UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

DENNIS R. SERAMUR d/b/a DENNIS & 

SONS BUILDERS, individually and as the 

representative of a class of similarly-situated 

persons,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROTOBRUSH INTERNATIONAL LLC,

PROFAX, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00277

 

CLASS ACTION

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, DENNIS R. SERAMUR d/b/a DENNIS & SONS BUILDERS (“Plaintiff”), 

brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, through his attorneys, and 

except as to those allegations pertaining to Plaintiff or his attorneys, which allegations are based 

upon personal knowledge, alleges the following upon information and belief against Defendants, 

ROTOBRUSH INTERNATIONAL LLC, PROFAX, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5

(“Defendants”):

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This case challenges Defendants’ practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

2. The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk 

Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 USC § 227 (“JFPA” or the “Act”), and the regulations 

promulgated under the Act, prohibit a person or entity from faxing or having an agent fax 

advertisements without the recipient’s prior express invitation or permission. The JFPA provides 

a private right of action and provides statutory damages of $500 per violation. Upon information 

and belief, Defendants have sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 1 of 20
2

Plaintiff and the Class in violation of the JFPA, including, but not limited to, the facsimile 

transmission of five unsolicited advertisements on or about May 11, 2016, May 23, 2016, May 

24, 2016, and June 7, 2016 (“the Faxes”), true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as

group Exhibit A, and made a part hereof. The Faxes describe the commercial availability or 

quality of Defendants’ products, goods and services. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon 

such information and belief avers, that Defendants have sent, and continue to send, unsolicited 

advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the JFPA, including but not limited to 

those advertisements sent to Plaintiff.

3. Unsolicited faxes damage their recipients. A junk fax recipient loses the use of its 

fax machine, paper, and ink toner. An unsolicited fax wastes the recipient’s valuable time that 

would have been spent on something else. A junk fax interrupts the recipient’s privacy.

Unsolicited faxes prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for 

authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the recipients’ fax machines, and 

require additional labor to attempt to discern the source and purpose of the unsolicited message. 

4. On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff brings this case as 

a class action asserting claims against Defendants under the JFPA. Plaintiff seeks to certify a 

class including faxes sent to Plaintiff and other advertisements sent without prior opt-out 

language or without prior express invitation or permission, whether sent to Plaintiff or not.

5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief avers, 

that this action is based upon a common nucleus of operative facts because the facsimile 

transmissions at issue were and are being done in the same or similar manner. This action is 

based on the same legal theory, namely liability under the JFPA. This action seeks relief 

expressly authorized by the JFPA: (i) injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, their employees, 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 2 of 20
3

agents, representatives, contractors, affiliates, and all persons and entities acting in concert with 

them, from sending unsolicited advertisements in violation of the JFPA; and (ii) an award of 

statutory damages in the minimum amount of $500 for each violation of the JFPA, and to have 

such damages trebled, as provided by § 227(b)(3) of the Act.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 47 U.S.C. § 

227.

7. This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants transact 

business within this judicial district, have made contacts within this judicial district, and/or have 

committed tortious acts within this judicial district.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff, DENNIS R. SERAMUR, is an Indiana resident who does business as 

Dennis & Sons Builders. 

9. On information and belief, Defendant, ROTOBRUSH INTERNATIONAL LLC,

is a Delaware Limited Liability Company.

10. On information and belief, Defendant, PROFAX, INC., is a New York 

corporation. PROFAX, INC. is a fax broadcaster with a “high degree of involvement” in the 

sending of the unsolicited fax advertisements at issue in this case, and therefore a responsible 

party. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.

11. John Does 1-5 will be identified through discovery, but are not presently known.

FACTS

12. On information and belief, on or about May 11, 2016, May 23, 2016, May 24, 

2016 and June 7, 2016, Defendants transmitted by telephone facsimile machine five unsolicited 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 3 of 20
4

facsimiles to Plaintiff. Copies of the facsimiles are attached hereto as group Exhibit A.

13. On information and belief, Defendants receive some or all of the revenues from 

the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A, and Defendants profit and 

benefit from the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A.

14. Plaintiff had not invited or given permission to Defendants to send the faxes.

15. On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited 

facsimiles without the required opt-out language to Plaintiff and more than 25 other recipients or 

sent the same and other advertisements by fax with the required opt-out language but without 

first receiving the recipients’ express invitation or permission.

