3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

l (J 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

l 9 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER HUGHSON, ) Case No. 3:15-cv-01324-SB 

PLAINTIFF, 

V. 

LOCAL LIGHTHOUSE CORPORATION; 

DEFENDANT. 

) 

) 

) PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED 

) COMPLAINT 

) 

) (1) Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 

) U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 

) (2) ORS § 646.569 

) 

) 

) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

) 

) Claim Under $10,000 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~) 

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT 

1. Plaintiff Christopher Hughson brings this Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 

against Defendant Local Lighthouse Corporation to put an end to its unlawful practice of placing 

unsolicited telemarketing calls. Plaintiff seeks damages, including interest, costs and all other 

legal or equitable relief resulting from the illegal actions of Local Lighthouse Corporation in 

negligently and/or knowingly and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on his personal cell phone 

without prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227 et seq., ("TCPA") and Oregon Telemarketing restrictions (ORS§ 646.569). 

2. Automatic telephone dialing systems are capable of delivering a large number of 

artificial or prerecorded voice messages to cellular phones, homes and businesses in a short 

period oftime. For this reason, such systems are widely used for a variety of commercial and 

non-commercial purposes. In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA to respond to a growing 

Pagel of 12 - PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 12
number of consumer complaints about telemarketing. The TCP A was enacted to regulate, 

1 

2 among other things, the use of automated telephone equipment and the use of automated voice 

3 messages to make non-emergency telephone calls to consumers without their prior express 

4 consent. These types of unsolicited and unauthorized telephone calls are inconvenient, 

bothersome, annoying, harassing, and can be costly to consumers. 

6 3. Pursuant to the TCP A, using any automatic telephone dialing system or an 

7 artificial or pre-recorded voice to make non-emergency telephone calls to a cellular telephone is 

8 prohibited unless the consumer has given prior express consent. The TCP A empowers the 

9 

Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to promulgate rules to achieve the purposes of 

10 

the TCP A. The FCC has consistently reiterated in its 2012 Report and Order and Declaratory 

11 

Rulings that auto-dialed or pre-recorded telephone calls to a cellular telephone numbers are 

12 

prohibited unless made with "prior express consent" of the consumer. See e.g., In the Matter of 

13 

14 

Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, FCC 

15 Report and Order, CG Docket No. 02-278 (Fed. 15, 2012). 

16 4. The TCPA provides a private remedy for violations of section 227(b )(1 )(A) and 

17 its regulations. In particular, section 227(b)(3) provides that a person "may bring an action to 

18 recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each 

19 such violation, whichever is greater" and "If the court finds that the defendant willfully or 

2G knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court 

21 

may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 

22 

times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. 47 USC§ 227(b)(3)(A)-

23 

(C) . 

.2 4 

25 

Page 2of12 -PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

. , 

v 

21 

22 

23 

25 

5. Plaintiff received at least three non-emergency telephone calls on his cell phone 

from Defendant via an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or pre-recorded 

voice. Plaintiff did not give prior express consent to received these telephone calls. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. The Supreme Court of the United States determined that state and federal courts 

have concurrent jurisdiction over private actions brought under the TCP A. See Mims v. Arrow 

Financial Services, LLC, 565 US._ (2012). 

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, because it conducts 

significant amounts of business in this State and the unlawful conduct alleged in the Complaint 

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

8. Venue is proper because the unlawful acts alleged, including the unauthorized 

phone calls, occurred in Multnomah County, and the injury arose in Multnomah County. Venue 

is additionally proper because Plaintiff resides in this County. 

PARTIES 

9. Plaintiff Christopher Hughson is a natural person and citizen of the State of 

Oregon, residing in Multnomah County. 

10 . Defendant Local Lighthouse Corporation is a corporation existing under the laws 

of the State of California. Local Lighthouse Corporation conducts business throughout the State 

of Oregon. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

11. Defendant operates a call center in California to solicit consumers and business 

owners nationwide to purchase its web/SEO packages starting at $300 per month. 

Page 3 of 12 - PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 12
1 12. In order to reach more customers, Defendant uses an invasive and illegal method 

2 of reaching potential customers: unsolicited telemarketing known as "robocalling". 

