1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

David Chami, AZ #027585

Price Law Group, A.P.C.

1204 E. Baseline Rd., Suite 102

Tempe, Arizona 85283

Tel: 866-881-2133

Fax: 866-401-1457

david@pricelawgroup.com

[Additional counsel appearing on signature page]

Attorneys for Plaintiff NICK FISHER

and the Classes

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

NICK FISHER, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ONE WAY FUNDING, LCC, a New York 

limited liability company,

Defendant.

Case No. 

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff Nick Fisher (“Fisher” or “Plaintiff”) brings this Class Action Complaint 

against Defendant One Way Funding, LLC (“One Way Funding” or “Defendant”) to: (1) stop 

Defendant’s practice of placing calls using an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) 

and/or using “an artificial or prerecorded voice” to the telephones of consumers nationwide 

without their prior express consent, (2) enjoin Defendant from continuing to place pre-recorded 

telephone calls to consumers who elected to opt out of receiving them, and (3) obtain redress for 

all persons injured by Defendant’s conduct. Plaintiff also seeks an award of statutory damages to 

the members of the Classes, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as set forth herein.

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 13
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Plaintiff, for his complaint, alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to 

himself and his own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information and 

belief, including investigation conducted by his attorneys.

3. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”), and 

its implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R. §64.1200, et seq., prohibit companies, such as Defendant, 

from placing calls using an ATDS (“autodialed calls”) and/or using “an artificial or prerecorded 

voice” (“prerecorded calls”) to telephones without first obtaining consent. One Way Funding has 

violated, and continues to violate, the TCPA and its regulations, by placing autodialed and/or 

prerecorded calls to telephone subscribers who have not expressly consented to receiving such 

calls and/or who have expressly requested not to receive such calls.

4. In an effort to obtain leads for its services, One Way Funding made (or directed to 

be made on its behalf) autodialed and/or prerecorded calls to the telephones of Plaintiff and other 

members of the putative classes without first obtaining express consent to do so—all in violation 

of the TCPA.

5. The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unauthorized calls exactly like 

those alleged in this Complaint—autodialed and/or prerecorded calls placed to cellphone numbers 

without each consumer’s prior express written consent.

6. By making the telephone calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendant caused 

Plaintiff and the members of the Classes actual harm and cognizable legal injury. This includes 

the aggravation and nuisance and invasions of privacy that result from the receipt of such calls, in 

addition to a loss of value realized for the monies consumers paid to their wireless carriers for the 

receipt of such calls. Furthermore, the calls interfered with Plaintiff’s and the other Class 

members’ use and enjoyment of their cellphones, including the related data, software, and 

hardware components. Defendant also caused substantial injury to their phones by causing wear 

and tear on their property, consuming battery life, and appropriating cellular minutes and data.

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 2 of 13
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Fisher is a natural person over the age of eighteen (18) and a citizen of the 

State of Arizona.

8. Defendant One Way Funding, LLC is a limited liability company organized in and 

existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business located in 

Hicksville, New York 11801.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331, as the action arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., 

a federal statute. This Court also has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 

1332 (“CAFA”), because the alleged Classes consists of over 100 persons, there is minimal 

diversity, and the claims of the class members when aggregated together exceeds $5 million. 

Further, none of the exceptions to CAFA applies.

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over One Way Funding because it solicits 

significant business in this District, has entered into business contracts in this District, and a 

significant portion of the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint occurred in, was directed to, 

and/or emanated from this District. 

11. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant solicits a 

significant amount of consumer business within this District, and because a portion of the 

wrongful conduct giving rise to this case occurred in, was directed to, and/or emanated from this 

District.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

12. Defendant One Way Funding, LLC is a purported financial services company that 

provides capital primarily to small businesses. Defendant claims to have provided millions of 

dollars to business owners.

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 3 of 13
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13. Unfortunately for consumers, One Way Funding casts its marketing net too wide. 

That is, in an attempt to promote its business and to generate leads for its financial products 

Defendant conducted (and continues to conduct) a wide scale telemarketing campaign that 

features the repeated making of unsolicited autodialed and/or pre-recorded calls to consumers' 

telephones, including their cellular telephones, all without any prior express consent to make 

these calls. 

