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

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

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

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

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180)

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192

Phoenix, AZ 85028

Telephone: (480) 247-9644

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781

E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com

Of Counsel to 

Lemberg Law, LLC

A Connecticut Law Firm

1100 Summer Street

Stamford, CT 06905

Telephone: (203) 653-2250

Facsimile: (203) 653-3424

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Tee Foster

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tee Foster, on behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

Aaron’s, Inc. ; and DOES 1-10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

 CASE NO.: 

 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF AND DECLARATORY 

RELIEF PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 

227, et seq. (TELEPHONE 

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT)

Demand for Jury Trial

 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 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

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

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

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

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

For his Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff, Tee Foster, by and through undersigned 

counsel, pleading on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, states 

as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, Tee Foster (“Plaintiff”), brings this class action for damages 

resulting from the illegal actions of Aaron’s, Inc. (“Aaron’s” or “Defendant”). 

Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed automated calls to Plaintiff’s cellular 

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

(the “TCPA”).

2. The TCPA outlaws calling consumers with automated technology without 

their “prior express consent.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). Such consent cannot be 

‘implied’ or ‘presumed’ through the provision of a telephone number by some third 

party. Rather, prior express consent is that received directly from the “current 

subscriber” or “customary user” of the phone number. In re Rules and Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Declaratory Ruling 

and Order, CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 15-72, at ¶ 72 (July 10, 2015) (“2015 FCC 

Ruling”).

3. The core of Aaron’s business practices thwarts the TCPA. Aaron’s is a

publicly traded rent-to-own retailer of home and office goods such as furniture, 

electronics, appliances and accessories, with over 2,100 stores across the United States 

and Canada.

1

4. Aaron’s touts that “You Don’t Need Credit at Aaron’s.” Rather, Aaron’s 

‘pre-approves’ anyone who can “provide a verified source of income, residence and a 

few personal references.”2

 

1

See http://investor.aarons.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=104698&p=irol-IRHome (last visited Aug. 14, 2015).

2

See https://www.aarons.com/t-our-promise.aspx (last visited Aug. 14, 2015).

Case 2:15-cv-01637-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 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

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

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

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

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

5. Indeed, Aaron’s requires lease-to-own applicants to list the phone 

numbers of several “references.” When customers fall behind with payments, Aaron’s

commences calling the reference-consumers with automated technology. Aaron’s does 

so despite knowing that it received the phone numbers from its own customers, not the 

consumers it is calling. 

6. Plaintiff is such a consumer, and seeks relief for himself and all others 

similarly situated for Aaron’s unlawful behavior. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Serv., LLC, 132 S.Ct. 740, 751-53 (2012).

8. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that 

Plaintiff resides in this judicial district, and a substantial portion of the acts giving rise 

to this action occurred here.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an adult individual 

residing in Tempe, Arizona.

10. Aaron’s is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a Georgia business 

entity with a principal office address of 309 E Paces Ferry Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia

30305.

THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1991

11. The TCPA regulates, among other things, the use of automated telephone 

dialing systems.

12. 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) defines an automatic telephone dialing system 

(“ATDS”) as equipment having the capacity –

(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, 

using a random or sequential number generator; and 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/21/15 Page 3 of 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

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

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

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

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

(B) to dial such numbers.

13. Specifically, 47 U.S.C. § 227(1)(A)(iii) prohibits any call using an ATDS 

or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cellular phone without prior express consent 

by the person being called, unless the call is for emergency purposes.

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

14. In and around July, 2015, Defendant repeatedly placed calls using 

prerecorded messages and an ATDS to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, 864-xxx-3454.

15. The telephone number that Defendant used to contact Plaintiff was and is 

assigned to a cellular telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

16. The calls were placed by Defendant in an attempt to collect a debt or 

recover rented property from an acquaintance of Plaintiff, Ms. Smith. 

17. Upon information and belief, the calls were placed using a sophisticated 

dialing machine, which has the capacity to store lists of phone numbers and dial such 

numbers pursuant to a preset program and otherwise dials sequentially, and which 

qualifies as an ATDS under the TCPA.

18. The dialing system utilized prerecorded messages which set forth, in either 

a prerecorded or an artificial voice, to please hold for the next available Aaron’s 

representative. 

19. Here, Aaron’s used that messaging system to call the Plaintiff. However, 

the Plaintiff was not Aaron’s customer. He did not provide Aaron’s with his phone 

number nor did he provide prior express consent to receive automated or prerecorded 

collection calls regarding anyone’s account. 

20. Plaintiff repeatedly asked that the calls to his number stop. The calls did not 

stop. 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/21/15 Page 4 of 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

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

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

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

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

21. Absent his prior express consent, automated or prerecorded calls to the 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone were in violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

A. The Class

22. Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on 

behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.

23. Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the following class:

All persons within the United States to whom Defendant or its agent/s 

and/or employee/s made telephone calls using an ATDS or 

prerecorded or artificial messages and (1) such call was to a cellular 

telephone number and (2) such person did not provide prior express 

consent to receive such a call. The class period encompasses the four 

year period preceding the filing of this complaint.

