1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JEFFREY BLEVINS, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:18-cv-364

CLASS ACTION

CAPITAL ALLIANCE GROUP,

Defendant,

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jeffrey Blevins (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, alleges on personal knowledge, investigation of his counsel, and on information and 

belief as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. In a misguided effort to market its business financing services, Capital Alliance 

Group (hereafter “CA” or “Defendant”) established, or caused to be established through a thirdparty contractor, an automated calling operation to place unsolicited, prerecorded telemarketing 

calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide.

2. Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other legal and equitable 

remedies resulting from the illegal actions of CA in contacting Plaintiff and Class Members on 

their cellular telephones without their prior express consent within the meaning of the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., and the Federal Communication Commission 

rules promulgated thereunder, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (hereinafter referred to as the “TCPA”). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 1 of 17 PAGEID #: 1
2

Defendant has violated the TCPA by contacting Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular 

telephones via an “automatic telephone dialing system,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), 

and/or by using “an artificial or prerecorded voice” as described in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), 

without their prior express consent within the meaning of the TCPA.

3. CA also violated another provisions of the TCPA relating to “do not call” lists. 

CA violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) by making more than one call 

to Plaintiff and Class Members who placed their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call 

Registry (“NDNC”). 

4. On behalf of the classes, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to 

cease all unauthorized automated telephone calls, and an award of statutory damages to the 

members of the classes, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, as each member of the proposed 

Class of presumably thousands is entitled to up to $1,500.00 in statutory damages for each call 

that has violated the TCPA. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(d)(2). Further, Plaintiff alleges national classes, which will result in at least one Class 

member belonging to a different state. Therefore, both elements of diversity jurisdiction under 

the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) are present, and this Court has jurisdiction.

6. This Court also has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because a substantial part of 

the events concerning the unauthorized calls at issue occurred in this District, establishing 

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 2 of 17 PAGEID #: 2
3

minimum contacts showing Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the resources and 

protection of the State of Ohio. 

8. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1441(a) because the majority of activities giving 

rise to the claims took place in the District because Plaintiff received phone calls in this District 

and Defendant is deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal 

jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. 

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Blevins is, and at all times relevant has been, a resident of the State of 

Ohio.

10. Defendant Capital Alliance Group is a nationwide provider of business financing 

services, primarily in the form of short-term loans. Capital Alliance Group is a limited liability 

company organized under the laws of the State of California, with a principal place of business 

in Santa Ana, California. Capital Alliance Group represents that it provides its services in the 

State of Ohio.

THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1991 

(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227

The TCPA’s Restrictions on Calls to Cellular Telephones

11. In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA1 in response to a growing number of 

consumer complaints regarding certain telemarketing practices. 

 1 Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394 (1991), 

codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA). The TCPA amended Title II of the Communications Act of 

1934, 47 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 3 of 17 PAGEID #: 3
4

12. The TCPA regulates, among other things, the use of automatic telephone dialing 

equipment, or “autodialers.” 

13. Specifically, the plain language of section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA prohibits 

the use of autodialers to make any call to a wireless number in the absence of an emergency or 

the prior express consent of the called party. 

14. According to findings by the 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. 

15. The FCC also recognized that wireless customers are charged for incoming calls 

whether they pay in advance or after the minutes are used.2

16. On January 4, 2008, the FCC released a Declaratory Ruling wherein it confirmed 

that autodialed and prerecorded message calls to a wireless number are permitted only if the calls 

are made with the “prior express consent” of the called party.3 

17. With regard to calls or texts made for telemarketing purposes, the Federal 

Communication Commission has instructed that sellers may not avoid liability by outsourcing 

telemarketing:

[A]llowing the seller to avoid potential liability by outsourcing its telemarketing 

activities to unsupervised third parties would leave consumers in many cases 

without an effective remedy for telemarketing intrusions. This would particularly 

be so if the telemarketers were judgment proof, unidentifiable, or located outside 

the United States, as is often the case. Even where third-party telemarketers are 

 2 In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and 

Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14115 (¶ 165) (2003). 3 In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA, CG Docket No. 02-278, Declaratory 

Ruling, 23 FCC Rcd 559, 564-65 (¶ 10) (2008) (“2008 FCC Declaratory Ruling”).