16. There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other class member) to avoid 

receiving unauthorized faxes. Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the urgent 

communications their owners desire to receive. 

17. Defendants’ facsimiles attached as group Exhibit A do not display a proper optout notice as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

18. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this

class action pursuant to the JFPA, on behalf of the following class of persons:

All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this 

action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material 

advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, 

goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) from 

which Defendants did not have prior express invitation or 

permission, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their employees, agents and members of the

Judiciary. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class which include but are not limited to the fax 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 4 of 20
5

advertisements sent to Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition upon 

completion of class certification discovery.

19. Class Size (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)): Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon 

such information and belief avers, that the number of persons and entities of the Plaintiff Class is 

numerous and joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

upon such information and belief avers, that the number of class members is at least forty.

20. Commonality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (2)): Common questions of law and fact 

apply to the claims of all class members. Common material questions of fact and law include, but 

are not limited to, the following:

(a) Whether the Defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements;

(b) Whether Defendants’ faxes sent to other persons, not the Plaintiff, 

constitute advertisements; 

(c) Whether the Defendants’ faxes advertised the commercial availability or 

quality of property, goods, or services;

(d) The manner and method the Defendants used to compile or obtain the list 

of fax numbers to which they sent Exhibit A, other unsolicited faxed advertisements or 

other advertisements without the required opt-out language;

(e) Whether the Defendants faxed advertisements without first obtaining the 

recipient's prior invitation or permission;

(f) Whether the Defendants sent the faxed advertisements knowingly;

(g) Whether the Defendants violated the provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 and 

the regulations promulgated thereunder;

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 5 of 20
6

(h) Whether the faxes contain an “opt-out notice” that complies with the 

requirements of § (b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder,

and the effect of the failure to comply with such requirements;

(i) Whether the Defendants should be enjoined from faxing advertisements in 

the future;

(j) Whether the Plaintiff and the other members of the class are entitled to 

statutory damages; and

(k) Whether the Court should award treble damages.

21. Typicality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (3)): The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the 

claims of all class members. The Plaintiff received the same or similar faxes as the faxes sent by 

or on behalf of the Defendants advertising products, goods and services of the Defendants during 

the Class Period. The Plaintiff is making the same claims and seeking the same relief for himself

and all class members based upon the same federal statute. The Defendants have acted in the 

same or in a similar manner with respect to the Plaintiff and all the class members by sending 

Plaintiff and each member of the class the same or similar faxes or faxes which did not contain 

the proper opt-out language or were sent without prior express invitation or permission.

22. Fair and Adequate Representation (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4)): The Plaintiff will 

fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. He is interested in this 

matter, has no conflicts, and has retained experienced class counsel to represent the class.

23. Need for Consistent Standards and Practical Effect of Adjudication (Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23 (b) (1)): Class certification is appropriate because the prosecution of individual actions by 

class members would: (a) create the risk of inconsistent adjudications that could establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) as a practical matter, 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 6 of 20
7

adjudication of the Plaintiff's claims will be dispositive of the interests of class members who are 

not parties.

24. Common Conduct (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2)): Class certification is also 

appropriate because the Defendants have acted and refused to act in the same or similar manner 

with respect to all class members thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate. 

The Plaintiff demands such relief as authorized by 47 U.S.C. §227.

25. Predominance and Superiority (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (3)): Common questions of 

law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class 

action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy 

because: 

(a) Proof of the claims of the Plaintiff will also prove the claims of the class 

without the need for separate or individualized proceedings;

(b) Evidence regarding defenses or any exceptions to liability that the 

Defendants may assert and attempt to prove will come from the Defendants’ records and 

will not require individualized or separate inquiries or proceedings;

(c) The Defendants have acted and are continuing to act pursuant to common 

policies or practices in the same or similar manner with respect to all class members;

(d) The amount likely to be recovered by individual class members does not 

support individual litigation. A class action will permit a large number of relatively small 

claims involving virtually identical facts and legal issues to be resolved efficiently in one 

proceeding based upon common proofs; and

(e) This case is inherently manageable as a class action in that:

(i) The Defendants identified persons to receive the fax transmissions 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 7 of 20
8

and it is believed that the Defendants’ and/or Defendants’ agents’ computers and 

business records will enable the Plaintiff to readily identify class members and 

establish liability and damages;

(ii) Liability and damages can be established for the Plaintiff and the 

class with the same common proofs;

(iii) Statutory damages are provided for in the statute and are the same 

for all class members and can be calculated in the same or a similar manner;

(iv) A class action will result in an orderly and expeditious 

administration of claims and it will foster economics of time, effort and expense;

(v) A class action will contribute to uniformity of decisions 

concerning the Defendants’ practices; and

(vi) As a practical matter, the claims of the class are likely to go 

unaddressed absent class certification. 