14. To make matters worse, Defendant places these calls to telephones using an ATDS 

without consumers’ prior written express consent in violation of the TCPA. 

15. Finally, despite consumers’ attempts to opt out of future calls, Defendant continues 

to call them.

16. Not surprisingly, these practices have led to significant complaints from 

consumers, which can be found on the Internet. These public comments demonstrate a pattern of 

misleading and seriously unethical business practices. Consumers have publicly complained that:

• This is a new number for One Way Funding and today’s caller was 

“Anna”. These scammers continue to use different methods to get through 

to you; they change telephone numbers and CID names.1

• I couldn’t take their call when they called me, so I called them back. The 

woman answered the phone as “Fast Funding”.2

• unwanted robo call to a cell phone (not allowed) , a phone number on the 

“do not call registry” (calls to numbers on the “do not call registry” also not 

allowed).

3

• These ******** keep calling me to scam money out of me. They use 

different numbers frequently to avoid being blocked. Surely no one is 

going to do business with a company so unethical.

4

• They keep calling my number even my number is in do not call list. Several 

times I asked them nicely to remove my number since I am not a business 

 

1

https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-516-203-7559

2

https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-631-239-8731

3

https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-631-239-8720

4

https://www.bbb.org/new-york-city/business-reviews/loans-small-business/one-way-funding-inhicksville-ny-155629/reviews-and-complaints

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 4 of 13
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

owner. People are over there is very rude.5

• I was contact by one way funding today from a number at ###-###-#### I 

was transferred to the agent and was told I was on the do not call list. He 

got mad and said I could have hung up. I told him “that’s not the point, I 

shouldn’t have to have solicitations during work” He then told me he was 

going to FIND ME AND KILL ME and told me he knew where I lived and 

told me he would come after my family and kids.6

17. At no time did Defendant obtain prior express consent from the Plaintiff and the 

Classes orally or in writing to receive prerecorded calls. 

18. In making the phone calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendant and/or its agent 

utilized an automatic telephone dialing system. Specifically, the hardware and software used by 

Defendant and/or its agents has the capacity to store, produce, and dial random or sequential 

numbers, and/or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, 

in an automated fashion without human intervention. Defendant’s automated dialing equipment 

includes features substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch as it is capable of making 

numerous calls simultaneously, without human intervention.

19. Defendant knowingly made, and continues to make, telemarketing calls without 

the prior express consent of the recipients and knowingly continues to call them after requests to 

stop. As such, Defendant not only invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of the 

putative Class, but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.

FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF

20. Plaintiff Fisher is the owner and customary user of the personal cellular telephone 

number 602-750-6084.

21. For approximately one year, Plaintiff Fisher has been receiving prerecorded 

telemarketing calls on his cellular telephone offering preapproved financial loans from One Way 

Funding.

 

5

https://www.bbb.org/new-york-city/business-reviews/loans-small-business/one-way-funding-inhicksville-ny-155629/reviews-and-complaints

6

https://www.bbb.org/new-york-city/business-reviews/loans-small-business/one-way-funding-inhicksville-ny-155629/reviews-and-complaints

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 5 of 13
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22. Plaintiff Fisher never consented either orally or in writing to receive prerecorded 

and/or autodialed calls from One Way Funding or any of its affiliates or agents.

23. Each of the pre-recorded calls has a nearly identical message, which states 

as follows: 

Hi this is John from Fast Funding, you have been pre-approved for a working 

capital loan. Press one to speak with me, or one of my associates about your offer, 

again, press one to go over your pre-approved working capital loan.

24. During one of the calls, Plaintiff pressed one and spoke with an agent of One Way 

Funding. The agent explained that he worked for One Way Funding, LLC, despite using the name 

Fast Funding. Plaintiff requested that he be placed on Defendant’s do not call list.

25. Despite repeated requests for the prerecorded and/or autodialed calls to stop, 

Plaintiff continues to receive calls from One Way Funding.