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 4 of 17 PAGEID #: 4
5

identifiable, solvent, and amenable to judgment limiting liability to the 

telemarketer that physically places the call would make enforcement in many 

cases substantially more expensive and less efficient, since consumers (or law 

enforcement agencies) would be required to sue each marketer separately in order 

to obtain effective relief. As the FTC noted, because “[s]ellers may have 

thousands of ‘independent’ marketers, suing one or a few of them is unlikely to 

make a substantive difference for consumer privacy.”

May 2013 FCC Ruling, 28 FCC Rcd at 6588 (¶ 37) (internal citations omitted).

18. In its January 4, 2008 ruling, the FCC reiterated that a company on whose behalf 

a telephone call is made or a text is sent bears the responsibility for any violations. Id.

(specifically recognizing “on behalf of” liability in the context of an autodialed or prerecorded 

message call sent to a consumer by a third party on another entity’s behalf under 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)).

19. The FCC has explained that its “rules generally establish that the party on whose 

behalf a solicitation is made bears ultimate responsibility for any violations.” See In re Rules & 

Regulations Implementing the TCPA, CC Docket No. 92-90, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 

10 FCC Rcd 12391, 12397 (¶ 13) (1995).

20. On May 9, 2013, the FCC released a Declaratory Ruling holding that a 

corporation or other entity that contracts out its telephone marketing “may be held vicariously 

liable under federal common law principles of agency for violations of . . . section 227(b) . . . 

that are committed by third-party telemarketers.”4

21. More specifically, the May 2013 FCC Ruling held that, even in the absence of 

evidence of a formal contractual relationship between the seller and the telemarketer, a seller is 

 4 In re Joint Petition Filed by DISH Network, LLC et al. for Declaratory Ruling Concerning the 

TCPA Rules, CG Docket No. 11-50, Declaratory Ruling, 28 FCC Rcd 6574, 6574 (¶ 1) (May 9, 

2013) (“May 2013 FCC Ruling”).

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 5
6

liable for telemarketing calls if the telemarketer “has apparent (if not actual) authority” to make 

the calls. 28 FCC Rcd at 6586 (¶ 34).

22. The FCC has repeatedly rejected a narrow view of TCPA liability, including the 

assertion that a seller’s liability requires a finding of formal agency and immediate direction and 

control over the third-party who placed the telemarketing call. Id. at 6587 n. 107.

23. The May 2013 FCC Ruling further clarifies the circumstances under which a 

telemarketer has apparent authority: 

[A]pparent authority may be supported by evidence that the seller allows the 

outside sales entity access to information and systems that normally would be 

within the seller’s exclusive control, including: access to detailed information 

regarding the nature and pricing of the seller’s products and services or to the 

seller’s customer information. The ability by the outside sales entity to enter 

consumer information into the seller’s sales or customer systems, as well as the 

authority to use the seller’s trade name, trademark and service mark may also be 

relevant. It may also be persuasive that the seller approved, wrote or reviewed the 

outside entity’s telemarketing scripts. Finally, a seller would be responsible under 

the TCPA for the unauthorized conduct of a third-party telemarketer that is 

otherwise authorized to market on the seller’s behalf if the seller knew (or 

reasonably should have known) that the telemarketer was violating the TCPA on 

the seller’s behalf and the seller failed to take effective steps within its power to 

force the telemarketer to cease that conduct.

28 FCC Rcd at 6592 (¶ 46).

24. Finally, the May 2013 FCC Ruling states that called parties may obtain 

“evidence of these kinds of relationships . . . through discovery, if they are not independently 

privy to such information.” Id. at 6592-593 (¶ 46). Moreover, evidence of circumstances 

pointing to apparent authority on behalf of the telemarketer “should be sufficient to place upon 

the seller the burden of demonstrating that a reasonable consumer would not sensibly assume 

that the telemarketer was acting as the seller’s authorized agent.” Id. at 6593 (¶ 46).

