UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED

Plaintiff s Amended Co plaint

Parties

1. The Plaintiff is Craig Cunningham and natur l person and was present in Texas for all calls

in this case in Collin County at 3000 Custer Road, ste 270-206 Plano, Tx 75075.

2. Defendant Yakim Jordan ( Manasseh Jordan

Ministries ) is a natural person who can be served at 3401 NE 165th Street, North Miami

Beach, FL 33160 708 S1'4 Ave, Floor 6, New York, New York, 10017.

3. Kickback, Inc., dba Prank Dial is a New York Corporation and can be served via corporate

officer and registered agent Rifayet Saleh a natural person and corporate officer of Kickback,

Inc and can be served at 1 West Starlight Drive, Hopewell Junction, NY 12533

4. Rifayet Saleh is a natural person and corporate officer of Kickback, Inc and can be served at

1 West Starlight Drive, Hopewell Junction, NY 12533

5. Thinq Technologies, Inc. is a North Carolina corporation that is operating from 5420 Wade

Park Blvd., ste 100, Raleigh, NC 27607 and can be served via corporate officer Aaron Leon

5420 Wade Park Blvd., ste 100 Raleigh, NC 27607.

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 23
6. Aaron Leon is a natural person and can be served at 5420 Wade Park Blvd., ste 100 Raleigh,

NC 27607

7. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants conspired by means of mutual understanding, ei¬

ther expressly or impliedly, among themselves and others in engaging and/or planning to en¬

gage in the activities detailed herein to accomplish the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals,

and wrongdoing.

8. John/Jane Does 1-5 are other liable parties currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Jurisdiction. This Court has federal-question subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff s

TCPA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the TCPA is a federal statute. Mims v.

row Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 372 (2012). This Court has supplemental subject matter

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim arising under Texas Business and Commerce Code 305.053

because that claim: arises from the same nucleus of operative fact, i.e.. Defendants telemar¬

keting robocalls to Plaintiff; adds little complexity to the case; and doesn’t seek money dam¬

ages, so it is unlikely to predominate over the TCPA claims.

10. Personal Jurisdiction. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over the defendant be¬

cause they have repeatedly placed calls to Texas residents, and derive revenue from Texas

residents, and the actions of the corporate entities are directed from a Texas resident, Steven

Sledge.

11. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the calls at issue

were sent by or on behalf of the defendants knowingly to the Plaintiff after service of this

lawsuit on August 22nd, 2019 upon MJ Ministries Spreading the Gospel, Yakim Jordan and

several other defendants. These Defendants called the Plaintiff some 39 times after service of

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 24
this lawsuit, knowing they would reach a Texas resident and knowing that the Plaintiff didn t

want to recieve calls from them, including the very same number listed at the bottom of the

complaint.

12. Calling after being served with a lawsuit complainig about illegal robocalls is more than suf¬

ficient notice that the calls are unwanted and who they are calling. This is more than suffi¬

cient to establish personal jurisdiction.

13. Calling 100+ times over a year is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

14. Venue. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)( 1 )-(2) because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims the calls and sale of goods and serv¬

ices directed at Texas residents, including the Plaintiff occurred in this District and because

the Plaintiff resides in this District, residing in the Eastern District of Texas when he recieved a substantial if not every single call from the Defendants that are the subject matter of

this lawsuit.

15. This Court has venue over the defendants because the calls at issue were sent by or on behalf

of the above named defendants to the Plaintiff a Texas resident.

THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227

16. In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA in response to a growing number of consumer com¬

plaints regarding telemarketing.

17. The TCPA makes it unlawful to make any call (other than a call made for emergency pur¬

poses or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an automatic tele¬

phone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice ... to any telephone number as¬

signed to a ... cellular telephone service. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(l)(A)(iii).

18. The TCPA makes it unlawful “to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 25
using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent

of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes, is made solely pur¬

suant to the collection of debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States, or is exempted

by rule or order of the Federal Communication Commission ( FCC ). 47 U.S.C. §

227(b)(1)(B).