3 13. Defendant or their agents place calls to consumers through their automated 

4 telephone dialing system, claiming that they are Google, and that a business listing or service 

s should be purchased. Defendant uses fake or "spoofed" Caller ID's, one of which is ( 458) 202-

6 0850 which disguise the actual number they are calling from. 

7 14. If a consumer tries to call the phone number back that called them, they will reach 

s an automated opt out line, which does not provide Defendants contact name or contact 

9 information and does not allow for a message to be left. This is one way Defendant's hide their 

JO identity. 

11 15. On May 29, 2015 at approximately 2:28 PM, Pacific Standard Time, Defendant or 

12 its agent placed a call to Plaintiffs cell phone. The call contained a prerecorded message 

13 claiming Defendant was Google and that Plaintiff needed to verify his contact information. 

14 16. On May 29, 2015, Plaintiff spoke to Defendant's representative, Colby who 

15 indicated Plaintiff had received the prerecorded messages because Defendant had a private 

16 contract with Google to ensure Plaintiffs contact information was listed correctly. Defendant 

i_ 7 has no contractual relationship with Google. 

18 17. On June 8, 2015 Defendant received correspondence from Plaintiff stating "Please 

19 immediately provide me with a copy of your do not call policy and remove my number from 

2 o your list!". 

21 18. On June 16, 2015 at approximately 3:29 PM, Pacific Standard Time, Defendant or 

2 2 its agent placed a call to Plaintiffs cell phone. The call contained a prerecorded message 

2 3 claiming Defendant was Google and that Plaintiff needed to verify his contact information. 

24 

Page 4 of 12 - PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 4 of 12
1 19. On June 18, 2015 at approximately 3:07 PM, Pacific Standard Time, Defendant 

2 or its agent placed another call to Plaintiffs cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing 

3 system and/or prerecorded voice. 

4 20. Defendant was not contracted by Google to contact consumers. 

21. Online consumer complaints regarding Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing 

6 calls state the following: 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

24 

25 

• Robo caller for SEO scam. It's not Google Adwords - it's a scammer company 

with a cheap "promise the moon" scam for "getting on the top page of Google" -

which is ALWAYS a scam claim. Block. block. block. 

• Google Ads. They have tons of robo numbers calling me. I saved them as Spam 

in my contacts and set the number to go directly to voicemail so I don't have to 

hear from them again. Problem is they keep calling from other numbers and 

wouldn't stop. Finally I decided to take one of their calls and tell a human to 

knock it off. After listening to all options, at the end you can press 2 to be 

removed from their list. I do that now with every call. Probably will take a while 

but perhaps it will stop. 

• Robocall. Calls repeatedly several times in a row, whether I answer or not. 

• Calls my company 10 -12 times a day - robo caller. It was saying urgent to talk to 

owner. .. .! finally pressed 1 and got a person that wanted me to buy Google space. 

When I said remove me from the calling list now! a woman said - f*** off and 

hung up 458-202-0850 is the number that showed on caller ID.called, recorded 

vm ..... => waste of time 

• Number show call from Bend Oregon. No message left. Why are they allowed to 

call when on the DO NOT CALL registry. 

• Spammers claiming to be from google places wanting to update my business 

listing. Hung up when I asked them if they actually work for Google. 

• I've pressed 2 to be removed & also called back & followed prompts to be 

removed. Doesn't work. They keep calling. What a nuisance. Wish my 

phone/service had an option to block phone number. 

• "Hello ... my name is Kate ... a Google Plus expert .... blah, blah .. " Hung up. Has 

called 4-5 times so far. 

• Same as above. Google spam crap. Google ain't no angel - but I doubt this is 

from google 

Page 5of12 - PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 5 of 12
l 

2 

3 

4 

s 

6 

7 

g 

9 

l 0 

11 

J 2 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22. 

• Scam. Says they are from Google Plus. Just so happens that I am in SEO 

marketing. I pressed all the numbers to get to a human. Asked them how they got 

my number in the first place. They asked me if I was the business owner of my 

google listing. I told them yes, actually I was. They wanted to "update" my listing 

because it was out of date and wanted my CC info to do that. When I told them 

they were full of crap, Google doesn't work that way, that my business didn't have 

this phone number, they were scam artists, they hung up on me. 