The TCPA’s Rules On Do Not Call Lists

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 6 of 17 PAGEID #: 6
7

25. The TCPA and its regulations also make it unlawful to:

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. 

47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200. 

26. The TCPA and the Regulations mandate that all telemarketers institute certain 

minimum procedures and standards prior to placing any telemarketing call. If such mandatory 

minimum procedures are not instituted, then each telemarketing call constitutes a violation of the 

TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), and the Regulations, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). Where a violation 

has occurred, any person receiving two or more calls has a private right of action.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

27. Plaintiff Blevins is the owner and sole proprietor of Interior Creations, a small 

business that performs home remodeling and improvement projects. 

28. Plaintiff Blevins is the exclusive user of the telephone assigned the number 

ending in 3503 and the account holder of record for that account. For several years, the number 

has been registered with the NDNC.

29. On numerous occasions, but most recently on April 7, 2018, Plaintiff Blevins

received an unsolicited pre-recorded voice mail on his cellular telephone with the telephone 

number 216-810-1861 in his caller ID. The message was purportedly from “Rachel” offering 

him “up to $250,000” in credit toward his business.

30. In order to gain more information regarding the source of the call, Blevins 

returned the call and left a message with the answering service, seeking additional information. 

On April 9, 2018, he received an email from Eric Knecht, who identified himself as representing 

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 7 of 17 PAGEID #: 7
8

Capital Alliance Group.

31. Prior to receiving the calls at issue, Plaintiff Blevins has never contacted CA for 

any purpose, and has no business relationship with CA.

32. Plaintiff Blevins received all calls as described above on his cellular telephone 

assigned a number ending in 3503.

33. Plaintiff Blevins understood the purpose of CA’s calls was to market its services 

and solicit business from him.

34. Plaintiff Blevins did not consent to being called by CA for telemarketing purposes 

and the calls received from Defendant were an intrusion into Plaintiff’s privacy and caused 

Plaintiff Blevins annoyance and an unnecessary expenditure of his time and efforts.

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

§ 153(39).

36. CA is a nationwide provider of business funding services, in the forms of loans or 

other financial products.

37. CA, or some unnamed entity working on CA’s behalf, made the autodialed and 

prerecorded message calls described herein “on behalf of” Defendant within the meaning of the 

FCC’s Declaratory Rulings and 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

38. CA is directly liable for the telemarketing calls made on its behalf because CA

actively participated in those calls and solicited business directly from the calls.

39. CA was legally responsible for ensuring that its vendors complied with the TCPA, 

even if CA did not itself make the calls.

40. CA knew (or reasonably should have known) that its vendors were violating the 

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 8 of 17 PAGEID #: 8
9

TCPA on its behalf, and failed to take effective steps within their power to force the telemarketer

to cease that conduct.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if 

fully stated herein.

42. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the following classes 

(together, the “Classes”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

43. Plaintiff proposes the following Class definitions, subject to amendment as 

appropriate: 

(i) The Telemarketing Class: All persons in the United States and its Territories 

who, since April 20, 2014, received one or more telephone solicitation calls on their cellular 

telephone from or on behalf of Capital Alliance Group, through an automated telephone dialing 

system and/or using a prerecorded message, for whom Capital Alliance Group cannot 

demonstrate prior express consent to receive such phone calls.

(ii) The NDNC Class: All persons in the United States and its Territories whose 

telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry, but who received more than one 

telephone solicitation call within a 12-month period from or on behalf of Capital Alliance since 

April 20, 2014.

