CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-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

John P. Kristensen (SBN 224132)

David L. Weisberg (SBN 211675)

KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP

12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 100

Los Angeles, California 90025

Telephone: 310-507-7924

Fax: 310-507-7906

john@kristensenlaw.com

david@kristensenlaw.com

Jarrett L. Ellzey (Pro Hac Vice pending)

HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP

2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: (713) 554-2377

Fax: (888) 995-3335

jarrett@hughesellzey.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others

similarly situated

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NIKKI BELL, an individual, on 

behalf of herself and all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

DEPARTMENT STORES 

NATIONAL BANK, a South Dakota 

Entity; FDS BANK, an Ohio 

Corporation; MACY’s 

INCORPORATED, an Ohio 

Corporation; and DOES 1 through 

50, inclusive, and each of them,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 

CLASS ACTION

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF

(1) Violations of the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act, 47 

U.S.C. § 227, et seq.; and

(2) Willful Violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-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

Plaintiff Nikki Bell (“Plaintiff” or “Bell”), on behalf of herself and all 

others similarly situated, alleges the follow upon information and belief based 

upon personal knowledge:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is 

seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting 

from the illegal actions of defendants DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL 

BANK (“Defendant or “DSNB”) Defendants MACY’S INCORPORATED 

(“Defendant” or “Macy’s”), FDS BANK (“Defendants or “FDS”), and 

INDIVIDUAL DOES (collectively “Defendants”) in contacting Plaintiff, as well 

as knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 

227, set seq. (“TCPA”). 

2. Defendants are companies that regularly engage in aggressive and 

reckless debt collection practices which outright ignore controlling federal law, 

and the rights of the called party.

3. Defendants repeatedly made unsolicited calls to Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone in violation of the TCPA. Defendants made the calls using an 

automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) or pre-recorded voice for the 

purpose of collecting a debt allegedly owed to Defendants by another individual. 

Defendants repeatedly called Plaintiff, even after Plaintiff informed Defendants 

that they had the wrong number, that Plaintiff was not the individual Defendants 

were attempting to contact, and Plaintiff did not wish to be called again. 

4. By making the telephone calls at issue in this Complaint, 

Defendants’ caused Plaintiff actual harm, including the aggravation, nuisance, 

and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited 

and harassing telephone calls, as well as the monies paid to her carrier(s) for the 

receipt of such telephone calls.

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-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

5. Congress enacted the TCPA to protect consumers from unsolicited 

telephone calls exactly like those alleged in this case. In response to Defendants’ 

unlawful conduct, Plaintiff files the instant lawsuit and seeks an injunction 

requiring Defendants to cease all illegal telephone calling activities to her 

cellular telephone and an award of statutory damages under the TCPA equal to 

$500.00 per violation, together with court costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and 

treble damages (for knowing and/or willful violations). Plaintiff also seeks an 

award of statutory damages under the FDCPA equal to $1,000.00 per violation, 

together with court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

6. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because the 

Plaintiff, a resident of California, seeks relief on behalf of a Class, which will 

result in at least one class member belonging to a different state than that of the 

Defendants, which are based in South Dakota and Ohio.

7. Plaintiff also seeks up to $1,500.00 in damages for each call in 

violation of the TCPA, which, when aggregated among a proposed class in the 

thousands, exceeds the $5,000,000.00 threshold for federal court jurisdiction. 

Therefore, both diversity jurisdiction and the damages threshold under the Class 

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

jurisdiction. 

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 

as this action arises under the TCPA, which is a federal statute.

9. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they 

conduct significant business in this District, and the unlawful conduct alleged in 

this Complaint occurred in, was directed to, and/or emanated from this District. 

10. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) 

because the wrongful conduct giving rise to this case occurred in, was directed 

to, and/or emanated from this District. 

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-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

11. Defendants are subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this 

District because they have continuous and systematic contacts with this District 

through their marketing efforts and services that target this District, and the 

exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this District does not offend 

traditional notions of fair play or substantial justice.

INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

12. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2(d), this action must be assigned to either 

the San Francisco Division or the Oakland Division of the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California because Plaintiff Nikki Bell is a 

resident of Contra Costa County, California. 

