UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BRANDON AMMONS, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

STEPHANIE MUSICK d/b/a 

FARMERS INSURANCE MUSCK AGENCY, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________/

CLASS ACTION

Case No. 

 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff, Brandon Ammons (“Plaintiff”), brings this action against Defendant, 

Stephanie Musick d/b/a Farmers Insurance Musick Agency (“Defendant”), to secure redress for 

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

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2. This is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 

U.S.C. § 227 et seq., (the “TCPA”). 

3. Defendant is an insurance agency. To promote its services, Defendant engages in 

unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. 

4. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s illegal conduct, 

which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life 

of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members 

of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1
5. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff alleges violations of a federal 

statute. Jurisdiction is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because Plaintiff alleges a national class, 

which will result in at least one class member belonging to a different state than that of Defendant. 

Plaintiff seeks up to $1,500.00 (one-thousand-five-hundred dollars) in damages for each call in violation 

of the TCPA, which, when aggregated among a proposed class numbering in the tens of thousands, or 

more, exceeds the $5,000,000.00 (five-million dollars) threshold for federal court jurisdiction under the 

Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Therefore, both the elements of diversity jurisdiction and CAFA 

jurisdiction are present.

6. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because Defendant is deemed to reside in any judicial district 

in which it is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, and because Defendant provides and markets 

its services within this district thereby establishing sufficient contacts to subject it to personal 

jurisdiction. Further, Defendant’s tortious conduct against Plaintiff occurred within the State of Texas

and, on information and belief, Defendant has sent the same text messages complained of by Plaintiff 

to other individuals within this judicial district, such that some of Defendant’s acts in making such calls 

have occurred within this district, subjecting Defendant to jurisdiction in the State of Texas. 

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this action, was a resident of 

Potter County, Texas. 

8. Defendant is an individual doing business as Farmers Insurance Musick Agency whose 

principal office and residence is located in Potter County, Texas. Defendant directs, markets, and 

provides its business activities throughout the State of Texas. 

9. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendant’s name in this Complaint includes 

all agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, 

sureties, subrogees, representatives, vendors, and insurers of Defendant. 

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID 2
FACTS

10. Over the past two years, Defendant sent numerous telemarketing text messages to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 1980 (the “1980 Number”) including on February 28, 

2020, May 14, 2020, and June 14, 2021: 

11. On February 28, 2020, Plaintiff responded with the words “Will not do business 

with mr musick.” “Remove me.” in an attempt to opt-out of any further text message 

communications with Defendant. 

12. Despite Plaintiff’s use of clear opt-out language, Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s optout demand and continued to send Plaintiff another text messages on May 14, 2020. 

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID 3
13. On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff responded to Defendant with another opt-out request 

including the word “Stop!” in another attempt to opt-out of any further text message 

communications with Defendant. 

14. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated use of clear out-out language, Defendant again ignored 

Plaintiff’s opt-out demand and sent Plaintiff another text message on June 14, 2021. 

15. Defendant’s text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, and within 

the time frame relevant to this action. 

16. Defendant’s text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future 

purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff insurance services and 

coverage. 

17. The information contained in the text message advertises Defendant’s various discounts 

and promotions, which Defendant sends to promote its business.

18. Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant’s 

violation of the TCPA occurred within this district. Upon information and belief, Defendant caused 

other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district. 

19. Defendant’s texts were not made for an emergency purpose or to collect on a debt 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B).

20. Upon information and belief, Defendant does not have a written policy for 

maintaining an internal do not call list pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 64.1200(d)(1).

21. Upon information and belief, Defendant does not inform and train its personnel 

engaged in telemarking in the existence and the use of any internal do not call list pursuant to 47 

U.S.C. § 64.1200(d)(2).

22. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to 

be contacted.

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID 4
23. To the extent that Defendant had express consent to contact Plaintiff for marketing or 

promotional purposes, that consent was expressly revoked when Plaintiff opted-out via text message on 

February 28, 2020, and again on May 14, 2020. 

24. Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 1980 Number and is financially 

responsible for phone service to the 1980 Number. 

25. Plaintiff’s 1908 Number has been registered with the national do-not-call registry since 

March 13, 2005, and at all times relevant to this action. 

26. The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o 

person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber 

who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who 

do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.

27. The text messages originated from telephone number 806-350-3131, a number 

which upon information and belief is owned and operated by Defendant or on behalf of Defendant. 

28. Defendant’s unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm, including 

invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. 

Defendant’s text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

PROPOSED CLASS

29. Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated.

30. Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a Class defined as follows:

Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United 

States who from four years prior to the filing of this action 

(1) were sent a text message by or on behalf of Defendant; 

(2) more than one time within any 12-month period; (3) 

where the person’s telephone number had been listed on 

the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; 

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID 5
(4) for the purpose of selling Defendant’s products and 

services; and (5) for whom Defendant claims (a) it did not 

obtain prior express written consent, or (b) it obtained 

prior express written consent in the same manner as 

Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express 

written consent to call the Plaintiff.

Internal Do Not Call Class: All persons within the United 

States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this 

Complaint, were sent a text message from Defendant or 

anyone on Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s cellular 

telephone number after making a request to Defendant to 

not receive future text messages.

31. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not 

know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number in the several 

thousands, if not more.

 NUMEROSITY

32. Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed violative calls to cellular telephone 

numbers belonging to thousands of consumers throughout the United States who are registered on the 

Do Not Call registry. The members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder 

of all members is impracticable.

33. The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time and can 

only be ascertained through discovery. Identification of the Class members is a matter capable of 

ministerial determination from Defendant’s callrecords.

 COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

34. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and 

fact common to the Class are:

a) Whether Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c);

b) Whether Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d); 

c) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID 6
d) Whether Defendant adhered to requests by class members to stop sending text 

messages to their telephone numbers;

e) Whether Defendant keeps records of text recipients who revoked consent to receive 

texts. 

f) Whether Defendant has any written policies for maintaining an internal do not call 

list. 

g) Whether Defendant violated the privacy rights of Plaintiff and members of the class;

h) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and

i) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.

35. The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s 

claim that Defendant routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers assigned to cellular 

telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of 

being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.

TYPICALITY

36. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all based 

on the same factual and legal theories.

 PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS MEMBERS

37. Plaintiff is a representative who will fully and adequately assert and protect the interests 

of the Class, and has retained competent counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff is an adequate representative 

and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.

 PROCEEDING VIA CLASS ACTION IS SUPERIOR AND ADVISABLE

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

adjudication of this lawsuit, because individual litigation of the claims of all members of the Class is 

economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. While the aggregate damages sustained by the 

Class are in the millions of dollars, the individual damages incurred by each member of the Class 

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID 7
resulting from Defendant’s wrongful conduct are too small to warrant the expense of individual 

lawsuits. The likelihood of individual Class members prosecuting their own separate claims is remote, 

and, even if every member of the Class could afford individual litigation, the court system would be

unduly burdened by individual litigation of suchcases.

39. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk of 

establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. For example, 

one court might enjoin Defendant from performing the challenged acts, whereas another may not. 

Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the Class, although certain class 

members are not parties to such actions.

COUNT I

Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227

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

40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint and 

incorporates them by reference herein.

41. The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o 

person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber who has 

registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish 

to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”

42. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that § 64.1200(c) and (d) “are applicable to any person 

or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone numbers.”1

43. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any call 

for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has 

instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls 

made by or on behalf of that person or entity.”

1 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, 

Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014 (2003) Available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-

153A1.pdf

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID 8
44. Any “person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month 

period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection 

may” may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were promulgated to 

protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they 

object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c).

45. Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated, 

telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class 

members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, a 

listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal 

government. 

46. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry 

Class received more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf of Defendant 

in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged 

herein, Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class suffered actual damages and, under section 47 

U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled, inter alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for such violations of 47 C.F.R. 

§ 64.1200.

47. To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, the 

Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by 

the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.

COUNT II

Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(2)

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

48. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 

through 39 as is fully set forth herein.

49. The TCPA provides that any “person who has received more than one telephone call 

within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed 

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID 9
under this subsection may” bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were 

promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations 

to which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

50. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any call for 

telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has instituted 

procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls made by or 

on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must meet certain minimum standards, 

including:

(3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or entity making a call for 

telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such a call is made) receives a request from 

a residential telephone subscriber not to receive calls from that person or entity, the 

person or entity must record the request and place the subscriber’s name, if provided, 

and telephone number on the do-not call list at the time the request is made. Persons or 

entities making calls for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such calls are 

made) must honor a residential subscriber’s do-not-call request within a reasonable time 

from the date such request is made. This period may not exceed thirty days from the

date of such request . . . .

(6) Maintenance of do-not-call lists. A person or entity making calls for telemarketing 

purposes must maintain a record of a consumer’s request not to receive further 

telemarketing calls. A do-not-call request must be honored for 5 years from the time the 

request is made.

47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3), (6).

51. Under 47 C.F.R § 64.1200(e) the rules set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) are applicable 

to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone 

numbers:

(e) The rules set forth in paragraph (c) and (d) of this section are applicable to any person 

or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone 

numbers to the extent described in the Commission's Report and Order, CG Docket No. 

02-278, FCC 03-153, “Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act of 1991.

47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e).

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID 10
52. Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members made requests to Defendant not 

to receive calls from Defendant.

53. Defendant failed to honor Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members’ 

requests.

54. Upon information and belief, Defendant has not instituted procedures for maintaining a 

list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of their behalf, 

pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d).

55. Because Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members received more than one 

text message in a 12-month period made by or on behalf of Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 

64.1200(d), as described above, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

56. As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), Plaintiff and the Internal 

Do Not Call Class members are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every 

negligent violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

57. As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), Plaintiff and the Internal 

Do Not Call Class members are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each and 

every knowing and/or willful violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

58. Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members also suffered damages in the form 

of invasion of privacy.

59. Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members are also entitled to and seek 

injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant’s illegal conduct in the future, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Classes, prays for the following 

relief:

a) An order certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class as defined above, and 

appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Class and Plaintiff’s counsel as Class Counsel;

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID 11
b) An award of actual and statutory damages for Plaintiff and each member of the Class;

c) An order declaring that Defendant’s actions, set out above, violate the TCPA; 

d) An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging activity, and to 

otherwise protect the interests of the Class;

e) Such further and other relief as the Court deems necessary. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and Class Members hereby demand a trial by jury.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

Plaintiff demands that Defendant take affirmative steps to preserve all records, lists, electronic 

databases or other itemizations associated with the allegations herein, including all records, lists, 

electronic databases or other itemizations in the possession of any vendors, individuals, and/or 

companies contracted, hired, or directed by Defendant to assist in sending the alleged communications.

Dated: June 9, 2022 

Shamis & Gentile, P.A.

/s/ Andrew J. Shamis

Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.

Texas Bar No. 24124558

ashamis@shamisgentile.com

3839 McKinney Avenue, Suite 155-2319

Dallas, Texas 75204

Telephone: 305-479-2299

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z Document 1 Filed 06/09/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID 12