Claim for Relief for Violation of the JFPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.

26. The JFPA makes it unlawful for any person to “use any telephone facsimile 

machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited 

advertisement . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).

27. The JFPA defines “unsolicited advertisement” as “any material advertising the 

commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any 

person without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.” 47 

U.S.C. § 227 (a) (5).

28. Opt-Out Notice Requirements. The JFPA strengthened the prohibitions against 

the sending of unsolicited advertisements by requiring, in § (b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that senders 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 8 of 20
9

of faxed advertisements place a clear and conspicuous notice on the first page of the transmission 

that contains the following among other things (hereinafter collectively the “Opt-Out Notice 

Requirements”):

(1) A statement that the recipient is legally entitled to opt-out of receiving 

future faxed advertisements – knowing that he or she has the legal right to request an optout gives impetus for recipients to make such a request, if desired;

(2) A statement that the sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within 

30 days and the sender’s failure to do so is unlawful – thereby encouraging recipients to 

opt-out, if they did not want future faxes, by advising them that their opt-out requests will 

have legal “teeth”;

(3) A statement advising the recipient that he or she may opt-out with respect 

to all of his or her facsimile telephone numbers and not just the ones that receive a faxed 

advertisement from the sender – thereby instructing a recipient on how to make a valid 

opt-out request for all of his or her fax machines;

(4) The opt-out language must be conspicuous. 

The requirement of (1) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act. The 

requirement of (2) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act and the rules and 

regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) in ¶ 31 of its 2006 Report 

and Order (In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, Junk Prevention Act of 2005, 21 F.C.C.R. 3787, 2006 WL 901720, which rules 

and regulations took effect on August 1, 2006). The requirements of (3) above are contained in 

§ (b)(2)(E) of the Act and incorporated into the Opt-Out Notice Requirements via § (b)(2)(D)(ii).

Compliance with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements is neither difficult nor costly. The Opt-Out 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 9 of 20
10

Notice Requirements are important consumer protections bestowed by Congress upon the 

owners of the telephone lines and fax machines giving them the right, and means, to stop 

unwanted faxed advertisements. 

29. 2006 FCC Report and Order. The JFPA, in § (b)(2) of the Act, directed the 

FCC to implement regulations regarding the JFPA, including the JFPA’s Opt-Out Notice 

Requirements and the FCC did so in its 2006 Report and Order, which in addition provides 

among other things:

A. The definition of, and the requirements for, an established business 

relationship for purposes of the first of the three prongs of an exemption to liability under 

§ (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and provides that the lack of an “established business 

relationship” precludes the ability to invoke the exemption contained in § (b)(1)(C) of the 

Act (See 2006 Report and Order ¶¶ 8-12 and 17-20);

B. The required means by which a recipient’s facsimile telephone number 

must be obtained for purposes of the second of the three prongs of the exemption under 

§ (b)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act and provides that the failure to comply with these requirements 

precludes the ability to invoke the exemption contained in § (b)(1)(C) of the Act (See

2006 Report and Order ¶¶ 13-16);

C. The things that must be done in order to comply with the Opt-Out Notice 

Requirements for the purposes of the third of the three prongs of the exemption under § 

(b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act and provides that the failure to comply with these requirements 

precludes the ability to invoke the exemption contained in § (b)(1)(C) of the Act (See

2006 Report and Order ¶¶ 24-34);

D. The failure of a sender to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 10 of 20
11

precludes the sender from claiming that a recipient gave “prior express invitation or 

permission” to receive the sender’s fax (See Report and Order ¶ 48).

As a result thereof, a sender of a faxed advertisement who fails to comply with the OptOut Notice Requirements has, by definition, transmitted an unsolicited advertisement under the 

JFPA. This is because such a sender can neither claim that the recipients of the faxed 

advertisement gave “prior express invitation or permission” to receive the fax nor can the sender 

claim the exemption from liability contained in § (b)(C)(1) of the Act.

