UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

MELISSA WILKES, on behalf of herself 

and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ONE HOUR AIR CONDITIONING 

FRANCHISING, LLC; CLOCKWORK, 

INC.; CLOCKWORK IP LLC; and

SUTHERLIN HVAC, INC. D/B/A ONE 

HOUR HEATING & AIR 

CONDITIONING, 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:16-cv-32

CLASS ACTION

JURY DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff and proposed Class Representative Melissa Wilkes (“Wilkes”), 

by counsel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated, brings this against 

Defendants Clockwork, Inc., Clockwork IP LLC, One Hour Air Conditioning 

Franchising, LLC, and Sutherlin HVAC, Inc. d/b/a One Hour Heating & Air 

Conditioning (collectively “One Hour”), to recover damages and to obtain injunctive 

relief for the claims identified in full below. 

2. As set forth in more detail below, One Hour used automatic telephone 

dialing systems to place calls to cellular telephones of Wilkes and Class members in 

violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the 

“TCPA”).

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00032-RLM-PRC document 1 filed 04/18/16 page 1 of 11
2

3. Wilkes brings this case as a proposed class action pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of a Class, defined more fully below, who 

received calls to their cellular telephones in violation of the TCPA, seeking 

monetary and injunctive relief. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Melissa Wilkes is a citizen and resident of the State of 

Indiana, residing in Lafayette, Indiana.

5. Defendant Clockwork, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that does 

business as Clockwork Home Services, under three principle brand names: 

Benjamin Franklin the Punctual Plumber®, One Hour Heating & Air 

Conditioning®, One Hour Air Conditioning & Heating®, and Mr. Sparky®. 

Clockwork, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Sarasota, Florida.

6. Defendant Clockwork IP, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company 

with its principal place of business in Sarasota, Florida. Clockwork IP, LLC is the 

intellectual property holding subsidiary of Clockwork, Inc.

7. Defendant One Hour Air Conditioning Franchising, LLC is a Florida 

limited liability company with its principal place of business in Sarasota, Florida.

One Hour Air Conditioning Franchising, LLC is the franchising arm of Clockwork, 

Inc.

8. Defendant Sutherlin HVAC, Inc. d/b/a One Hour Heating & Air 

Conditioning is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in 

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00032-RLM-PRC document 1 filed 04/18/16 page 2 of 11
3

Greencastle, Indiana. Sutherlin HVAC, Inc. is a franchisee of One Hour, and is the 

operating entity from whom Wilkes initially sought service. 

JURISDICTION & VENUE

9. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(d)(2) because the matter in controversy in this civil action exceeds the sum or 

value of $5 million, exclusive of interests and costs, and this is a class action in 

which class members are citizens of different states.

10. This Court also has federal question subject-matter jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case seeks redress for violation of federal 

law.

11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) & (c) 

because Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the events or 

omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred within this district, including 

One Hour’s violation of the TCPA. 

12. Defendants reside in this district for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 

because they are subject to general personal jurisdiction in this district. Defendants

have continuous and systematic contacts with Indiana, including this district, 

through selling and marketing their services in Indiana, to Indiana residents, 

including residents of this district. Defendants are also subject to specific personal 

jurisdiction in this district because their contacts with this district gave rise to the 

instant action.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00032-RLM-PRC document 1 filed 04/18/16 page 3 of 11
4

13. Venue is also proper in this court because Plaintiff is a citizen of 

Indiana who resides in this district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14. One Hour Heating & Air Conditioning® and One Hour Air 

Conditioning & Heating® are brands operated under the flagship of Clockwork, Inc. 

through its subsidiaries Clockwork IP, LLC and One Hour Air Conditioning 

Franchising, LLC. Collectively, these entities are referred to herein as “One Hour.” 

15. The One Hour Heating & Air Conditioning® and One Hour Air 

Conditioning & Heating® brands are licensed for use by One Hour through 

franchises. The arm of One Hour that creates the franchise relationships is One 

Hour Air Conditioning Franchising, LLC.

