UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

MELISSA WILKES and BENJAMIN 

WILKES, on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

CARESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

GROUP CO., and CARESOURCE 

INDIANA, INC.,

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:16-cv-38

CLASS ACTION

JURY DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiffs and proposed Class Representatives Melissa Wilkes and 

Benjamin Wilkes, by counsel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarlysituated, bring this proposed class action against Defendants CareSource 

Management Group Co. and CareSource Indiana, Inc. (collectively “CareSource”), to 

recover damages and to obtain injunctive relief for the claims identified in full 

below. 

2. As set forth in more detail below, CareSource used automatic 

telephone dialing systems to initiate calls to wireless cellular telephone lines of 

Plaintiffs and Class members using an artificial and/or prerecorded voice to deliver 

a message without prior express consent of the called party in violation of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the “TCPA”).

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC document 1 filed 05/11/16 page 1 of 11
2

3. Plaintiffs bring 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 wireless cellular telephone lines in violation of the TCPA, 

seeking monetary and injunctive relief. 

PARTIES

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

Indiana, residing in Lafayette, Indiana.

5. Plaintiffs Benjamin Wilkes is a citizen and resident of the State of 

Indiana, residing in Lafayette, Indiana.

6. Defendant CareSource Management Group Co. is a not-for-profit 

corporation incorporated in the state of Ohio.

7. Defendant CareSource Indiana, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation, 

incorporated in the state of Indiana. CareSource Indiana, Inc. is a wholly owned 

subsidiary of CareSource Management Group Co.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

8. 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.

9. 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.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC document 1 filed 05/11/16 page 2 of 11
3

10. 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 

CareSource’s violations of the TCPA. 

11. 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.

12. Venue is also proper in this court because Plaintiffs are citizens of 

Indiana who reside in this district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Plaintiffs received health insurance coverage from CareSource 

Indiana, Inc., in 2013, 2014, and a portion of 2015.

14. In or about November 2015, Plaintiffs terminated their health 

insurance coverage with CareSource Indiana, Inc., and otherwise ended their 

relationship with CareSource Indiana, Inc.

15. On or about April 27, 2016, CareSource placed a call from a number 

listed as (844) 585–5459 to a cellular telephone paid for jointly by Melissa Wilkes 

and Benjamin Wilkes, which was primarily used by Melissa Wilkes. The call used 

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC document 1 filed 05/11/16 page 3 of 11
4

an artificial and/or prerecorded voice and was directed to Melissa Wilkes. The call 

stated: “Hello, this is CareSource calling for Melissa. We have some important 

information to share, so please call us back toll free at 1–844–585–5459; again the 

number 1–844–585–5459.”

16. Upon receiving the call, Melissa Wilkes called 1–844–585–5459. She 

was routed to an automated message, the purpose of which was to offer her health 

insurance coverage for the 2016 calendar year, even though she had already 

cancelled her coverage prior to the call and had not requested coverage from 

CareSource for 2016. 

17. The aforementioned call was not the first call from (844) 585–5459 to 

the cellular telephone line paid for by Melissa Wilkes and Benjamin Wilkes. On 

approximately ten prior occasions, calls were made from (844) 585–5459 to that 

cellular telephone. The calls were sometimes addressed to Melissa Wilkes (as with 

the April 27, 2016 call) and other times addressed to Benjamin Wilkes. Not every 

prior call was answered. In each instance that a call was answered, the call was 

placed by an autodialing system and utilized an artificial and/or prerecorded voice. 

In each instance, the recording was substantially identical to the one received on or 

about April 27, 2016, described above.

18. Under the TCPA, the term telemarketing means the initiation of a 

telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, 

or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC document 1 filed 05/11/16 page 4 of 11
5

19. The calls from CareSource fit squarely within this definition, as the 

purpose of the calls from CareSource was to encourage the purchase of goods or 

services.

