1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 -1- 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Amy L. B. Ginsburg 

GINSBURG LAW GROUP, P.C. 

1012 N. Bethlehem Pike, Suite 103, Box #9 

Ambler, PA 19002 

Telephone: (855) 978-6564 

Facsimile: (855) 777-0043 

Email: aginsburg@ginsburglawgroup.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

R’Kes Starling

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

R’KES STARLING, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

STERLING FINANCIAL & CO., 

Defendant.

Case No. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE 

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND 

TEXAS BUSINESS & COMMERCE 

CODE

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, R’Kes Starling, on behalf of himself and all others similarly 

situated, through their counsel, and for their Class Action Complaint against Defendant, Sterling 

Financial & Co. (“Sterling”), state: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for Defendants’ violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. §227, et seq., and sections § 305.053 and

§ 302.101 of the Texas Business & Commercial Code. 

PARTIES 

2. R’Kes Starling, is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this Complaint, 

resided in Southlake, Texas. 

3. Sterling is a for-profit limited liability company organized under New York law. 

4. Sterling maintains its principal place of business at 30 Broad Street, New York, New 

Case 4:22-cv-00852-P Document 1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 

York, 10004. 

5. Whenever it is alleged herein that any Defendant did any act, it is meant that the 

Defendant performed or participated in the act or that Defendant’s officers, agents or employees 

performed or participated in the act on behalf of and under the authority of a Defendant. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court’s jurisdiction arises under 47 U.S.C. § 227(g)(2), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1337. 

7. Venue is appropriate in this federal district under 47 U.S.C. § 227(g)(4) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant transacts business in the federal judicial district where the 

violations complained of herein occurred. 

8. Supplemental jurisdiction for Plaintiff’ state law claims arises under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367 

BACKGROUND REGARDING CLAIMS 

A. The TCPA. 

9. The TCPA regulates, among other things, the use of a prerecorded message to make 

calls or send prerecorded calls. See 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.; In re Rules and Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd. 

14014, 14115 ¶ 165 (2003). 

10. Specifically, the TCPA prohibits the sending of prerecorded message to wireless 

numbers in the absence of an emergency or prior express written consent of the called party. See, 

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2); In the Matter of Rules & Regulations 

Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 27 F.C.C. Rcd. 1830, 1831 (F.C.C. 2012). 

11. “[T]elemarketing means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose 

of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is 

transmitted to any person.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12). 

12. “[P]rior express written consent means an 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00852-P Document 1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 

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). 

B. National Do Not Call Registry. 

13. The National Do Not Call Registry allows consumers to register their telephone 

numbers thereby indicating their desire not to receive telephone solicitations at those numbers; and 

the registration “must be honored indefinitely, or until it is cancelled by the consumer or the 

telephone number is removed by the database administrator.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). 

14. The TCPA and implementing regulations prohibit the initiation of telephone 

solicitations to residential telephone subscribers to the Registry and provides a private right of 

action against any entity that makes those calls, or “on whose behalf” such calls are promoted. 47 

U.S.C. § 227(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

15. Sterling is a “person” as that term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

16. Sterling is a “telemarketer” within the meaning of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12). 

17. Mr. Starling’s telephone number, XXX-XXX-6499, is registered to a cellular 

telephone service. 

18. Mr. Starling’s number ending in 6499 has been registered on the Do Not Call 

Registry since September 16, 2007. 

19. Plaintiff has never sought or solicited information regarding Defendant’s services 

prior to receiving the prerecorded calls at issue. 

20. The Defendant has never had a “established business relationship” with Plaintiff 

within the meaning of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(5). 

21. Plaintiff did not consent to receiving any communications from Defendant. 

22. On September 13, 2021 and twice on October 28, 2021, Mr. Starling received the 

following prerecorded message from Defendant on his cellular telephone ending in 6499: 

Case 4:22-cv-00852-P Document 1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 

Hi. I am calling on behalf of Sterling Financial at 917-385-

0474 to let you know that you have been approved for our 

business funding and line of credit opportunities ranging from 

100,000 to 500,000. Our firm located at 30 Broad on Wall 

Street funds in just one day and probably has some of the lowest 

rates in the business financing industry. We do not require any 

extensive paperwork and our funding is completely unsecured 

with no collateral required. So please give us a call at 917-385-

0474 to discuss real financial solutions to grow your business. 

Again that’s 917-385-0474. Thank you and we look forward to 

speaking with you and appreciate your time. 

23. The prerecorded messages Mr. Starling received on these dates were identical. 

24. Thereafter, on February 14, 2022, Plaintiff received the following prerecorded 

message from Defendant on his cellular telephone ending in 6499: 

Hi. I am calling on behalf of Sterling Financial at 347-868-

7989 to let you know that you have been approved for our 

business funding and line of credit opportunities ranging 

from 100,000 to 500,000. Our firm with offices in New 

York and Miami funds in just 24 hours and proudly has some 

of the lowest rates in the business financing industry. We do 

not require any extensive paperwork and our funding is 

completely unsecured with no collateral required. So please 

give us a call at 347-868-7989 to discuss real financial 

solutions to grow your business. Thank you and we look 

forward to speaking with you. 

