Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Northern District of Texas

Dallas Division

Michael Barack and Michelle 

Barack, individually and on behalf of 

a class

Plaintiffs,

§

§

§

§

§

§ CA No: 3:22-cv-890

v. §

§

NP Home Buyers, LLC

Defendant

§

§

§

COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 

1. Introduction

1.1. As the Supreme Court has explained, “Americans passionately disagree about many 

things. But they are largely united in their disdain for robocalls.” The Federal 

Government receives a staggering number of complaints about robocalls—3.7 million 

complaints in 2019 alone. The States likewise field a constant barrage of complaints. For 

nearly 30 years, the people’s representatives in Congress have been fighting back. As 

relevant here, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 generally prohibits 

robocalls to cell phones and home phones.” Barr v.Am.Ass'n of PoliticalConsultants, 140 

S. Ct. 2335, 2343 (2020).

1.2. This action arises out of Defendant, NP Home Buyers, LLC’s (“Defendant”), practice 

of making prerecorded telemarketing calls to individuals without prior express written 

consent (or any consent whatsoever), in violation of the Telephone Consumer

Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”) and provisions of the Texas Business 

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 2

& Commerce Code.

1.3. Plaintiffs have done no business with Defendant and have not provided Defendant prior 

express written consent to call their cellular telephones with prerecorded messages.

1.4. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this TCPA action on behalf of themselves and two classes

of similarly situated individuals under 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(b) and Texas Business & 

Commerce Code § 305.053.

2. Jurisdiction and Venue

2.1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises 

under the TCPA, which is a federal statute.

2.2. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(a), because it is so closely related to the federal claims that they form a single 

case or controversy. 

2.3. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant conducts business 

transactions in this District and has committed tortious acts in this District.

2.4. Venue is proper in this District because Defendant’s headquarters is in this District and 

it conducts significant amounts of business transactions within this District and because

some of the wrongful conduct giving rise to this case occurred in, was directed to, and/or 

emanated from this District.

3. Parties

3.1. Plaintiff Michael Barack is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a citizen and resident 

of Grapevine, Texas.

3.2. Michael Barack is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 14 PageID 2
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 3

U.S.C. § 153(39).

3.3. Michael Barack is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by Tex. 

Bus. & Com. Code § 1.201(b)(27).

3.4. Plaintiff Michelle Barack is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a citizen and resident 

of Grapevine, Texas.

3.5. Michelle Barack is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 

U.S.C. § 153(39).

3.6. Michelle Barack is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by Tex. 

Bus. & Com. Code § 1.201(b)(27).

3.7. Defendant is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. 

§ 153 (39).

3.8. Defendant is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by Tex. Bus. 

& Com. Code § 1.201(b)(27).

3.9. Defendant is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a Texas limited liability company

headquartered in Irving, Dallas County, Texas.

3.10. Defendant buys and sells homes and provides home selling services to residential 

customers. https://nphomebuyers.com/

4. The Law Regarding Robocalls

4.1. 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).

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 3 of 14 PageID 3
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 4

4.2. The TCPA makes it unlawful to make any call (other than a call made for emergency 

purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an automatic 

telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number 

assigned to a cellular telephone service or that is charged per the call. See 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

4.3. The TCPA provides a private cause of action to persons who receive calls in violation of 

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) or 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

4.4. According to findings by the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”), the 

agency Congress vested with authority to issue regulations implementing the TCPA, 

such calls are prohibited because, as Congress found, automated or prerecorded 

telephone calls are a greater nuisance and invasion of privacy than live solicitation calls, 

and such calls can be costly and inconvenient.

4.5. In 2013, the FCC required prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded 

telemarketing calls (“robocalls”) to wireless numbers and residential lines. Specifically, 

it ordered that:

[A] consumer’s written consent to receive telemarketing robocalls must be 

signed and be sufficient to show that the consumer: (1) received “clear and 

conspicuous disclosure” of the consequences of providing the requested 

consent, i.e., that the consumer will receive future calls that deliver 

prerecorded messages by or on behalf of a specific seller; and (2) having 

received this information, agrees unambiguously to receive such calls at a 

telephone number the consumer designates.[] In addition, the written 

agreement must be obtained “without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the 

agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service.[]”

In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 27 F.C.C. 

Rcd. 1830, 1844 (2012).

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 4 of 14 PageID 4
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 5

5. General Factual Allegations

5.1. Defendant, or someone acting on its behalf and at its direction, makes prerecorded 

telemarketing calls marketing its home buying and selling services.