20. Neither Melissa Wilkes nor Benjamin Wilkes requested health 

insurance coverage or information about health insurance coverage from 

CareSource for the 2016 calendar year. CareSource’s attempt to bind such coverage 

amounted to a completely unsolicited offer for goods and/or services. 

21. Neither Melissa Wilkes nor Benjamin Wilkes have provided prior 

written or oral consent for CareSource to place calls to the aforementioned cellular 

telephone line using an artificial and/or prerecorded voice.

22. Any consent received by CareSource 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), or otherwise satisfy any prior express requirements applicable under the 

TCPA.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

23. Plaintiffs bring this case pursuant to Rules 23(b)(3) of the Federal

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

defined as:

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC document 1 filed 05/11/16 page 5 of 11
6

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 an artificial or prerecorded voice, 

which call was not made for emergency purposes.

24. Defendants and their employees and agents are excluded from the 

Class. 

25. The Class is comprised of hundreds or likely 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 CareSource’s

records. 

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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 CareSource used an artificial or prerecorded voice in 

placing calls.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC document 1 filed 05/11/16 page 6 of 11
7

B. Whether CareSource received consent from Plaintiffs and Class 

members prior to placing calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiffs and 

Class members.

C. Whether any purported consent received by CareSource

complied with the requirements set forth by the Federal Communications 

Commission and/or the TCPA.

D. Whether CareSource acted willfully and/or knowingly in 

violation of the TCPA.

29. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Plaintiffs and 

Class members have similarly received calls from CareSource to cellular telephones 

owned by Plaintiffs and Class members, and Plaintiffs and Class members suffered 

the same harm arising from CareSource’s legal violations as identified in causes of 

action enumerated and set forth below. 

30. Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ claims flow, in each instance, from a 

common nucleus of operative facts: CareSource’s legal violations as identified in 

causes of action enumerated and set forth below. 

31. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because their

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

members they seeks to represent. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of the Class.

32. Plaintiffs have retained competent and experienced counsel.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC document 1 filed 05/11/16 page 7 of 11
8

33. Plaintiffs and Class members have all suffered and will continue to 

suffer substantial harm and damages due to CareSource’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 

CareSource’s misconduct will proceed without remedy. 

34. 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, CareSource has acted, and failed to act, on grounds 

generally applicable to Plaintiffs and the Class, requiring court imposition of 

uniform relief to insure compatible standards of conduct toward Plaintiffs and the 

Class.

CAUSES OF ACTION

35. 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. 

Unless otherwise specified, no fact is to be read as though applying solely to an 

isolated section of this Complaint.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC document 1 filed 05/11/16 page 8 of 11
9

COUNT I 

NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE

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

36. 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.

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

Defendants and their agents, Plaintiffs 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).

38. Plaintiffs and Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive 

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

39. 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 

40. 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. 

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

violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, Plaintiffs and each member of the Class are 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).

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC document 1 filed 05/11/16 page 9 of 11
10

42. Plaintiffs 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. 

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

attorneys’ fees and costs.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated, respectfully request an order certifying this matter as a class action with 

Plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel as class counsel; and entry of a 

judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, 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

Plaintiffs respectfully demand a jury trial on all of their claims. 

/s/ Eric S. Pavlack

Eric S. Pavlack

PAVLACK LAW, LLC

255 N. Alabama St., Ste. 301

Indianapolis, IN 46204

(317) 251-1100

Eric@PavlackLawFirm.com

James R. Schrier

REILING TEDER & SCHRIER, LLC

Renaissance Place, Sixth Floor

250 Main Street, Suite 601

P.O. Box 280

Lafayette, IN 47902-0280

(765) 423-5333

jrs@rtslawfirm.com

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC document 1 filed 05/11/16 page 10 of 11
11

Jason R. Reese

Stephen M. Wagner

WAGNER REESE LLP

11939 North Meridian Street

Carmel, IN 46032

(317) 569-0000

JReese@wagnerreese.com

SWagner@wagnerreese.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS &

PROPOSED PLAINTIFF CLASS

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC document 1 filed 05/11/16 page 11 of 11