defendant is liable to Plaintiff 

and the respective Class members for at least $500.00 per call. Moreover, Defendant’s willful and 

knowing violations of the TCPA should trigger this Honorable Court’s ability to triple the damages 

to which Plaintiff and the respective Class members are otherwise entitled to under 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(3)(C). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANTONYA V. WILLIAMS, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court grant the following: 

a. Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the 

aforementioned statutes and regulations; 

b. Certification of the Class requested above and appointment of the Plaintiff as Class 

Representative and of her counsel as Class Counsel; 

c. Awarding damages of at least $500.00 per phone call and treble damages pursuant to 47 

U.S.C. §§ 227(b)(3)(B)&(C); 

d. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees; 

e. Enjoining Defendant from further contacting Plaintiff; and 

Case 3:22-cv-00460-S Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
8 

f. Awarding any other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate. 

COUNT II – VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS DEBT COLLECTION ACT

43. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 42 as though fully set forth herein. 

44. Plaintiff is a “person” as contemplated by Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.403(a). 

45. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.001(6). 

46. The subject debt is a “consumer debt” as defined by Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.001(2) as 

it is an obligation, or alleged obligation, arising from a transaction for personal, family, or 

household purposes. Due to the nature of Defendant’s business in providing residential energy 

services to consumers throughout Texas, the debt which it sought to collect from Plaintiff was 

likely personal in nature by whomever incurred it. 

a. Violations of TDCA § 392.302 

47. The TDCA, pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code § 392.302(4), provides that “in debt collection, a 

debt collector may not oppress, harass, or abuse a person by: causing a telephone to ring repeatedly 

or continuously, or making repeated or continuous telephone calls, with the intent to harass a 

person at the called number.” 

48. Defendant violated § 392.304(4) of the TDCA through its contacts directed towards 

Plaintiff’s cellular phone. Despite Plaintiff having no connection to the subject debt and never 

consenting to Defendant’s calls, Defendant repeatedly and consistently contacted Plaintiff seeking 

to collect upon a debt owed by an individual with whom Plaintiff was completely unfamiliar. The 

fact Defendant placed such voluminous and consistent phone calls to an innocent consumer who 

had made several requests that the calls stop underscore the harassing intent behind Defendant’s 

conduct. 

b. Violations of TDCA § 392.304 

Case 3:22-cv-00460-S Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
9 

49. The TDCA, pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.304(8), prohibits a debt collector from 

“misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt . . .” The TDCA, under Tex. 

Fin. Code Ann. § 392.304(19), further prohibits a debt collector from “using any other false 

representation or deceptive means to collect a debt . . . .” 

50. Defendant violated the above referenced provisions of the TDCA through its repeated and 

continuous attempts to collect a debt from Plaintiff which she did not owe. Defendant’s repeated 

phone calls suggested to Plaintiff that, despite her lack of obligation on the subject debt, Defendant 

still believed her to owe it and would continue to attempt to collect. As such, Defendant 

misrepresented the character of the subject debt as being properly collectible from Plaintiff. Such 

representations are inherently false given Plaintiff’s complete lack of any sort of obligation owed 

to Defendant. 

51. Further, Defendant violated the § 392.304(19) of the TDCA when it unlawfully left 

automated voice message for Plaintiff despite her never consenting to such communications. 

Defendant deceptively and misleadingly represented its lawful ability to engage in its 

communications, when in fact such communications were inherently unlawful and in violation of 

vital consumer protection statutes. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANTONYA V. WILLIAMS, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor as follows: 

a. Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the 

aforementioned statutes and regulations; 

b. Certification of the Class requested above and appointment of the Plaintiff as Class 

Representative and of her counsel as Class Counsel; 

c. Award Plaintiff to injunctive relief pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.403(a)(1). 

d. Award Plaintiff actual damages, pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.403(a)(2). 

Case 3:22-cv-00460-S Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
10 

e. Award Plaintiff punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, for the 

underlying violations; 

f. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 

392.403(b); and, 

g. Awarding any other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate. 

Dated: February 25, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

 

s/ Nathan C. Volheim s/Eric D. Coleman 

Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. #6302103 Eric D. Coleman, Esq. #6326734 

Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Plaintiff 

Admitted in the Northern District of Texas Admitted in the Northern District of Texas 

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 

2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 

Lombard, Illinois 60148 Lombard, Illinois 60148 

(630) 568-3056 (phone) (331) 307-7648 (phone) 

(630) 575-8188 (fax) (630) 575-8188 (fax) 

nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com 

s/ Alejandro E. Figueroa 

Alejandro E. Figueroa, Esq. # 6323891 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Admitted in the Northern District of Texas 

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 

2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 

Lombard, Illinois 

(630) 575-8181, ext. 120 (phone) 

(630) 575-8188 (fax) 

alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com 

Case 3:22-cv-00460-S Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10