44. Plaintiff Blevins is a member of, and will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of, these Classes. 

45. Excluded from the Classes are Defendant, any entities in which Defendant has a 

controlling interest, Defendant’s agents and employees, any Judge to whom this action is 

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 9 of 17 PAGEID #: 9
10

assigned, and any member of such Judge’s staff and immediate family, and claims for personal 

injury, wrongful death and/or emotional distress.

46. Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Classes and 

Subclasses, but because Defendant used a prerecording and represents that it does business 

across the country, Plaintiff reasonably believes Class members number, at minimum, in the 

hundreds or thousands in each class.

47. Plaintiff and all members of the Classes have been harmed by the acts of the 

Defendant, including, but not limited to, the invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of time, 

the use of their cell phone battery, and the intrusion on their cellular telephone that occupied it 

from receiving legitimate communications.

48. This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and money damages.

49. The joinder of all Class members is impracticable due to the size and relatively 

modest value of each individual claim.

50. Additionally, the disposition of the claims in a class action will provide 

substantial benefit to the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits.

51. Further, all members of the Classes can be identified through records maintained 

by Defendant and/or its telemarketing agents and/or telephone carriers.

52. There are well-defined, nearly identical, questions of law and fact affecting all 

parties.

53. The questions of law and fact, referred to above, involving the class claims 

predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members.

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 10 of 17 PAGEID #: 10
11

54. Such common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

a. Whether Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an 

artificial or prerecorded voice in its calls to Class members’ telephones to promote its goods or 

services.

b. Whether agents operating on behalf of Defendant used an automatic 

telephone dialing system in making calls to Class members’ cell phones;

c. Whether Defendant or its agents used an artificial or prerecorded voice in 

its calls to Class members’ cell phones;

d. Whether the Defendant can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior 

express consent (i.e., written consent that is clearly and unmistakably stated), to make such calls; 

e. Whether Defendant or its agent made calls for the purpose of selling or 

encouraging the sale of Defendant’s products or services;

f. Whether Defendant or its agent made more than one call to any customer 

whose number is on the National Do Not Call Registry in a twelve month period;

g. Whether Defendant or its agent maintained necessary procedures for 

compliance with the National Do Not Call Registry;

h. Whether the Defendant’s conduct was knowing and/or willful;

i. Whether the Defendant is liable for statutory damages, and whether such 

damages should be trebled; and

j. Whether the Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct 

in the future. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 11 of 17 PAGEID #: 11
12

55. As a person who received non-emergency telephone calls using an automatic 

telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice or calls, without his prior 

express consent within the meaning of the TCPA, Plaintiff asserts claims that are typical of the 

members of the Telemarketing Class who also received such phone calls.

56. As a person whose telephone number was placed on the National Do Not Call List

and who received more than one call in a twelve month period, Plaintiff asserts claims that are 

typical of the NDNC Class.

57. Further, Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of 

the Classes. Plaintiff has no interests which are antagonistic to any member of the Classes.

58. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex 

litigation and class actions. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting 

this action on behalf of the other members of the Classes, and have the financial resources to do 

so. 

59. Absent a class action, most members of the Classes would find the cost of 

litigating their claims to be prohibitive and would have no effective remedy. The class treatment 

of common questions of law and fact is also superior to multiple individual actions or piecemeal 

litigation in that it conserves the resources of the courts and the litigants, and promotes 

consistency and efficiency of adjudication.

COUNT I

Statutory Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227, et seq.) 

on behalf of the Telemarketing Class

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

herein.

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 12 of 17 PAGEID #: 12
13

61. Capital Alliance violated the TCPA by making, or causing to be made via an 

agent, calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and members of the Telemarketing Class using 

an automated dialer and/or pre-recorded voice.

62. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and 

Class members are entitled to an award of $500 in statutory damages for each and every 

violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).

63. Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive relief 

prohibiting the Defendants’ violation of the TCPA in the future.

COUNT II

Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 

227, et seq.) on behalf of Telemarketing Class

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

herein.

65. Capital Alliance violated the TCPA by making, or causing to be made via an 

agent, calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and members of the Telemarketing Class using 

an automated dialer and/or pre-recorded voice.