5.2. Upon information and belief, Defendant, or someone acting on its behalf and at its 

direction, utilizes a mechanism or technology that allows Defendant to leave a 

“ringless” voicemail that delivers a prerecorded message to the recipient’s telephone. 

5.3. Because these calls were made with an artificial or prerecorded voice and made to cell 

phones the calls violate the TCPA.

6. Plaintiff Michael Barack’s Factual Allegations

6.1. Michael Barack is the owner and user of a cellular telephone number 817-657-4850.

6.2. Michael Barack’s cellular telephone number 817-657-4850 is used for residential 

purposes.

6.3. Michael Barack’s cellular telephone number 817-657-4850 is a telephone number 

assigned to a cellular telephone service. Breda v. Cellco P’ship, 934 F.3d 1, 4–5 (1st Cir. 

2019); Susinno v. Work Out World, Inc., 862 F.3d 346, 349 (3d Cir. 2017); Osorio v. State 

Farm Bank, 746 F.3d 1242, 1257 (11th Cir. 2014); Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 

569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009); Diugosh v. Directbuy, Inc. of San Antonio, 2013 WL 5773043 

(W.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2013).

6.4. Michael Barack received Defendant’s prerecorded telephone call on his cellular 

residential number 817-657-4850 as described herein.

6.5. On April 11, 2022 at approximately 1:31 PM, Michael Barack received a missed call 

notification of a missed call from 817-813-8038.

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 5 of 14 PageID 5
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 6

6.6. On April 11, 2022 after 1:31 PM, a voicemail message from the number 817-813-8038

appeared in Michael Barack’s mailbox.

6.7. Michael Barack listened to the message.

6.8. The voicemail was a prerecorded voice message from Defendant offering home selling 

and buying services.

6.9. Michael Barack did not provide prior express written consent (or any consent) to 

Defendant for this or any telephone call.

6.10. At 2:36 on April 11, 2022, Michael Barack received a text from 817-898-3899. The 

test read, “Good Afternoon, Michelle, if you would like a fair cash offer for your 

property, feel free to give me a call! – Dale. Reply STOP to unsubscribe.”

6.11. After receiving the unsolicited prerecorded voicemail message, Michael Barack 

contacted Defendant to see what Defendant was promoting and to determine how

Defendant received his telephone number. At no time did Michael Barack contact 

Defendant prior to receiving the unwelcome robo-call.

7. Plaintiff Michelle Barack’s Factual Allegations

7.1. Michelle Barack is the owner and user of a cellular telephone number 817-683-8532.

7.2. Michelle Barack’s cellular telephone number 817-683-8532 is used for residential 

purposes.

7.3. Michelle Barack’s cellular telephone number 817-683-8532 is a telephone number 

assigned to a cellular telephone service. Breda v. Cellco P’ship, 934 F.3d 1, 4–5 (1st Cir. 

2019); Susinno v. Work Out World, Inc., 862 F.3d 346, 349 (3d Cir. 2017); Osorio v. State 

Farm Bank, 746 F.3d 1242, 1257 (11th Cir. 2014); Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 6 of 14 PageID 6
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 7

569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009); Diugosh v. Directbuy, Inc. of San Antonio, 2013 WL 5773043 

(W.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2013).

7.4. Michelle Barack received Defendant’s prerecorded telephone call on her cellular 

residential number 817-683-8532 as described herein.

7.5. On April 11, 2022 at approximately 1:32 PM, Michelle Barack received a missed call

notification of a missed call from 817-813-8038.

7.6. On April 11, 2022 after 1:32 PM, a voicemail message from the number 817-813-8038

appeared in Michelle Barack’s mailbox.

7.7. Michelle Barack listened to the message.

7.8. The voicemail was a prerecorded voice message from Defendant.

7.9. The voicemail was a prerecorded voice message from Defendant offering home selling 

and buying services.

7.10. Michelle Barack did not provide prior express written consent (or any consent) to 

Defendant for this or any telephone call.

8. Defendant’s Liability

8.1. Because Defendant’s calls constitute telemarketing, Defendant was required to obtain 

prior express written consent from the persons to whom Defendant made calls.

8.2. “Prior express written consent” is specifically defined by statute as: 

8.2.1.[A]n agreement, in writing, bearing the signature of the person called that 

clearly authorizes the seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the 

person called advertisements or telemarketing messages using an 

automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, 

and the telephone number to which the signatory authorizes such 

advertisements or telemarketing messages to be delivered. 47 C.F.R. 