PARTIES

13. Plaintiff NIKKI BELL (“Plaintiff”) is a citizen of the State of 

California who resides in Richmond, Contra Costa County, California. 

14. Defendant MACY’S INCORPORATED (“Defendant” or “Macy’s”) 

is a Delaware corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio. 

Defendant maintains its principle place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio, but 

regularly conducts business in this District. Defendant can be served with 

process by serving its registered agent, CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service 

(Corporation Service Company), 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, 

Ohio 43215. 

15. Defendant DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK 

(“Defendant” or “DSNB”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State 

of South Dakota. Defendant maintains its principle place of business in Sioux 

Falls, South Dakota, but regularly conducts business in this District. Defendant 

can be served with process by serving its registered agent, Department Stores 

National Bank, P.O. Box 8066, Mason, OH 45040.

16. Defendant FDS BANK (“Defendant” or “FDS”) is a corporation 

organized under the laws of the State of Ohio. Defendant maintains its principle 

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 4 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-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

place of business at 9111 Duke Boulevard, Suite 100, Mason Ohio, 45040 but 

regularly conducts business in this District. 

17. The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as 

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore 

sues such Defendants by fictitious names. Each of the Defendants designated 

herein as a DOE is legally responsible for the unlawful acts alleged herein. 

Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend the Complaint to reflect the true 

names and capacities of the DOE Defendants when such identities become 

known.

18. Plaintiff does not yet know the identity of Defendants’ 

employees/agents, identified as DOE INDIVIDUALS that had direct, personal 

participation in or personally authorized the conduct found to have violated the 

statute, and were not merely tangentially involved. They are named tentatively as 

numerous District Courts have found that individual officers/principals of 

corporate entities may be personally liable (jointly and severally) under the 

TCPA if they had direct, personal participation in or personally authorized the 

conduct found to have violated the statute, and were not merely tangentially 

involved. Texas v. American Blastfax, Inc., 164 F.Supp.2d 892, 899 (W.D. Tex. 

2001) (“American Blastfax”); Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Wagner 

Wellness, Inc., 2014 WL 1333472, at * 3 (N.D. Ohio March 28, 2014); Maryland 

v. Universal Elections, 787 F.Supp.2d 408, 415-16 (D.Md. 2011) (“Universal 

Elections”); Baltimore-Washington Tel Co. v. Hot Leads Co., 584 F.Supp.2d 

736, 745 (D.Md. 2008); Covington & Burling v. Int’l Mktg. & Research, Inc., 

2003 WL 21384825, at *6 (D.C.Super Apr. 17, 2003); Chapman v. Wagener 

Equities, Inc. 2014 WL 540250, at *16-17 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 11, 2014); Versteeg v. 

Bennett, Deloney & Noyes, P.C., 775 F.Supp.2d 1316, 1321 (D.Wy.2011) 

(“Versteeg”). Upon learning of the identities of said individuals, Plaintiff will 

move to amend to name the individuals as defendants.

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 5 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-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

19. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all 

relevant times, each and every Defendant was acting as an agent and/or 

employee of each of the other Defendants and was the owner, agent, servant, 

joint venturer and employee, each of the other and each was acting within the 

course and scope of its ownership, agency, service, joint venture and 

employment with the full knowledge and consent of each of the other 

Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of 

the acts and/or omissions complained of herein was made known to, and ratified 

by, each of the other Defendants.

20. At all times mentioned herein, each and every Defendant was the 

successor of the other and each assumes the responsibility for each other’s acts 

and omissions.

TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

21. Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991 to address certain practices 

thought to be an invasion of consumer privacy and a risk to public safety. The 

TCPA and the Federal Communications Commission’s (hereinafter “FCC”) 

implemented rules prohibit: (1) making telemarketing calls using an artificial or 

prerecorded voice to residential telephones without prior express consent; and (2) 

making any non-emergency call using an automatic telephone dialing system 

(hereinafter “ATDS”) or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a wireless telephone 

number without prior express consent. If the call includes or introduces an 

advertisement, or constitutes telemarketing, consent must be in writing.1 The 

TCPA grants consumers a private right of action, with a provision for $500 or the 

 1 Prior 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 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 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 6 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-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

actual monetary loss in damages for each violation, whichever is greater, and 

treble damages for each willful or knowing violation, as well as injunctive relief.