25. Plaintiff received another call from Defendant on May 3, 2022 to his cellular 

telephone ending in 6499: 

Hi. I am calling on behalf of Sterling Financial at 347-868-

7989 to let you know that you have been approved for our 

business funding and line of credit opportunities ranging 

from 100,000 to 500,000. Our firm with offices in New 

York City and Miami funds in just 24 hours and proudly has 

some of the lowest rates in the business financing industry. 

We do not require any extensive paperwork and our funding 

is completely unsecured with no collateral required. So 

please give us a call at 347-868-7989 to discuss real financial 

solutions to grow your business. Thank you and we look 

forward to speaking with you. 

26. The Defendant initiated calls to Plaintiff and transmitted prerecorded messages for 

the purpose of soliciting the use of its business lending services. 

27. The Defendant’s telephone calls and prerecorded messages, as alleged herein, 

constitute “telemarketing” within the meaning of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(13). 

28. §302.101 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code prohibits sellers from engaging 

in telephone solicitation from a location in this state or to a purchaser located in this state unless 

Case 4:22-cv-00852-P Document 1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 

the seller obtains a registration certificate from the Office of the Secretary of State for the business 

location from which the solicitation is made. 

29. Defendant is not registered with the Office of the Secretary of State. See 

https://direct.sos.state.tx.us/telephone/TelephoneSearch.asp. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

30. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of themselves and the following classes 

(“Classes”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 

31. Class Definition. Plaintiffs propose the following Class definitions, subject to 

amendment as appropriate: 

(a) Prerecorded Message Class: All persons within the United 

States to whom: (i) Defendant placed a prerecorded 

telemarketing message call (ii) to a residential landline or 

cellular telephone number without prior express written 

consent signed by the called party; and (iii) where the last call 

was made no earlier than the date that is four years prior to the 

filing of this action. 

(b) National Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons within the 

United States to whom: (i) Defendant placed at least two 

telephone solicitation calls during a 12-month period; (ii) for 

telemarketing purposes; (iii) to a residential landline or 

cellular telephone number registered on the do-not-call list for 

at least 30 days prior to the first call; (iv) prior express written 

consent signed by the called party authorizing the calls; and 

(v) where the last call was made no earlier than the date that is 

four years prior to the filing of this action. 

(c) Texas 305.053 Class: All residents of the State of Texas to 

whose telephone number Defendant placed a call in violation 

of 47 U.S.C. §227 in the four years prior to the filing of this 

action. 

(d) Texas 302.101 Class: All residents of the State of Texas to 

whose telephone number Defendant placed a call in violation 

of Texas Business and Commerce Code §302.101 in the four 

years prior to the filing of this action. 

32. Excluded from the Classes are the Plaintiff, Defendant, and their respective counsel, 

any entities in which Defendants have a controlling interest, the Defendants’ agents and employees, 

any judge to whom this action is assigned, and any member of such judge’s staff and immediate 

Case 4:22-cv-00852-P Document 1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 

family. 

33. Class Claims. The Class claims include all claims each Class member may have 

for a violation of the TCPA or Texas Business and Commerce Code arising from Defendant’s use 

of a prerecorded message, placement of calls to telephone numbers registered on the National Do 

Not Call Registry, and calls placed while not registered with the Texas Secretary of State. Plaintiff 

and all members of the Classes have been harmed by Defendant’s acts, including, but not limited 

to, the invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of time, loss of their cell phone battery and cost 

to replenish it, and the intrusion on their cellular telephone that occupied it from receiving 

legitimate communications. 

34. Numerosity. The Class is so numerous and so geographically disbursed that joinder 

of their claims is impractical. There are at least 40 members in each of the Classes. 

35. The Classes are identifiable through the Defendant’s business records, dialer 

records, other phone records, and phone number databases. 

36. Commonality. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the 

Classes; those common principal issues include whether: (i) Defendant’s placement of 

telemarketing calls to a Class member’s residential landline or cellular telephone number, which 

was registered on the do-not-call list at least 30 days prior to the first call, and without having the 

called-party’s prior express without prior written consent, violates the TCPA; (ii) Defendant’s 

placement of prerecorded telemarketing message calls to a Class member’s residential landline or 

cellular telephone number without having the called-party’s prior express without prior written 

consent, which failed to clearly state at the beginning of the message the identity of the business, 

individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating the call, violates the TCPA; (iv) 

Defendant’s TCPA violations warrant an award of treble damages; and (v) Defendant’s systemic 

TCPA violations constitute a Texas Business and Commerce violation. 

37. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of each Class member because those claims 

arise from Defendant’s standardized course of conduct alleged herein. 

38. Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect Class members’ interests 

because Plaintiff’s interests are not averse to the absent Class members and because they committed 

Case 4:22-cv-00852-P Document 1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 

to vigorously litigating this matter. Plaintiff retained counsel experienced in handling consumer 

lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions.

39. This action may be maintained under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because the questions 

of law and fact common to members of the Classes predominate over any questions affecting any 

individual member, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy. The individual joinder of all Class members is impracticable, class 

action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to efficiently prosecute 

their common claims in a single forum without unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that 

individual actions engender, an important public interest is served by addressing the matter as a 

class action, substantial expenses to the litigants and to the judicial system will be realized, and 

difficulties are unlikely in the management of a class action. 

40. This action may also be maintained under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because the 

injunctive relief is available under 47 U.S. Code § 227(c)(5)(A) and Defendants have each acted or 

refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Classes, such that final injunctive relief or 

corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the each of the Classes as a whole. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violations of the TCPA’s National Do-Not-Call Registry Provisions 

47 U.S.C. 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) 

41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

42. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) by initiating 

multiple solicitation calls within a 12-month period to the residential and cellular telephone 

numbers belonging to Plaintiff and putative class members despite their registration on the National 

Do Not Call Registry and without having their signed, written prior express invitation or 

permission. 

43. The Defendant’s TCPA violations were negligent and/or willful. 

44. The TCPA provides a private right of action for these claims under 47 U.S.C. § 

227(c)(5). 

Case 4:22-cv-00852-P Document 1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violations of the TCPA’s National Do-Not-Call Registry Provisions 

47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(b) 

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

46. The TCPA prohibits placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or 

automatically generated or prerecorded voice to a cellular telephone except where the caller has the 

prior express consent of the called party to make such calls or where the call is made for emergency 

purposes. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) 

47. By calling Plaintiff and the putative class members with a prerecorded voice, and 

without prior express consent of the called party to make such calls, Defendant violated the TCPA 

including but not limited to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). 

48. The TCPA provides a private right of action and statutory damages of $500 per 

violation, and up to $1,500 if the violated is determined to be willful. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). 

49. Defendant initiated numerous calls to Plaintiff and the putative class members using 

an automatically generated or pre-recorded voice. 

50. Defendant’s calls were not made for “emergency purposes.” 

51. Defendant’s calls to Plaintiff and the putative class members were made without any 

prior express written consent. 

52. Defendant’s acts as described above were done with malicious, intentional, willful, 

reckless, wanton and negligent disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under the law and with the purpose 

of harassing Plaintiff and the putative class members. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violations of Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 305.053 

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

54. Defendant placed, or had placed on its behalf, telemarketing telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ telephone numbers. 

Case 4:22-cv-00852-P Document 1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9 

55. Each of these calls violated 47 U.S.C. § 227. 

56. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to: (a) a permanent injunction to prevent 

any further violations of the Texas Business & Commerce Code, Chapter 305; (b). the greater of 

$500 for each violation or Plaintiff’s and Texas § 305.053 Class Members’ actual damages (see 

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §304.053(b); (c) the greater of $1,500 for each violation or Plaintiff’s and 

Texas § 305.053 Class Members’ actual damages for each call made knowingly or intentionally 

(see Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §304.053(c). 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violations of Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 302.101 

57. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

58. Plaintiff and each Class Member are a “consumer” as defined by § 301.001(2) of 

the Texas Business and Commerce Code. 

59. Defendant is a “telephone solicitors” as defined by § 301.001(5) of the Texas 

Business & Commerce Code. 

60. §302.101 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code prohibits sellers from engaging 

in telephone solicitation from a location in this state or to a purchaser located in this state unless 

the seller obtains a registration certificate from the Office of the Secretary of State for the business 

location from which the solicitation is made. 

61. Defendant violated § 302.101 of the Texas Business & Commercial Code when their 

representatives engaged in continuous and repetitive telephone solicitation of Plaintiff without 

obtaining a registration certificate from the Office of the Secretary of State. 

62. §302.302(a) of the Texas Business & Commerce Code provides that a person who 

violates this chapter is subject to a civil penalty of no more than $5,000 for each violation. 

Furthermore, §302.302(d) provides that the party bringing the action is also entitled to recover all 

reasonable cost of prosecuting the action, including court costs and investigation costs, deposition 

expenses, witness fees, and attorney fees. 

Case 4:22-cv-00852-P Document 1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of their proposed Classes, pray for 

the following relief: 

A. An order certifying the Classes as defined above, appointing Plaintiff as the 

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

B. An order declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set out above, violate 47 U.S.C. 

§227(b); 

C. 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; 

D. An award of statutory damages; 

E. An award of treble damages; and F. Such other and further relief that the Court 

deems reasonable and just. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated: September 22, 2022 By: 

GINSBURG LAW GROUP, P.C. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, R’Kes Starling 

s/ Amy L. B. Ginsburg

 AMY L. B. GINSBURG 

Case 4:22-cv-00852-P Document 1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10