16. The form contract between franchisees and One Hour through One 

Hour Air Conditioning Franchising, LLC requires One Hour to make available to 

franchisees “marketing and technical assistance.” 

17. Pursuant to the form franchisee agreements, One Hour utilizes a 

“Marketing Fund” whereby franchisees pay contributions to One Hour for 

marketing to be conducted by One Hour.

18. On June 23, 2014, Wilkes contacted the office of One Hour franchisee 

Sutherlin HVAC, Inc. d/b/a One Hour Heating & Air Conditioning, which was and is 

located in Lafayette, Indiana. 

19. A representative of the One Hour franchisee came to Wilkes’ residence 

in Lafayette, Indiana to service Wilkes’ air conditioner.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00032-RLM-PRC document 1 filed 04/18/16 page 4 of 11
5

20. Wilkes has not contacted One Hour or any of its franchisees since.

21. On August 11, 2015, One Hour called Wilkes’ cellular telephone from a 

number listed as (727) 581-3119. Area code 727 covers mid-western Florida. At that 

time, Wilkes asked One Hour to remove her from its list and indicated that she was 

not interested in further services.

22. On February 26, 2016, Wilkes received another call from One Hour to 

her cellular telephone from a number listed as (727) 581-6351, which is another 

number belonging to One Hour. Wilkes did not answer this call.

23. On March 4, 2016, Wilkes again received a call from One Hour to her

cellular telephone from a number listed as (727) 581-6351. Wilkes answered the call 

and discovered it was One Hour asking if she wanted to schedule a maintenance 

appointment. Wilkes informed One Hour that she was not interested and that she 

had previously requested to be taken off its list, and again requested that One Hour 

stop calling her.

24. In addition to those calls identified above, Wilkes has received other 

calls from One Hour.

25. One Hour has placed numerous other calls identical to those made to 

Wilkes to the cellular telephones of the members of the Class defined below.

26. In each instance, the purpose of One Hour’s calls was to solicit 

business from the recipients. 

27. In each instance, One Hour used an automatic telephone dialing 

system to call Wilkes’ and Class members’ cellular telephones.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00032-RLM-PRC document 1 filed 04/18/16 page 5 of 11
6

28. One Hour did not have the express consent of Wilkes or Class members 

when making the calls to their cellular telephones.

29. Any consent received by One Hour or its agents did not conform to 

requirements of the TCPA or the Rules and Regulations Implementing the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and 

Order, 27 FCC Rcd 1830 (2012) and Rules and Regulations Implementing the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, WC Docket No. 

07-135, Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72, 30 F.C.C.R. 7961, 7996 (July 10, 

2015).

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

30. Plaintiff brings this case pursuant to Rules 23(b)(3) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure on her own behalf and behalf of the proposed Class, defined 

as:

All persons within the United States who, within four 

years prior to the filing of this action received any 

telephone call from Defendants or their agents to either: 

(1) a cellular telephone subscribed to by said person, or (2) 

a cellular telephone for which said person is the number’s 

customary user, where the call from Defendants was 

made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing 

system or with an artificial or prerecorded voice, which 

call was not made for emergency purposes. 

31. The Class is comprised of thousands of individuals. Although the exact 

number of class members is presently unknown, the number and identity of Class 

members can be readily determined through One Hour’s records. 

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00032-RLM-PRC document 1 filed 04/18/16 page 6 of 11
7

32. The disposition of the numerous claims of these class members in a 

single class action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court.

33. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally 

to the Class, so that final injunctive relief is appropriate respecting the Class as a

whole.

34. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law 

and fact involved affecting the class members. The questions of law and fact 

common to the Class predominate over questions affecting only individual class 

members, and include without limitation the following:

A. Whether One Hour used an automatic telephone dialing system.

B. Whether One Hour received consent from Wilkes and Class 

members prior to placing calls to the cellular telephones of Wilkes and Class 

members.

C. Whether any purported consent received by One Hour complied 

with the requirements set forth by the Federal Communications Commission.