22. Since the TCPA’s passage in 1991, the FCC has taken multiple 

actions implementing and interpreting the TCPA, and has issued numerous 

Declaratory Rulings clarifying specific aspects of the TCPA. The most recent, 

FCC Omnibus Order of July 10, 2015, (the “Order”) provided further protection 

to consumers by, among other things, clarifying that ATDS is broadly defined, 

confirming liability attaches to calls made to the wrong number or reassigned 

number, and clarifying consumers may revoke consent through reasonable 

methods. In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. 

Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, FCC 15–72, 30 F.C.C.R. 7961, (July 10, 2015), 

available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/tcpa-omnibus-declaratory-ruling-andorder. The Order defines an “autodialer” as equipment/software that has the 

future capacity to dial randomly or sequentially. “In other words, the capacity of 

an autodialer is not limited to its current configuration but also includes its 

potential functionalities.” The Order clarifies the meaning of “capacity” and that 

“any call” made using a device with the capacity to serve as an ATDS requires 

consent under the TCPA, even if the caller is not “actually...using those 

functionalities to place calls” at the time. Derby v. AOL, Inc., No. 5:15-CV00452-RMW, 2015 WL 5316403, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2015). 

23. The Order also states that calls placed to the wrong number or a 

reassigned number are made with knowledge of the error after the first call; and 

consumers may revoke consent through any reasonable method, including orally: 

“[w]e clarify, however, that callers who make calls without knowledge of 

reassignment and with a reasonable basis to believe that they have valid consent 

to make the call should be able to initiate one call after reassignment as an 

additional opportunity to gain actual or constructive knowledge of the 

reassignment and cease future calls to the new subscriber. If this one additional 

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 7 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-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

call does not yield actual knowledge of reassignment, we deem the caller to have 

constructive knowledge of such;” “[c]onsumers generally may revoke, for 

example, by way of a consumer-initiated call, directly in response to a call 

initiated or made by a caller, or at an in-store bill payment location, among other 

possibilities.”

24. The repeated calls were asking for someone other than Plaintiff, 

who told them repeatedly they had the wrong number, but Defendants refused.

25. Furthermore, the TCPA established the National Do-Not-Call List, 

and also mandates all businesses that place calls for marketing purposes maintain 

an “internal” do-not-call list (“IDNC”). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). The IDNC 

is “a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls made by or on 

behalf of that [seller].” Id. The TCPA prohibits a company from calling 

individuals on its IDNC list or on the IDNC list of a seller on whose behalf the 

telemarketer calls, even if those individuals’ phone numbers are not on the 

National Do-Not-Call Registry. Id. at § 64.1200(d)(3), (6). Any company, or 

someone on the company’s behalf, who calls a member of the company IDNC is 

liable to that person under the TCPA. The called party is then entitled to bring a 

private action under the TCPA for monetary and injunctive relief. 

26. Finally, in 2008, the FCC held that “a creditor on whose behalf an 

autodialed or prerecorded message call is made to a wireless number bears the 

responsibility for any violation of the Commission’s rules.” In re Rules and 

Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Declaratory 

Ruling on Motion by ACA International for Reconsideration, 23 FCC Rcd. 559, 

565, ¶ 10 (Jan. 4, 2008); Birchmeier v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 2012 WL 

7062748 (Dec. 31, 2012). 

27. Accordingly, the entity can be liable under the TCPA for a call 

made on its behalf, even if the entity did not directly place the call. Under those 

circumstances, the entity is deemed to have initiated the call through the person 

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 8 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-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

or entity. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

28. Beginning in or around January 2016, Defendant contacted Plaintiff 

Bell on her cellular telephone number ending in 8454 via ATDS, as defined by 

47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), at least fifty (50) times over a two-month period without 

first obtaining Bell’s written consent. 

29. Bell’s caller ID read “800-266-2278” as the calls were incoming. 

This number is assigned to the Defendants and their agents. 

30. Bell would answer some of the calls even though she had 

memorized the number assigned to Defendants as a result of the constant abusive 

calling techniques employed by Defendants. When Bell answered the phone, she 

experienced dead air before she could hear the call being routed a live 

representative. 

31. To the extent Bell ever consented to the calls, she revoked such 

consent but the calls continued. 