§64.1200(f)(8)

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 7 of 14 PageID 7
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 8

8.3. Plaintiffs never provided Defendant with any consent, written or otherwise.

8.4. Accordingly, each of Defendant’s telemarketing calls to Plaintiffs using an artificial or 

prerecorded voice violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b).

8.5. For violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), Plaintiffs are entitled to a minimum of $500 per 

call.

8.6. Plaintiffs are entitled to $1,500 per call if Defendant’s actions are found to be knowing 

or willful.

8.7. In addition, pursuant to § 305.053(a) of the Texas Business & Commerce Code, a person 

who receives a communication that violates 47 U.S.C. § 227, or a regulation adopted 

under that provision, may bring an action against the person who originates the 

communication for an injunction, damages or both.

8.8. As set forth above, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227, or a regulation adopted under 

that provision.

8.9. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction, and the greater of $500.00 

for each violation or Plaintiffs’ actual damages for each call made by Defendant. See 

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 305.053(b). 

8.10. Plaintiffs are entitled to an additional $1,500 per call if Defendant’s actions are 

found to be knowing or intentional. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 305.053(c). 

9. Article III Standing

9.1. Plaintiffs have Article III standing for their claim under the TCPA. Spokeo, Inc., v. 

Thomas Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). See also, Cranor v. 5 Star Nutrition, L.L.C., 998 

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 8 of 14 PageID 8
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 9

F.3d 686, 690 (5th Cir. 2021); Jamison v. Esurance Ins. Servs., Inc., No. 3:15-CV-2484-B, 

2016 WL 320646, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2016). 

9.2. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants’ actions of calling their residential phone while 

the telephone numbers were on the Do Not Call Registry, without consent and with a 

pre-recorded voice in the following manners:

9.2.1.Plaintiffs’ privacy was invaded by Defendants;

9.2.2. Plaintiffs were harassed and abused by Defendants’ telephone calls;

9.2.3.Defendants’ calls were a nuisance to Plaintiffs;

9.2.4. Plaintiffs’ phones were unavailable for other use while processing the illegal 

calls from Defendants;

9.2.5.Defendants illegally seized Plaintiffs’ telephone lines while they made illegal the 

illegal calls to Plaintiffs’ cellular telephones;

9.2.6.Plaintiffs’ telephone lines were occupied by the unauthorized calls from 

Defendants; 

9.2.7.Defendants’ seizure of Plaintiffs’ telephone lines was intrusive; and

9.2.8. Plaintiffs were inconvenienced by Defendants’ calls, by among other things, 

having to listen to the prerecorded message

9.3. These forms of actual injury are sufficient for Article III standing purposes.

10.Class Action Allegations

10.1. Plaintiffs bring this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of two proposed 

“Classes,” the “TCPA Class” and the “Texas Class” as defined as follows:

10.1.1. “TCPA 227(b) Class”

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 9 of 14 PageID 9
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 10

10.1.1.1. Since April 20, 2018, Plaintiff and all persons within the United 

States to whose cellular telephone number Defendant placed (or had 

placed on its behalf) a prerecorded or artificial voice telemarketing call. 

10.1.2. Texas § 305.053 Class”

10.1.2.1. Since April 20, 2018, Plaintiff and all residents of the State of Texas 

to whose telephone number Defendant: (1) placed (or had placed on its 

behalf) a call in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 or regulation promulgated 

thereunder.

10.2. The TCPA Class and the Texas Class are collectively referred to herein as 

the “Classes.”

10.3. Excluded from the Classes are Defendant and any entities in which Defendant has 

a controlling interest; Defendant’s agents and employees; any Judge and Magistrate 

Judge to whom this action is assigned and any member of their staffs and immediate 

families.

10.4. The Members of the Classes for whose benefit this action is brought are so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 

10.5. The exact number and identities of the persons who fit within the Classes are 

ascertainable in that Defendant and third parties maintain written and electronically 

stored data showing:

10.5.1. The time period(s) during which Defendant placed its calls;

10.5.2. The telephone numbers to which Defendant placed its calls;

10.5.3. The telephone numbers for which Defendant had prior express written 

consent;

10.5.4. The purposes of such calls; and

10.5.5. The names and addresses of Class members.

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 10 of 14 PageID 10
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 11

10.6. The Classes are comprised of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals.

10.7. There are common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of the Members of 

the Classes, including, inter alia, the following:

10.7.1. Whether Defendant (or someone acting on its behalf) used an artificial or

prerecorded voice in placing its calls;

10.7.2. Whether Defendant (or someone acting on its behalf) obtains prior express 

written consent;

10.7.3. Whether Plaintiff and the Classes were damaged thereby, and the extent of 

damages for such violations; and

10.7.4. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in 

the future.