D. Whether One Hour acted willfully and/or knowingly in violation 

of the TCPA.

35. Wilkes’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Wilkes and Class 

members have similarly received calls from One Hour to cellular telephones owned 

by Wilkes and Class members, and Wilkes and Class members suffered the same 

harm arising from One Hour’s legal violations as identified in causes of action 

enumerated and set forth below. 

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00032-RLM-PRC document 1 filed 04/18/16 page 7 of 11
8

36. Wilkes’ and Class members’ claims flow, in each instance, from a 

common nucleus of operative facts – One Hour’s legal violations as identified in 

causes of action enumerated and set forth below. 

37. Wilkes is an adequate representative of the Class because her interests 

do not conflict with and are not antagonistic to the interests of the Class members 

she seeks to represent. Wilkes will fairly and adequately represent and protect the 

interests of the Class.

38. Wilkes has retained competent and experienced counsel.

39. Wilkes and Class members have all suffered and will continue to suffer 

substantial harm and damages due to One Hour’s conduct. A class action is superior 

to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the subject controversy. 

Absent a class action, most Class members likely will find the cost of litigating their 

individual claims to be prohibitive, and will have no effective remedy at all. Absent 

a class action, class members will continue to sustain damages, and One Hour’s 

misconduct will proceed without remedy. 

40. 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. Additionally, One Hour has acted, and failed to act, on grounds 

generally applicable to plaintiff and the Class, requiring court imposition of uniform 

relief to insure compatible standards of conduct toward Wilkes and the Class.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00032-RLM-PRC document 1 filed 04/18/16 page 8 of 11
9

CAUSES OF ACTION

41. All facts alleged above as well as all facts alleged in each individual 

count are incorporated by reference as though set forth in each individual count. No 

fact is to be read as though applying solely to an isolated section of this Complaint.

COUNT I 

NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE

TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 47 U.S.C. § 227

42. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants and their agents 

constitute numerous and multiple negligent violations of the TCPA, including but 

not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227.

43. As a result of the negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 by 

Defendants and their agents, Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award 

of $500 in statutory damages for each and every call in violation of the statute, 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).

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

relief prohibiting Defendants’, and their agents,’ violation of the TCPA in the future.

45. Plaintiffs and Class members are also entitled to an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 

COUNT II 

KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE

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

46. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants and their agents 

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

including but not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227. 

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00032-RLM-PRC document 1 filed 04/18/16 page 9 of 11
10

47. As a result of Defendants’, and their agents’, knowing and/or willful 

violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, Plaintiff and each member of the Class is entitled to 

treble damages of up to $1,500 for each and every call in violation of the statute, 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

48. Plaintiff and all Class members are also entitled to and do seek 

injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendants and 

their agents in the future. 

49. Plaintiffs and Class members are also entitled to an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, 

respectfully requests an order certifying this matter as a class action with Plaintiff

as class representative and her counsel as class counsel; and entry of a judgment in 

favor of Plaintiff, including an award of all available common-law and statutory 

damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, punitive damages, 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and all other just and proper relief.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff respectfully demands a jury trial on all of her claims. 

/s/ Eric S. Pavlack

Eric S. Pavlack, #21773-49

PAVLACK LAW, LLC

255 N. Alabama St., Ste. 301

Indianapolis, IN 46204

(317) 251-1100

Eric@PavlackLawFirm.com

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00032-RLM-PRC document 1 filed 04/18/16 page 10 of 11
11

James R. Schrier

Renaissance Place, Sixth Floor

250 Main Street, Suite 601

P.O. Box 280

Lafayette, IN 47902-0280

(765) 423-5333

jrs@rtslawfirm.com

Jason R. Reese, #20330-64

Stephen M. Wagner, #18248-49

WAGNER REESE LLP

11939 North Meridian Street

Carmel, IN 46032

(317) 569-0000

JReese@wagnerreese.com

SWagner@wagnerreese.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF &

PROPOSED PLAINTIFF CLASS

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00032-RLM-PRC document 1 filed 04/18/16 page 11 of 11