32. Despite being informed by Bell that she was not the individual they 

were attempting to contact, as well as several reasonable requests that 

Defendants cease all further contact, Defendants called Bell at least thirty (30) 

times.

33. Bell was extremely frustrated by the calls and wanted Defendants to 

stop calling. The calls invaded her privacy and caused her to lose time on her 

cellular plan. 

34. On information and belief, Defendants’ automated system had 

called Bell on every occasion.

35. Based on the circumstances of the calls – including but not limited 

to the multiple calls, Bell never spoke to the same representative, and Defendants 

called despite Bell’s requests to Defendants to stop calling (indicating a 

computer automatically dialed the number again) – Bell believed Defendants 

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 9 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-10-

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

called her cellular telephone using an ATDS that automatically selected her 

number from a computer database.

36. On information and belief, Defendants’ ATDS called Bell on every 

occasion.

37. On information and belief, and based on the circumstances of the all 

the calls, Defendants called Bell using an ATDS. 

38. The telephone number Defendants called was assigned to a cellular 

telephone.

39. Bell is the regular carrier and exclusive user of the cellular 

telephone assigned the number ending in 8454.

40. Defendants’ calls constituted calls that were not for emergency 

purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1(A)(i).

41. Bell did not provide Defendants with prior express written consent 

to receive calls to her cellular telephone utilizing an ATDS or artificial or prerecorded voice, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A) and 47 C.F.R. § 

64.1200(a)(3). 

42. All calls Defendants made to Bell violate 47 U.S.C. § 227.

43. Bell seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all illegal, 

abusive, and harassing telephone calls using an ATDS and an award of statutory 

damages, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. This is necessary as 

Defendants settled a prior class case, but continue their illegal activities.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

44. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and/or other applicable law, on behalf of herself and all others 

similarly situated, as a member of the proposed class (hereafter "the Class") 

defined as follows:

All persons within the United States who received any telephone calls 

from Defendant(s) to said person’s cellular telephone made through the 

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 10 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-11-

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

use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or 

prerecorded voice and such person had not previously provided express 

consent to receiving such calls from July 23, 2015 to the filing of this 

Complaint.

45. Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the Class, consisting of All 

persons within the United States who received any telephone call from 

Defendant(s) to said person’s cellular telephone made through the use of any 

automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such 

person had not previously not provided their cellular telephone number to 

Defendant within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.

46. Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, Defendants, any 

entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and Defendants’ officers, 

directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, co-conspirators, successors, 

subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the Class are any judges, justices 

or judicial officers presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate 

families and judicial staff.

47. This action is properly maintainable as a class action. This action 

satisfies the numerosity, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority for a 

class action.

48. Numerosity: The proposed Class is so numerous that individual 

joinder of all members is impracticable. Due to the nature of the trade and 

commerce involved, Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the 

Class, but believes the Class members number in the thousands, if not more. 

Plaintiff alleges that the Class may be ascertained by the records maintained by 

Defendants.

49. Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of 

Defendant(s) in at least the following ways: Defendant(s) illegally contacted 

Plaintiff and Class members via their cellular telephones thereby causing 

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 11 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-12-

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

Plaintiff and Class members, without their “prior express consent,” to incur 

certain charges or reduced telephone time for which Plaintiff and Class members 

had previously paid by having to retrieve or administer message(s) left by 

Defendant during those illegal calls, and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff 

and Class members.

50. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate: There are 

only a few legal and factual issues to determine if there is liability under the 

TCPA and for each of those questions of law and fact, common issues to the 

Class predominate over any questions that may affect individual Class members, 

in that the claims of all Class members for each of the claims herein can be 

established with common proof. Common questions of fact and law include, but 

are not limited to, the following:

(a) Whether, within the four years prior to the filing of this 

Complaint, Defendant(s) made any calls (other than a call 

made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express 

consent of the called party) to a Class member using any 

automated dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice 

to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone 

service;

(b) Whether Plaintiff and the Class members were damaged 

thereby, and the extent of the statutory damages for each such 

violation; and 

(c) Whether the Defendant(s) should be enjoined from engaging 

in such conduct in the future.

51. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of members 

of the Class, as Plaintiff was subject to the same common course of conduct by 

Defendant(s) as all Class members. The injuries to each member of the Class 

were caused directly by Defendant(s)’ wrongful conduct as alleged herein.