19. The TCPA provides a private cause of action to persons who receive calls in violation of §

227(b). 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

20. Separately, the TCPA bans making telemarketing calls without a do-not-call policy available

upon demand. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1).1

21. The TCPA provides a private cause of action to persons who receive calls in violation of §

227(c) or a regulation promulgated thereunder. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

22. According to findings of the FCC, the agency vested by Congress with authority to issue reg¬

ulations implementing the TCPA, automated or prerecorded telephone calls are a greater nui¬

sance and invasion of privacy than live solicitation calls and can be costly and inconvenient.

23. The FCC also recognizes that wireless customers are charged for incoming calls whether

they pay in advance or a ter the minutes are used. In re Rules and Regulations Implement¬

ing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 18 FCC Red. 14014, 14115 1 165 (2003).

24. The FCC requires “prior express written consent” for all autodialed or prerecorded telemar¬

keting robocalls to wireless numbers and residential lines. In particular: [A] consumer s writ¬

ten consent to receive telemarketing robocalls must be signed and be sufficient to show that

the consu er: (1) received clear and conspicuous disclosure of the consequences of provid¬

ing the requested consent, i.e., that the consumer will receive future calls that deliver prere1 See Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Parts 40 to 60, at 425 (2017) (codify¬

ing a June 26, 2003 FCC order).

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 26
corded messages by or on behalf of a specific seller; and (2) having received this infon ation, agrees unambiguously to receive such calls at a telephone number the consumer desig¬

nates. In addition, the written agreement must be obtained without requiring, directly or indi¬

rectly, that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service.

25. In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991,

27 FCC Red. 1830, 1844 33 (2012) (footnote and internal quotation marks omitted). FCC

regulations generally establish that the party on whose behalf a solicitation is made bears ul¬

timate responsibility for any violations. In the Matter of R les and Regulations Implement¬

ing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 10 FCC Red. 12391, 12397 13 (1995).

26. The FCC confirmed this principle in 2013, when it explained that a seller ... may be held vi¬

cariously liable under federal common law principles of agency for violations of either sec¬

tion 227(b) or section 227(c) that are committed by third-party telemarketers. the Matter

of the Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28 FCC Red. 6574, 6574 1 (2013).

27. Under the TCPA, a text message is a call. Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946,

951 -52 (9th Cir. 2009).

28. A corporate of icer involved in the telemarketing at issue may be personally liable under the

TCPA. E.g., Jackson Five Star Catering, Inc. v. Beason, Case No. 10-10010, 2013 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 159985, at 10 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2013) (“[MJany courts have held that corporate

actors can be individually liable for violating the TCPA where they had direct, personal par¬

ticipation in or personally authorized the conduct found to have violated the statute.” (inter¬

nal quotation marks omitted)); Maryland v. Universal Elections, 787 F. Supp. 2d 408, 415 -

16 (D. Md. 2011) ( If an individual acting on behalf of a corporation could avoid individual

liability, the TCPA would lose much of its force.”).

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 27
Actions and Liablity of Yakiin Jordan

29. Defendant JORDAN is personally liable under the participation theory of liability because

he is the Principal owner of the now-defunct Manasseh Jordan Ministries, knew of Manasseh

Jordan Ministries violations, has been sanctioned for these violations by numerous state gov¬

ern ents, state attorneys general, and the Federal Communications Commission, and direct¬

ed employees and/or agents of Manasseh Jordan Ministries to continue making those viola¬

tions.

30. In addition, it is Defendant JORDAN’S voice on each of the prerecorded telephone calls

Plaintiff received, so as to essentially have made the calls himself. This is because JORDAN

authorized and oversaw each of Manasseh Jordan Ministries’ telemarketing processes. In

fact, it was his idea to begin marketing Manasseh Jordan Ministries’ via illegal telemarketing

calls. Furthermore, JORDAN is also personally liable because he was responsible for ensur¬

ing Manasseh Jordan Ministries’ employees’ TCPA compliance and observing corporate for¬

malities, which he admits he does not do

31. Plaintiff notes this is the second time he has sued Yakim Jordan for the offending calls in

this district. Plaintiff previously sued this defendant in Cunningham v Manasseh Jordan

Ministries, Inc., et al 4:2019-cv-0494 EDTX 2019 for the exact same conduct of unwant¬

ed robocalls pitching salvation through religion as long as the Plaintiff paid money to the

defendant during the robocall.