(Source: http://800notes.com/Phone.aspxll-458-202-0850/2) 

This telemarketing sequence, from beginning to end, was designed to hide the real 

identify of the company behind the telemarketer since the company did not have consent to call 

the consumers in the first place. 

23. Plaintiff's cell phone number has been registered on the do not call registry since 

March 11, 2010. 

24. Plaintiff did not provide his prior express consent to be called by Defendant and 

did not interact with Defendant in any way prior to receiving a call from them. 

25. Defendant is and was aware that it is placing unsolicited robocalls to Plaintiff and 

other consumers without their prior written consent. 

COUNT I 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 

(47 u.s.c. § 227) 

26. Plaintiff adopts by reference all of the allegations above. 

27. By making, or having made on its behalf, unsolicited calls via an automatic 

telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or pre-recorded voice to Plaintiff's cell phone 

without prior written consent, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(l)(A)(iii) and 47 U.S.C. § 

Page 6of12 - PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 6 of 12
227(b )(1 )(B). As a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual damages in 

1 

2 

the form of monies paid to receive unsolicited calls and, under Section 227 (b)(3)(B), is entitled 

3 to a minimum of $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the TCP A. 

4 28. To the extent Defendant's misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, 

s the Court should, pursuant to Section 227(b )(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages 

6 recoverable 

7 29. None of Defendants phone calls were made for emergency purposes or made 

8 with the prior express consent of Plaintiff. 

9 

l CJ 

COUNT II 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 

12 

(47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)) 

13 

30. Plaintiff adopts by reference all of the allegations above. 

14 

31. 47 U.S.C. §227 (c) provides that any person "who has received more than one 

15 

16 telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the 

17 regulations prescribed under this subsection may," bring a private action based on a violation of 

18 said regulations, which regulations were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers' privacy 

19 rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. 

20 32. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act's implementing regulation, 47 

~ 1 

L1- C.F.R.§64.1200 (c), provides that "No person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation" 

22 to" ... (2) A residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on 

23 

the national do- not- call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations 

24 

that is maintained by the federal government." 

Page 7 of 12 - PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 7 of 12
l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

1 r ~J 

16 

17 

18 

19 

2U 

21 

24 

25 

33. 47 C.F.R. §64.1200 (d) further provides that "No person or entity shall initiate 

any call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or 

entity has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive 

telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must 

meet the following minimum standards: 

( 1) Written policy. Persons or entitles making calls for telemarketing purposes must have 

a written policy, available upon demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list. 

(2) Training of personnel engaged in telemarketing. Personnel engaged in any aspect of 

telemarketing must be informed and trained in the existence and use of the do-not-call 

list. 

(3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or entity making a call for 

telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such a call is made) receives a request from a 

residential telephone subscriber not to receive calls from that person or entity, the person 

or entity must record the request and place the subscriber's name, if provided, and 

telephone number on the do not- call list at the time the request is made. Persons or 

entities making calls for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such calls are made) 

must honor a residential subscriber's do- not- call request within a reasonable time from 

the date such request is made. This period may not exceed thirty days from the date of 

such request. 

( 4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or entity making a call for 

telemarketing purposes must provide the called party with the name of the individual 

caller, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, and a 

telephone number or address at which the person or entity may be contacted. The 

telephone number provided may not be a 900 number or any other number for which 

charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. 

(5) Affiliated persons or entities. In the absence of a specific request by the subscriber to 

the contrary, a residential subscriber's do-not-call request shall apply to the particular 

business entity making the call (or on whose behalf a call is made), and will not apply to 

affiliated entities unless the consumer reasonably would expect them to be included given 

the identification of the caller and the product being advertised. 

(6) Maintenance of do-not-call lists. A person or entity making calls for telemarketing 

purposes must maintain a record of a consumer's request not to receive further 

telemarketing calls. A do-not-call request must be honored for 5 years from the time the 

request is made. 

Page 8 of 12 - PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 8 of 12
1 

2 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

l1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

34. 47 C.F.R. §64.1200 (e), provides that §64.1200 (c) and (d) "are applicable to any 

person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone 

numbers to the extent described in the Commission's Report and Order, CO Docket No. 02-278, 

FCC 03- IS3, 'Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991,'" which Report and Order in tum, provides as follows: 

The Commission's rules provide that companies making telephone solicitations to 

residential telephone subscribers must comply with time of day restrictions and must 

institute procedures for maintaining do-not-call lists. For the reasons described above, we 

conclude that these rules apply to calls made to wireless telephone numbers. We believe 

that wireless subscribers should be afforded the same protections as wireline subscribers. 