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 12 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-13-

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

52. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately 

represent and protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel with 

substantial experience in handling complex class action litigation. Plaintiff and 

his counsel are committed to prosecuting this action vigorously on behalf of the 

Class and have financial resources to do so.

53. Superiority of Class Action: A class action is superior to other 

available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the present 

controversy. Class members have little interest in individually controlling the 

prosecution of separate actions because the individual damage claims of each 

Class member are not substantial enough to warrant individual filings. In sum, 

for many, if not most, Class members, a class action is the only feasible 

mechanism that will allow them an opportunity for legal redress and justice. 

Plaintiff is unaware of any litigation concerning the present controversy already 

commenced by members of the Class. The conduct of this action as a class action 

in this forum, with respect to some or all of the issues presented herein, presents 

fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and of the 

court system, and protects the rights of each Class member.

54. Moreover, individualized litigation would also present the potential 

for varying, inconsistent, or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, 

and would magnify the delay and expense to all parties and to the court system 

resulting from multiple trials of the same factual issues. The adjudication of 

individual Class members’ claims would also, as a practical matter, be 

dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to the adjudication, and 

could substantially impair or impede the ability of other Class members to 

protect their interests.

55. Plaintiff and the members of the Class have suffered and will 

continue to suffer harm as a result of Defendant(s)’ unlawful and wrongful 

conduct. Defendant(s) have acted, or refused to act, in respects generally 

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 13 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-14-

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

applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief 

with regard to the members of the Class as a whole.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

47 U.S.C. § 227, ET SEQ.

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

56. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and 

every allegation set forth in each and every preceding paragraph of this 

Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

57. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitute 

numerous and multiple violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each 

and every one of the above cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. and 47 

C.F.R. §64.1200, et seq.

58. As a result of Defendants’ violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., and 

47 C.F.R. §64.1200, et seq., Plaintiff is entitled to an award of $500.00 in 

statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(3)(B).

59. Plaintiff is also entitled to and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting 

such conduct in the future.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF 

THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227, ET SEQ.

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

60. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-allege each and 

every allegation set forth in each and every preceding paragraph of this 

Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

61. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitute 

numerous and multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including 

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 14 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-15-

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

but not limited to each and every one of the above cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227, et seq. and 47 C.F.R. §64.1200, et seq.

62. As a result of Defendants’ violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., and 

47 C.F.R. §64.1200, et seq. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in 

statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).

63. Plaintiff is also entitled to and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting 

such conduct in the future.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, prays for 

relief and judgment as follows:

1. An order certifying this action as a class action and appointing 

Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Class;

2. For the first cause of action:

• Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to and request $500.00 

in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 

U.S.C. § 227, et seq.;

• Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining 

Defendant(s), their agents, servants and employees, and all 

persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in, and 

continuing to engage in, the unlawful calls made with automated 

dialing systems to cellular phones without prior express consent;

• Attorneys’ fees, costs and any and all other relief that the Court 

deems just and proper.

3. For the second cause of action:

• Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to and request $1,500.00 

in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 

U.S.C. § 227, et seq.;

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 15 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-16-

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

• Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining 

Defendant(s), their agents, servants and employees, and all 

persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in, and 

continuing to engage in, the unlawful calls made with automated 

dialing systems to cellular phones without prior express consent;

• Attorneys’ fees, costs and any and all other relief that the Court 

deems just and proper.

Dated: January 9, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ John P. Kristensen

John P. Kristensen (SBN 224132)

john@kristensenlaw.com

David L. Weisberg (SBN 211675)

david@kristensenlaw.com

KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP

12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100

Los Angeles, California 90025

Telephone: (310) 507-7924

Fax: (310) 507-7906

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 16 of 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

-17-

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury for all issues that may be decided 

by jury. 

Dated: January 9, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ John P. Kristensen

John P. Kristensen (SBN 224132)

john@kristensenlaw.com

David L. Weisberg (SBN 211675)

david@kristensenlaw.com

KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP

12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100

Los Angeles, California 90025

Telephone: (310) 507-7924

Fax: (310) 507-7906

Case 3:17-cv-00102-VC Document 1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 17 of 17