66. As a result of the Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 

227 et seq., Plaintiff and each member of the Class is entitled to treble damages of up to $1,500 

for each and every violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

67. Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive relief 

prohibiting the Defendant’s violation of the TCPA in the future.

COUNT III

Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. and 47 C.F.R. 

§§ 64.1200(d)) on behalf of the NDNC Class

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 13 of 17 PAGEID #: 13
14

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

herein.

69. Capital Alliance violated the TCPA and the Regulations by making, or having its 

agent make, more than one telephone call within a 12-month period, on its behalf, to Plaintiff 

and the members of the NDNC Class for the purpose of selling or encouraging the sale of CA’s 

goods and/or services while those members where registered on the National Do Not Call 

Registry.

70. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and 

Class members are entitled to an award of $500 in statutory damages for each and every 

violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).

71. Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive relief 

prohibiting the Defendant’s violation of the TCPA in the future.

COUNT IV

Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 

227, et seq. and 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200(d)) on behalf of the NDNC Class

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

herein.

73. Capital Alliance knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA and the 

Regulations by making, or having its agent make, more than one telephone call within a 12-

month period, on its behalf, to Plaintiff and the members of the NDNC Class for the purpose of 

selling or encouraging the sale of CA’s goods and/or services while those members where

registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 14 of 17 PAGEID #: 14
15

74. As a result of the Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 

227 et seq., Plaintiff and each member of the Class is entitled to treble damages of up to $1,500 

for each and every violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

75. Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive relief 

prohibiting the Defendant’s violation of the TCPA in the future.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiff and all Class 

members the following relief against the Defendant:

A. Injunctive relief prohibiting such violations of the TCPA by the Defendant in the 

future;

B. As a result of the Defendant’s willful and/or knowing violations of 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227(b)(1), Plaintiff seeks for themselves and each member of the Telemarketing Class treble 

damages, as provided by statute, of up to $1,500 for each and every violation of the TCPA;

C. As a result of Defendant’s statutory violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), Plaintiff 

seeks for himself and each member of the Telemarketing Class $500 in statutory damages for 

each and every violation of the TCPA;

D. As a result of the Defendant’s willful and/or knowing violations of 47 C.F.R. § 

64.1200(d), Plaintiff seeks for himself and each member of the NDNC Class treble damages, as 

provided by statute, of up to $1,500 for each and every violation of the TCPA;

E. As a result of Defendant’s statutory violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), Plaintiff 

seeks for himself and each member of the NDNC Class $500 in statutory damages for each and 

every violation of the TCPA;

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 15 of 17 PAGEID #: 15
16

F. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs to counsel for Plaintiff and the Class as 

permitted by law;

G. An order certifying this action to be a proper class action pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 23, establishing an appropriate Classes the Court deems appropriate, finding 

that Plaintiff is a proper representative of the Classes, and appointing the lawyers and law firm

representing Plaintiff as counsel for the Class;

H. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.

Dated: April 20, 2018 By: _/s/ _Matthew R. Wilson_____________

 Matthew R. Wilson

MEYER WILSON CO., LPA

Matthew R. Wilson (Ohio Bar Number 0072925)

Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com

Michael J. Boyle, Jr. (Ohio Bar Number 0091162 )

Email: mboyle@meyerwilson.com

1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Telephone: (614) 224-6000

Facsimile: (614) 224-6066

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 16 of 17 PAGEID #: 16
17

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all counts so triable.

Dated: April 20, 2018

By: s/_Matthew R. Wilson______________ 

MEYER WILSON CO., LPA

Matthew R. Wilson (Ohio Bar No. 0072925)

Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com

Michael J. Boyle, Jr. (Ohio Bar No. 0091162)

Email: mboyle@meyerwilson.com

1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Telephone: (614) 224-6000

Facsimile: (614) 224-6066

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/20/18 Page: 17 of 17 PAGEID #: 17