35. Defendant violated § 64.1200( c) by initiating telephone solicitations to wireless 

and residential telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff, who registered his telephone number on 

the National Do Not Call Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone 

solicitations that is maintained by the federal government. Plaintiff requested not to receive calls 

from Defendant, as set forth in §64.1200(d)(3). 

36. Defendant and/or its agents made unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff 

without his prior express consent to receive such calls. Plaintiff never provided any form of 

consent, at any time, to receive telephone calls from Defendant. 

3 7. Defendant violated § 64.1200( d) by initiating calls for telemarketing purposes to 

residential and wireless telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff, without instituting procedures 

that comply with the regulatory minimum standards for maintaining a list of persons who request 

not to receive telemarketing calls from them. 

38. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff received more than 

2 4 one telephone call within a 12-month period made by or on behalf of the Defendant in violation 

25 of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, 

Page 9of12 - PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 9 of 12
Plaintiff suffered actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), is entitled to receive up 

1 

2 

to $500 in damages for such violations of§ 64.1200. 

3 39. To the extent Defendant's misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, 

4 the Court should, pursuant to § 227( c )( 5), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable. 

s 

6 

COUNT III 

7 PROHIBITION ON TELEPHONE SOLICITATION OF TELEPHONE NUMBER ON 

FEDERAL DO NOT CALL REGISTRY 

8 

9 (ORS§ 646.569) 

10 40. Plaintiff adopts by reference all of the allegations above. 

11 41. By making, or having made on its behalf, telephone solicitations of a party at a 

12 telephone number included on the federal do-not-call registry, Defendant violated ORS § 

13 646.608(ft) and ORS§ 646.569. As a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered 

14 actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive unsolicited calls and, under ORS § 

15 646.638(1) is entitled to a minimum of $200 in statutory damages. 

16 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

18 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Christopher Hughson respectfully requests relief against 

19 

Defendant Local Lighthouse Corporation as follows: 

20 

(A) For Count I, actual and statutory damages in the amount of $500 per violation and 

21 

22 

additional treble damages of $1,000 per violation; 

23 (B) For Count II, actual and statutory damages in the amount of $500 and additional 

2 4 treble damages of $1,000; 

25 (C) For Count III, actual and statutory damages in the amount of$200; 

Page 10 of 12 - PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 10 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

li 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(D) For all litigation expenses, and pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent 

allowable. 

(E) For any other relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court. 

(F) Awarding such other and further relief as equity and justice may require. 

(G) Plaintiff reserves the right to seek leave to amend his Complaint to assert punitive 

damages against Defendant. 

Dated: July 24, 2015 

4754 

Chr~n SW Admiral Street 

Portland, Oregon 97221 

chris@oregonrealtyadvisors.com 

Cell: (503) 703-6844 

Plaintiff 

Page 11of12 - PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 11 of 12
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

8 

9 

1_0 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

1 f) 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FIL£IJC.'7 JLl '1511 •""'"' · ;U r ~OC-IJRp 

I hereby certify that I caused to be service the foregoing Plaintiffs First Amended 

Complaint on the date indicated below, 

[ X] Via First-Class Mail with postage prepaid 

[ ] Via Facsimile Transmission 

[ ] Via Hand Delivery 

[ X] Via Email 

to the following person(s) a true copy thereof, contained in a sealed envelope (if other than 

facsimile or email transmission), addressed to said person(s) at their last known addresses 

indicated below: 

Christopher Weiss 

Stoel Rives, LLP 

600 University Street, Suite 3600 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Phone: 206-624-0900 

Fax: 206-386-7500 

Email: chris.weiss@stoel.com 

Dated: July 24, 2015 

Christopher Hughson 

4754 SW Admiral Street 

Portland, Oregon 97221 

chris@oregonrealtyadvisors.com 

Cell: (503) 703-6844 

Plaintiff 

Page 12of12 - PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:15-cv-01324-SB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 12 of 12