32. Plaintiff nots that the Defendant has been sanctioned by the FCC and Texas Public utilit¬

ies comission for making unwanted robocalls in the past.

33. Furthermore, the defendants engaged in perjury in the prior litigation lying about placing

over $50,000 dollars for robocalling minutes to a telecom.

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 28
34. Yakim Jordan has taken direct transfers of over $100,000 in cash from this enterprise di¬

rectly for his personal participation in the robocalling racket.

The Texas Business and Commerce Code 305.053

35. The Texas Business and Commerce code has an analogus portion that is related to the TCPA

and was violated in this case.

36. The Plaintiff may seek damages under this Texas law for violations of 47 USC 227 or sub¬

chapter A and seek $500 in statutory damages or $1500 for willful or knowing damages.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

37. The Defendants have placed multiple telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff s cell phones in an

attempt to solicit donations and making over the top religious claims. Defendant Yakim Jor¬

dan claims to be a prophet and can raise the dead for a mere donation of $1,000 among other

sensational claims and has appeared with faith healer Benny Hinn on multiple occasions,

who limits his small miracles to merely curing cancer and other serious diseases.

Alleged calls to the Plaintiff and violations of 47 USC 227(b) and Yakim Manasseh Jor¬

dan

38. Mr. Cunningham received several calls from a variety of spoofed caller ID s that contained a

pre-recorded message and were initiated using an automated telephone dialing system before

filing the current case:

Phone number Date Notes

01-252-5229 09/20/2020

01-252-5229 09/20/2020

405-383-6592 09/15/2020

225-460-3561 09/11/2020

401-252-5319 09/08/2020

223-207-2799 09/01/2020

423-214-3985 08/25/2020

205-318-2460 08/30/2020

213-406-7096 02/20/2021

213-320-1386 02/17/2021

954-226-3817 05/03/2022 Live call

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 29
615-231-5894 05/03/2022 prank dial

385-446-0208 05/03/2022 prank dial

615-453-1864 05/03/2022 prank dial

39. Any reasonable person would be on notice that they should stop calling a person who has su¬

ed them for unwanted telemarketing calls.

40. Furthermore, the calls initiated in 2022 were deliberately harassing calls including one from

the 954 number that included death threats to the Plaintiff.

41. Defendants hired the services of kickback Inc., dba Prak Dial and Rifayet Saleh to make the

harassing calls using the PrankDial platform. Prankdial is a platform designed solely to make

harassing and annoying phone calls containing a pre-recorded message and are initiated us¬

ing an automated telephone dialing system. There is no legitimate use for this service.

42. The Plaintiff is in the process of obtaining his call records and shall provide an updated sup¬

plemental statement of the calls alleged. The calls were on behalf of each of the defendants

in this case soliciting the Plaintiff to give money to the Defendants. The calls had a delay of

3-4 seconds of dead air before the pre-recorded message began indicating the calls were initi¬

ated using an ATDS. The Plaintiff recieved calls on behalf of the defendants by 3rd party tele¬

marketers for both direct and vicarious liability in this case.

43. The calls all contained multiple different pre-recorded messages recorded by Defendant Yakim Jordan in his own voice each day.

44. The Plaintiff recieved multiple calls from multiple spoofed and non-working caller ID s all

designed to trick consumers into picking up the phone by using false, misleading, and fraudu¬

lent caller ID s that are local to the calling area for the Plaintiff’s cell phones. These calls

were not related to an emergency purpose and were placed without the Plaintiff’s consent.

45. The Defendants knew full well that overseas telemarketers were placing calls on their behalf

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 30
to consumers across the country pitching debt relief services by overseas telemarketers which

was initiated using an automated telephone dialing system and contained a pre-recorded mes¬

sage as Yakim Jordan has been personally sued multiple times in the past for violating the

TCPA (See Molitor v Manasseh Jordan Ministries, Inc., 1:16-cv-02106, Northern District of

Illinois 2019) and has been cited by the FCC for making illegal robocalls in violation of the

TCPA as far back as 2016 (Ex A).

