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 

TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 222020) 

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192 

Phoenix, AZ 85028 

Telephone: (480) 247-9644 

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 

E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com 

Of Counsel to 

Lemberg Law, LLC 

43 Danbury Road 

Wilton, CT 06897 

Telephone: (203) 653-2250 

Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Angel Good 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Angel Good, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo 

Home Mortgage, 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

FOR VIOLATIONS OF: 

1. THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACT. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 3:17-cv-00356-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 6
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, Angel Good (hereafter “Plaintiff”), by undersigned counsel, brings the 

following complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home 

Mortgage (hereafter “Defendant”) and alleges as follows: 

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises out of Defendant’s repeated violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”). 

2. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), 28 U.S.C. § 

1331. 

3. Venue is proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), where 

the acts and transactions giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred in this district and/or 

where Defendant transacts business in this district. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Beaverton, Oregon, and is a 

“person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

5. Defendant is a business entity located in San Francisco, California, and is 

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

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

6. Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt asserted to 

be owed to Defendant. 

Case 3:17-cv-00356-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 2 of 6
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 

7. At all times mentioned herein where Defendant communicated with any 

person via telephone, such communication was done via Defendant’s agent, 

representative or employee. 

8. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff utilized a cellular telephone 

service and was assigned the following telephone number: 503-XXX-9211 (hereafter 

“Number”). 

9. Defendant placed calls to Plaintiff’s Number in an attempt to collect a 

debt. 

10. The aforementioned calls were placed using an automatic telephone 

dialing system (“ATDS”) and/or by using an artificial or prerecorded voice 

(“Robocalls”). 

11. When Plaintiff answered Defendant’s calls, she heard a prerecorded 

message identifying Defendant and advising her that the call was an attempt to collect 

a debt. 

12. On several separate occasions staring in May of 2016, Plaintiff advised 

Defendant that she suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and requested that all 

calls to her cease. 

13. Plaintiff also made the request to a mortgage manager at her local branch 

in an effort to get the calls to cease. 

14. Nonetheless, Wells Fargo continued to place calls to Plaintiff’s Number 

using an ATDS and/or Robocalls at an excessive and harassing rate. 

Case 3:17-cv-00356-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 3 of 6
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 

15. Defendant’s calls directly and substantially interfered with Plaintiff’s 

right to peacefully enjoy a service that Plaintiff paid for and caused Plaintiff to suffer 

a significant amount of anxiety, frustration and annoyance. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 

U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

complaint as though fully stated herein. 

17. The TCPA prohibits Defendant from using, other than for emergency 

purposes, an ATDS and/or Robocalls when calling Plaintiff’s Number absent 

Plaintiff’s prior express consent to do so. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). 

18. Defendant’s telephone system has the earmark of using an ATDS and/or 

using Robocalls in that Plaintiff, upon answering calls from Defendant, heard a 

prerecorded message advising her that the call was an attempt to collect a debt. 

19. Defendant called Plaintiff’s Number using an ATDS and/or Robocalls 

without Plaintiff’s consent in that Defendant either never had Plaintiff’s prior express 

consent to do so or such consent was effectively revoked when Plaintiff requested that 

Defendant cease all further calls. 

20. Defendant continued to willfully call Plaintiff’s Number using an ATDS 

and/or Robocalls knowing that it lacked the requisite consent to do so in violation of 

the TCPA. 

Case 3:17-cv-00356-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 4 of 6
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 

21. Plaintiff was harmed and suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s 

actions. 

22. The TCPA creates a private right of action against persons who violate 

the Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). 

23. As a result of each call made in violation of the TCPA, Plaintiff is 

entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages. 

24. As a result of each call made knowingly and/or willingly in violation of 

the TCPA, Plaintiff may be entitled to an award of treble damages. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant for: 

A. Statutory damages of $500.00 for each call determined to be in violation 

of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§ 227(b)(3); 

B. Treble damages for each violation determined to be willful and/or 

knowing under the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§ 227(b)(3); and 

C. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

Case 3:17-cv-00356-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 5 of 6
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 

DATED: January 24, 2017 TRINETTE G. KENT 

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent, Esq.

Lemberg Law, LLC 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Angel Good 

Case 3:17-cv-00356-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 6 of 6