26. Plaintiff has received telephone calls from the following numbers: (631) 239-8720, 

(631) 239-8731, and (516) 203-7559. On information and belief, One Way Funding answers its 

phone as “Fast Funding” when it receives incoming calls at (631) 239-8731 and at the number 

listed on its website. 

27. Plaintiff does not have a relationship with Defendant, has never provided his

telephone number directly to Defendant, and has never requested that Defendant place 

prerecorded and/or autodialed calls to him or offer him its services. Simply put, Plaintiff has 

never provided any form of prior express written or oral consent to Defendant to place 

prerecorded and/or autodialed calls to him and has no business relationship with Defendant.

28. Defendant was, and is, aware that the above described prerecorded and/or 

autodialed calls were made to consumers like Plaintiff who have not consented to receive them.

29. By making unauthorized prerecorded and/or autodialed calls as alleged herein, One 

Way Funding has caused consumers actual harm. This includes the aggravation, nuisance and 

invasions of privacy that result from the placement of such calls, in addition to the wear and tear 

on their telephones, consumption of battery life, lost cellular minutes, loss of value realized for 

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 6 of 13
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the monies consumers paid to their wireless carriers for the receipt of such calls, and the 

diminished use, enjoyment, value, and utility of their telephone plans. Furthermore, Defendant 

made the calls knowing they trespassed against and interfered with Plaintiff and the other Class 

members’ use and enjoyment of, and the ability to access, their cellphones, including the related 

data, software, and hardware components.

30. To redress these injuries, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Classes of 

similarly situated individuals, brings this suit under the TCPA, which prohibits unsolicited 

prerecorded and/or autodialed calls to telephones. On behalf of the Classes, Plaintiff seeks an 

injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unauthorized prerecorded and/or autodialed calling 

activities and an award of statutory damages to the class members, together with costs and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

31. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) 

and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and the two Classes defined as follows:

Pre-recorded No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who (1) from 

the date four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the present; (2)

Defendant, or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant, called; (3) on the 

person’s cellular telephone; (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant’s products and 

services; (5) using a pre-recorded voice; and (6) for whom Defendant claims it 

obtained prior express consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it 

supposedly obtained prior express consent to call the Plaintiff.

Pre-recorded Stop Call Class: All persons in the United States who (1) from the 

date four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the present; (2) 

Defendant, or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant, called; (3) on the 

person’s cellphone; (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant’s products and 

services; (5) using a pre-recorded voice; and (6) after the person informed 

Defendant that s/he no longer wished to receive calls from Defendant.

32. The following people are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or Magistrate 

presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, 

parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a 

controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who 

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 7 of 13
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims 

in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s 

counsel and Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assignees of 

any such excluded persons.

33. Numerosity: The exact number of members within the Classes is unknown and 

not available to Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On 

information and belief, Defendant has placed pre-recorded calls to thousands of consumers who 

fall into the defined Classes. However, the exact number of members of the Classes can only be 

identified through Defendant’s records.

34. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the 

Classes, in that Plaintiff and the members of the Classes sustained damages arising out of 

Defendant’s uniform wrongful conduct.

35. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in 

complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and 

Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.

36. Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact 

common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Classes, and those questions predominate over any 

questions that may affect individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes 

include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

(a) Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA; 

(b) Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to cellphone 

owners who did not previously provide Defendant and/or its agents with their prior 

express consent to receive such phone calls; 

(c) Whether Defendant made the calls with the use of an pre-recorded voice 

message;

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 8 of 13
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(d) Whether members of the Classes are entitled to treble damages based on 

the willfulness of Defendant’s conduct; and

(e) Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to consumers after 

they explicitly asked not to be called by Defendant.

37. Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because class 

proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of 

this controversy. Joinder of all parties is impracticable, and the damages suffered by the 

individual members of the Classes will likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and 

expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions. 

Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Classes to obtain 

effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct. Even if members of the Classes could sustain such 

individual litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action, because individual litigation 

would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal and factual 

controversies presented in this Complaint. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer 

management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and 

comprehensive supervision by a single Court. Economies of time, effort and expense will be 

fostered and uniformity of decisions ensured. Also, there are no pending governmental actions 

against Defendant for the same conduct. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Pre-recorded Message Class)

38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein.