30. The Faxes. Defendants sent the advertisements on or about May 11, 2016, May 

23, 2016, May 24, 2016 and June 7, 2016, via facsimile transmission from telephone facsimile 

machines, computers, or other devices to the telephone lines and facsimile machines of Plaintiff 

and members of the Plaintiff Class. The Faxes constituted advertisements under the Act.

Defendants failed to comply with the Opt-Out Requirements in connection with the Faxes. The 

Faxes were transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express invitation or permission

and/or Defendants are precluded from asserting any prior express invitation or permission or that 

Defendants had an established business relationship with Plaintiff and other members of the 

class, because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements. By virtue thereof, 

Defendants violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder by sending the Faxes

via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff and members of the Class. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class 

which includes these faxes and all others sent during the four years prior to the filing of this case 

through the present.

31. Defendants’ Other Violations. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such 

information and belief avers, that during the period preceding four years of the filing of this 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 11 of 20
12

Complaint and repeatedly thereafter, Defendants have sent via facsimile transmission from 

telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to telephone facsimile machines of 

members of the Plaintiff Class other faxes that constitute advertisements under the JFPA that 

were transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express invitation or permission

(and/or that Defendants are precluded from asserting any prior express invitation or permission

or that Defendants had an established business relationship because of the failure to comply with 

the Opt-Out Notice Requirements in connection with such transmissions). By virtue thereof, 

Defendants violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff is informed 

and believes, and upon such information and belief avers, that Defendants may be continuing to 

send unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the JFPA and the 

regulations promulgated thereunder, and absent intervention by this Court, will do so in the 

future.

32. The TCPA/JFPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf 

of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class to redress Defendants’ violations of the Act, and provides for 

statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The Act also provides that injunctive relief is 

appropriate. Id.

33. The JFPA is a strict liability statute, so the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff 

and the other class members even if their actions were only negligent.

34. The Defendants knew or should have known that (a) the Plaintiff and the other 

class members had not given express invitation or permission for the Defendants or anybody else 

to fax advertisements about the Defendants’ products, goods or services; (b) the Plaintiff and the 

other class members did not have an established business relationship; (c) Defendants 

transmitted advertisements; (d) the Faxes did not contain the required Opt-Out Notice; and (e) 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 12 of 20
13

Defendants’ transmission of advertisements that did not contain the required opt-out notice or 

were sent without prior express invitation or permission was unlawful.

35. The Defendants’ actions caused damages to the Plaintiff and the other class 

members. Receiving the Defendants’ junk faxes caused the recipients to lose paper and toner 

consumed in the printing of the Defendants’ faxes. Moreover, the Defendants’ faxes used the 

Plaintiff's and the other class members’ telephone lines and fax machine. The Defendants’ faxes

cost the Plaintiff and the other class members time, as the Plaintiff and the other class members 

and their employees wasted their time receiving, reviewing and routing the Defendants’ 

unauthorized faxes. That time otherwise would have been spent on the Plaintiff's and the other 

class members’ business activities. The Defendants’ faxes unlawfully interrupted the Plaintiff's 

and other class members’ privacy interests in being left alone.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DENNIS R. SERAMUR d/b/a DENNIS & SONS BUILDERS,

individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, demands judgment in its favor and 

against Defendants, ROTOBRUSH INTERNATIONAL LLC, PROFAX, INC. and JOHN DOES 

1-5, jointly and severally, as follows:

A. That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be properly 

maintained as a class action, appoint the Plaintiff as the representative of the class, and appoint 

the Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for the class;

B. That the Court award actual monetary loss from such violations or the sum of five 

hundred dollars ($500) for each violation, whichever is greater; 

C. That Court enjoin the Defendants from additional violations; and

D. That the Court award pre-judgment interest, costs, and such further relief as the 

Court may deem just and proper.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 13 of 20
14

Respectfully submitted,

DENNIS R. SERAMUR d/b/a DENNIS & SONS 

BUILDERS, individually and as the representative 

of a class of similarly-situated persons,

By: s/Brian J. Wanca

Brian J. Wanca

ANDERSON + WANCA

Brian J. Wanca

Ryan M. Kelly

3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500

Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

Telephone: 847-368-1500

Fax: 847-368-1501

Email: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

 rkelly@andersonwanca.com

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 14 of 20
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 15 of 20
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 16 of 20
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 17 of 20
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 18 of 20
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 19 of 20
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00277-JVB-PRC document 21 filed 09/19/16 page 20 of 20