46. The calls also specifically state the Defendant s PO Box in New York is an acceptable ad¬

dress to receive mail and to send payments and state that the calls were being placed by Man¬

asseh Jordan Ministries, but when the Plaintiff made a credit card payment, it was revealed

that the money actually went to MJ Ministries Spreading the Gospel. When check payments

were sent to the New York address listed on the recording, the funds were actually deposited

in a bank account titled in the name of MJ Ministries and not Manasseh Jordan Ministries.

47. Mr. Cunningham has a limited data plan. Incoming calls and text messages chip away at his

monthly allotment.

48. Mr. Cunningham has limited data storage capacity on his cellular telephone. Incoming calls

from the defendants consumed part of this capacity.

49. No emergency necessitated the calls

50. Each call was sent by an ATDS.

Liability a d direct involvement of Co-defendants Thinq Technologies, dba Commio and

Aaron Leon

51. Plaintiff has identified Thinq technologies as the phone carrier that has been given a wa ing

letter by the FCC for facilitating illegal robocalls and has also been identified by the North

Carolina Department of justice for facilitating illegal robocalls to consumers across the counCase 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 31
try 

52. Plaintiff has similarly identified Thinq Technologies as the phone carrier involved at the time

the Plaintiff recieved the unwanted calls from Yakim Jordan.

53. Aaron Leon is the CEO of Thinq Technologies and he knowingly directed these illegal call

campaigns to the extent that Federal regulators took direct action to call him out and threaten

to block all incoming traffic from his company if he didn t stop. Aaron Leon knew he was ac¬

cepting clients who were going to break the law using his services and he sought to profit

from these illegal robocalls and improper use of his calling services.

54. Furthermore, Aaorn Leon has attempted to cover up and hide the involvement of his clients

as part of his servicers from regulators and litigants making him directly liable for the calls in

question. Aaron would regularly ignore subpoenas, lie about his companies involvement in il¬

legal robocalls and generally take all actions to cover up for his client s illegal actions.

Knowing and Willful Violations of Telemarketing Regulations 47 USC 227(c)(5)

55. Mr. Cunningham asked for an internal do-not-call policy

56. The Defendants knowingly violated the TCPA by initiating automated calls with pre-record¬

ed messages to the Plaintiff without maintaining an internal do not call policy in violation of

47 CFR 64.1200(d).

57. The Defendants never sent Mr. Cunningham any do-not-call policy in violation of 47 CFR

64.1200(d)(1)

58. The Defendants placed telemarketing calls without having a written do-not-call policy in

place to Mr. Cunningham in violation of 47 CFR 64.1200(d)(1)

59. The Defendants placed telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff without training their agents en¬

gaged in telemarketing on the existence and use of any do-not-call list in violation of 47 CFR

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 32
64.1200(d)(2)

60. The defendants placed telemarketing calls without identifying themselves or the party they

were calling on behalf of in violation of 47 CFR 64.1200(d)(4)

61. The Plaintiff recieved calls after the filing of this lawsuit, which is ample notice for any rea¬

sonable person to cease placing calls.

Yakim Man sseh Jordan s Control over the telemarketing calls Robocallin an Tele¬

marketing

62. At all times relevant to the claims alleged herein, Yakim Manasseh Jordan was in charge of

each of these legal entities. Each and every call was placed on behalf of the corporate entites

owned by Yakim Manasseh Jordan.

63. Yakim Manasseh Jordan was aware that calls were being placed by or on behalf of his com¬

pany, via automated, telemarketing calls en masse to people, including Plaintiff.

64. As the defendant s senior-most executive, Yakim Manasseh Jordan had the power to stop

these spam campaigns.

65. As the defendant s , senior-most executive, Yakim Manasseh Jordan had the power to fire the

managers and employees taking part of the day-to-day operations of these illegal robocalling

operations.

66. Instead, Yakim Manasseh Jordanallowed the calls to continue and the responsible managers

to keep their jobs despite his knowledge of frequent do-not-call complaints from recipients

of these messages, including the Plaintiff.