39. Defendant made unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls to cellular telephone 

numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-Recorded Message Class, 

without their prior express written consent in an effort to generate leads for Defendant’s loans and 

other financial products and services.

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 9 of 13
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

40. Defendant failed to obtain any prior express consent that included, as required by 

47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(8)(i), a “clear and conspicuous” disclosure informing the person signing 

that:

(A) By executing the agreement, such person authorizes the seller to deliver or 

cause to be delivered to the signatory telemarketing calls using an automatic 

telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; and

(B) The person is not required to sign the agreement (directly or indirectly), or 

agree to enter into such an agreement as a condition of purchasing any property, 

goods, or services.

41. Further, Defendant made the telephone calls using equipment that played a prerecorded voice message. On information and belief, the equipment had the capacity to store or 

produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, and/or to 

receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, simultaneously and 

without human intervention.

42. By making unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff and members of the PreRecorded Message Class’s cellular telephones without prior express consent, and by utilizing an 

pre-recorded voice message and/or ATDS, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

43. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the PreRecorded Message Class suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive the 

unsolicited telephone calls on their cellular telephones and, under Section 227(b)(3)(B), are each 

entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.

44. Should the Court determine that Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing, the 

Court may, pursuant to Section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by 

Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-Recorded Message Class.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Pre-recorded Stop Call Class)

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein.

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 10 of 13
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

46. Defendant made unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls to telephone 

numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded Stop Call Class on their 

telephones in an effort to sell its products and services after the call recipient informed Defendant 

that s/he no longer wished to receive calls from Defendant.

47. Defendant made the telephone calls using equipment that played a pre-recorded 

voice and/or had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random 

or sequential number generator, and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such 

numbers, en masse, without human intervention. That is, Defendant utilized equipment that made 

the telephone calls to Plaintiff and other members of the Pre-recorded Stop Call Class 

simultaneously and without human intervention.

48. On information and belief Defendant has no written internal do not call policy 

wherein it honors do not call requests nor are employees or personnel engaged in calling activities 

trained with respect to any such policy. Defendant does not honor stop calling requests and 

continues to call persons using its pre-recorded voice, both within and beyond 30 days after the do 

not call request has been made.

49. By making unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff and members of the Prerecorded Stop Call Class’s telephones after they requested to no longer receive calls, Defendant 

violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) by continuing to call them without prior express consent.

50. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the Prerecorded Stop Call Class suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive the 

unsolicited telephone calls on their cellphones and, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), are each 

entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.

51. To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, the 

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

by Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded Stop Call Class.

//

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 11 of 13
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Nick Fisher, on behalf of himself and the class, prays for the 

following relief:

A. An order certifying the Classes as defined above, appointing Plaintiff 

Fisher as the representative of the Classes, and appointing his counsel as Class Counsel;

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

hundred dollars ($500.00) for each violation, whichever is greater all to be paid into a 

common fund for the benefit of the Plaintiff and the Class Members;

C. An order declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set out above, violate the 

TCPA;

D. A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s telephone calling equipment 

constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system under the TCPA;

E. An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited pre-recorded 

calling activities, and otherwise protecting the interests of the Class;

F. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid out of the 

common fund prayed for above; and

G. Such other and further relief that the Court deems reasonable and just.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 29, 2018 NICK FISHER, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

By: _s/ David Chami

David Chami, AZ #027585

Price Law Group, A.P.C.

1204 E. Baseline Rd., Suite 102

Tempe, Arizona 85283

T: 866-881-2133

david@pricelawgroup.com

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 12 of 13
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Steven L. Woodrow*

swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

Patrick H. Peluso*

ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

Woodrow & Peluso, LLC

3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80210

Telephone: (720) 213-0675

Facsimile: (303) 927-0809

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Classes

* Pro Hac Vice 

Case 2:18-cv-00309-DLR Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 13 of 13