10.8. Plaintiffs are members of the Classes in that Defendant placed one or more calls 

using an artificial or prerecorded voice to Plaintiffs’ cells phones.

10.9. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Members of the Classes in that they 

arise from Defendant’s uniform conduct and are based on the same legal theories as 

these claims. 

10.10. Plaintiffs and all putative Members of the Classes have also necessarily suffered 

concrete harm in addition to statutory damages, as all Members of the Classesspent time 

tending to Defendant’s unwanted calls and suffered a nuisance and an invasion of their 

privacy.

10.11. Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the Classes.

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 11 of 14 PageID 11
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 12

10.12. Plaintiffs will thoroughly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes, having 

retained qualified and competent legal counsel to represent her and the Classes.

10.13. Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

Classes, thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate for the Classes.

10.14. The prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk 

of inconsistent or varying adjudications.

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

adjudication of the controversy since, inter alia, the damages suffered by each class 

member make individual actions uneconomical.

10.16. Common questions will predominate, and there will be no unusual manageability 

issues.

11. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION -Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) (On Behalf 

of Plaintiffs and the TCPA 227(b) Class)

11.1.Plaintiffs and the proposed TCPA 227(b) Class incorporate the foregoing allegations as 

if fully set forth herein.

11.2. Defendant placed, or had placed on its behalf, prerecorded telemarketing telephone 

call to Plaintiffs’ and TCPA 227(b) Class Members’ cellular telephone numbers without 

prior express written consent.

11.3.Defendant has therefore violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b).

11.4. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and TCPA 227(b) Class 

Members are entitled to an award of $500 in statutory damages for each call, pursuant 

to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 12 of 14 PageID 12
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 13

11.5.Plaintiffs and the TCPA 227(b) Class Members are entitled to an award of treble 

damages in an amount up to $1,500 for each call made knowingly and/or willfully, 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

12. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – Violations of Texas § 305.053 Class (On Behalf of 

Plaintiffs and the Texas § 305.053 Class)

12.1. Plaintiffs and the proposed Texas § 305.053 Class incorporate the foregoing 

allegations as if fully set forth herein.

12.2. Defendant placed, or had placed on its behalf, at least one prerecorded 

telemarketing telephone call to Plaintiffs’ and Texas § 305.053 Class Members’ cellular 

telephone numbers.

12.3. Each of these calls violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b).

12.4. Plaintiffs and Texas § 305.053 Class Members are entitled to:

12.4.1. a permanent injunction to prevent any further violations of the Texas 

Business & Commerce Code, Chapter 305;

12.4.2. the greater of $500 for each violation or Plaintiffs’ and Texas § 305.053 

Class Members’ actual damages (see Tex Bus. & Com. Code §304.053(b);

12.4.3. the greater of $1,500 for each violation or Plaintiffs’ and Texas § 305.053 

Class Members’ actual damages for each call made knowingly or intentionally (see 

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §304.053©.

13. Prayer for Relief

13.1.WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Classes, pray for the 

following relief:

13.1.1. An order certifying the Classes as defined above, appointing Plaintiffs as 

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 13 of 14 PageID 13
Class Action Complaint - P a g e | 14

the representatives of the Classes and appointing their counsel as Class Counsel;

13.1.2. An order declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set out above, violate 47 

U.S.C. §§ 227(b);

13.1.3. An award of injunctive and other equitable relief as necessary to protect 

the interests of the Classes, including, inter alia, an order prohibiting Defendant

from engaging in the wrongful and unlawful acts described herein;

13.1.4. An award of statutory damages;

13.1.5. An award of treble damages;

13.1.6. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

13.1.7. Such other and further relief that the Court deems reasonable and just.

14. Jury Demand

14.1. Plaintiffs request a trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Chris R. Miltenberger 

 Chris R. Miltenberger

Texas Bar Number: 14171200

The Law Office of Chris R. 

Miltenberger, PLLC

1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200

Southlake, Texas 76092-4322

817-416-5060 (office)

817-416-5062 (fax) 

chris@crmlawpractice.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 14 of 14 PageID 14