Aaron Leon Control over the telemarketing calls Robocalling and Telemarketing

67. At all times relevant to the claims alleged herein, Aaron Leon was in charge of each of these

legal entities. Each and every call was placed on behalf of the corporate entites owned by

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 33
Aaron Leon.

68. Aaron Leon was aware that calls were being placed by or on behalf of his company, via auto¬

mated, telemarketing calls en masse to people, including Plaintiff.

69. As the defendant s senior-most executive, Aaron Leon had the power to stop these spam

campaigns.

70. As the defendant’s , senior-most executive, Aaron Leonhad the power to fire the managers

and employees taking part of the day-to-day operations of these illegal robocalling opera¬

tions.

71. Instead, Aaron Leon allowed the calls to continue and the responsible managers to keep their

jobs despite his nowledge of frequent do-not-call complaints from recipients of these mes¬

sages, including the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff s cell phone is a residential number

72. The calls were to the Plaintiff’s cellular phone - -1977, which is the Plaintif ’s person¬

al cell phones that he uses for personal, family, and household use. The Plaintiff maintains no

landline phones at his residence and has not done so for at least 10 years and primarily relies

on cellular phones to communicate with friends and family. The Plaintiff also uses his cell

phones for navigation purposes, sending and receiving emails, timing food when cooking,

and sending and receiving text messages. The Plaintiff further has his cell phones registered

in his personal name, pays the cell phones from his personal accounts, and the phone is not

primarily used for any business purpose.

73. The FCC has defined a residential number as a phone number that is not registered to a busi¬

ness subscriber A residential subscriber is a subscriber to telephone exchange service that

is not a business subscriber. 47 CFR § 64. 2305(d). A [bjusiness subscriber refers to a sub¬

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 34
scriber to telephone exchange service for businesses. 47 C. F. R. § 64. 2305(b)

Violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code 305.053

74. The actions of Yakim Manasseh Jordan and the co-defendants violated the Texas Business

and Commerce Code 305.053 by placing automated calls to a cell phone which violate 47

USC 227(b). The calls by the defendants corporation violated Texas law by placing calls with

a pre-recorded message to a cell phone which violate 47 USC 227(c)(5) and 47 USC 227(d)

and 47 USC 227(d)(3) and 47 USC 227(e).

75. The calls by the defendants violated Texas law by spoofing the caller ID s per 47 USC 227(e)

which in turn violates the Texas statute.

76. Violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code 302.101

(Against All Defendants)

Texas state law requires a telephone soliciter to maintain a license on file with the secretary of

state if they make solicitations from Texas or to a purchaser in this state for the business location

from which the telephone solicitation is made. A seperate registration certificate is required for

each business locaiton from which a telephone solicitation is made. Civil liability for violating

this section is $5,000 per call. Plaintiff alleges that none of the defendants maintained a solicita¬

tion license in Texas or on file with the secretary of state when these calls were placed.

I. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Nou-Emer ency Robocalls to Cellular Telephones, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A))

(Against All Defendants)

1. Mr. Cunningham realleges and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 35
2. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants and/or their affiliates or agents

constitute multiple violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), by making non-emergency

telemarketing robocalls to Mr. Cunningham s cellular telephone number without his prior

express written consent.

3. Mr. Cunningham is entitled to an award of at least $500 in damages for each such

violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).

4. Mr. Cunningham is entitled to an award of up to $1,500 in damages for each such

knowing or willful violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

5. Mr. Cunningham also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and

their affiliates and agents from making non-emergency telemarketing robocalls to cellular

telephone numbers without the prior express written consent of the called party.

IL SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Telemarketing Without Mandated Safe uards, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d))

(Against All Defendants)

6. Mr. Cunningham realleges and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

7. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants and/or their affiliates or agents

constitute multiple violations of FCC regulations by making telemarketing solicitations despite

lacking:

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

in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1);2

2 See id. at 425 (codifying a June 26, 2003 FCC order).

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 36
b. training for the individuals involved in the telemarketing on the existence

of and use of a do-not-call list, in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(2);3 and,

c. in the solicitations, the name of the individual caller and the name of the

person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, in violation of 47 C.F.R. §

64.1200(d)(4).4

8. Mr. Cunningham is entitled to an award of at least $500 in damages for each such

violation. 47U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B).

9. Mr. Cunningham is entitled to an award of up to $1,500 in damages for each such

knowing or willful violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

10. Mr. Cunningham also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and

their affiliates and agents from making telemarketing solicitations until and unless they (1)

implement a do-not-call list and training thereon and (2) include the name of the individual caller

and the defendant s name in the solicitations (3) by placing calls to a number registered on the

national do-not-call list.

III.THIRDCLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code 305.053

(Against All Defendants)

11. Mr. Cunningham realleges and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

12. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants and/or their affiliates or agents

constitute multiple violations of the Texas Business and Commerce code

3 See id. at 425 (codifying a June 26, 2003 FCC order).

4 See id. at 425 - 26 (codifying a June 26, 2003 FCC order).

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 37
a. a written policy, available upon demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list,

in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1);5

b. training for the individuals involved in the telemarketing on the existence

of and use of a do-not-call list, in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(2);6 and,

c. in the solicitations, the name of the individual caller and the name of the

person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, in violation of 47 C.F.R. §

64.1200(d)(4).7

13. Mr. Cunningham is entitled to an award of at least $500 in damages for each such

violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B) and 47 USC 227(b)

14. Mr. Cunningham is entitled to an award of up to $1,500 in damages for each such

knowing or willful violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) and 47 USC 227(b)

15. Mr. Cunningham also seeks a pen anent injunction prohibiting Defendants and

their affiliates and agents from making telemarketing solicitations until and unless they (1)

implement a do-not-call list and training thereon and (2) include the name of the individual caller

and the defendant s name in the solicitations (3) by placing calls to a number registered on the

national do-not-call list.

5 See id. at 425 (codifying a June 26, 2003 FCC order).

6 See id. at 425 (codifying a June 26, 2003 FCC order).

7 See id. at 425 - 26 (codifying a June 26, 2003 FCC order).

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 38
IV. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code 302.101

(Against All Defendants)

16. Mr. Cunningham realleges and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

17. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants and their owners/managers

constitues multiple violations of the Texas Business and Commerce code 302.101

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Craig Cunningham prays for judgment against Defendants

jointly and severally as follows:

A. Leave to amend this Complaint to name additional DOESs as they are identified

and to conform to the evidence presented at trial;

B. A declaration that actions complained of herein by Defendants violate the TCPA

and Oregon state law;

C. An injunction enjoining Defendants and their affiliates and agents from engaging

in the unlawful conduct set forth herein;

D. An award of $3000 per call in statutory damages arising from the TCPA inten¬

tional violations jointly and severally against the corporation and individuals

E. An award of $5,000 per call for statutory damages for violations of 302.302

F. An awward of $1500 per call for violations of the Texas Business and commerce

code 302.101

G. An award to Mr. Cunningham of damages, as allowed by law under the TCPA;

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 39
H. An award to Mr. Cunningham of interest, costs and attorneys fees, as allowed by

law and equity

I. Such further relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

Craig Cunningham, Plaintiff, Pro-se 3000 Custer Road, ste 270-206, Plano, Tx 75075

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

E STERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CRAIG CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

Manasseh Jordan Ministries, Inc., Bullion Fitness Inc.,

Kingdom Ministries Church, Inc., Yakim Manasseh

Jordan, aka Manasseh Jordan, MJ Ministries Spread¬

ing the Gospel, Inc., Steven Sled e, Aaron Jordan,

Nao i Cook, John/Jane Does 1-5

Defendant

Plaintiff s Certificate of Service

I hereby certify a true copy of the foregoing was mailed and e ailed to the Defendants and attor¬

ney of record in this case.

9/8/2023

Craig Cunningham, Plaintiff, Pro-se 3000 Custer Road, ste 270-206, Plano, Tx 75075

Case 4:23-cv-00216-SDJ-AGD Document 6 Filed 09/19/23 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 41