24. Defendants and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. 

Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class 

members number in the several thousands, if not more. Thus, this matter should be 

certified as a Class action to assist in the expeditious litigation of this matter.

25. This suit seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of 

economic injury on behalf of the Class, and it expressly is not intended to request any 

recovery for personal injury and claims related thereto. Plaintiff reserves the right to 

modify or expand the Class definitions to seek recovery on behalf of additional 

persons as warranted as facts are learned in further investigation and discovery. 

B. Numerosity

26. Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed prerecorded or 

artificial calls with ATDS to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of 

consumers throughout the United States without their prior express consent. The 

members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/21/15 Page 5 of 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

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

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

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

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

members is impracticable.

27. The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at 

this time and can only be ascertained through discovery. Identification of the Class 

members is a matter capable of ministerial determination from Defendant’s call 

records. 

C. Common Questions of Law and Fact 

28. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual Class members. These questions include:

a. Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Class 

members’ cellular telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice;

b. Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and the 

Class members’ cellular telephones using an ATDS; 

c. Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior 

express consent to make each call;

d. Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and/or willful;

e. Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such 

damages; and

f. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the 

future.

29. The common questions in this case are capable of having common 

answers. If Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely places unauthorized automated 

calls to telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff 

and the Class members will have identical claims capable of being efficiently 

adjudicated and administered in this case. 

D. Typicality 

30. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/21/15 Page 6 of 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

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

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

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

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

are all based on the same factual and legal theories.

E. Protecting the Interests of the Class Members 

31. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and 

has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving 

unlawful business practices. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interests which 

might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.

F. Proceeding Via Class Action is Superior and Advisable 

32. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of this controversy. The interest of Class members in individually controlling the 

prosecutions of separate claims against Defendant is small because it is not 

economically feasible for Class members to bring individual actions.

33. Management of this class action is unlikely to present any difficulties. 

Several courts have certified classes in TCPA actions. These cases include, but are not 

limited to: Mitchem v. Ill. Collection Serv., 271 F.R.D. 617 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Sadowski 

v. Med1 Online, LLC, 2008 WL 2224892 (N.D. Ill., May 27, 2008); CE Design Ltd. V. 

Cy’s Crabhouse North, Inc., 259 F.R.D. 135 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Lo v. Oxnard European 

Motors, LLC, 2012 WL 1932283 (S.D. Cal., May 29, 2012).

COUNT I

Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,

47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and 

incorporates them herein by reference.

35. Defendant placed multiple prerecorded or artificial calls to cellular 

numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class without their prior 

express consent.

36. Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a negligent 

violation of the TCPA.

Case 2:15-cv-01637-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/21/15 Page 7 of 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

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

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

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

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

37. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory 

damages for each call in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).

38. Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to and seek injunctive 

relief prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.

39. Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek a declaration 

that:

• Defendant violated the TCPA;

• Defendant used prerecorded voices and/or artificial voices; and

• Defendant placed calls to the Plaintiff and the Class without prior express 

consent.

COUNT II

Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,

47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and 

incorporates them herein by reference.

41. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed multiple prerecorded or 

artificial calls to cellular numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class without their prior express consent.

42. Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing 

and/or willful violation of the TCPA.

43. As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, 

Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of treble damages up to $1,500.00 for 

each call in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227(b)(3)(C).

44. Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to and seek injunctive 

relief prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.

45. Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek a declaration 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/21/15 Page 8 of 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

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

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

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

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

that:

• Defendant knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA;

• Defendant knowingly and/or willfully used prerecorded voices and/or 

artificial voices on calls to Plaintiff and the Class;

• Defendant knowingly and/or willfully obtained the cell phone numbers of 

Plaintiff and the Class from third parties;

• Defendant willfully placed automated calls to the Plaintiff and the Class at 

the numbers received from those third parties, knowing it did not have prior 

express consent to do so; and

• It is Defendant’s practice and history to place automated telephone calls 

to consumers without their prior express consent.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant Plaintiff and the Class the 

following relief against Defendant as follows:

1. Injunctive relief prohibiting such violations of the TCPA by Defendant in 

the future;

2. Declaratory relief as prayed for herein;

3. Statutory damages of $500.00 for each and every call in violation of the 

TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B);

4. Treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each and every call in violation of 

the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C);

5. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs to counsel for Plaintiff and the Class; 

and

6. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

 TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS

DATED: August 21, 2015 LEMBERG LAW, LLC

Case 2:15-cv-01637-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/21/15 Page 9 of 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

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

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

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

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

 

 By: _/s/ Trinette G. Kent

 Trinette G. Kent 

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192

Phoenix, AZ 85028

Telephone: (480) 247-9644

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781

E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com

Case 2:15-cv-01637-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/21/15 Page 10 of 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

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

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

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

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

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 21, 2015, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing was filed with the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona using the CM/ECF system and that the document is available 

online.

By /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent, Esq.

Case 2:15-cv-01637-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/21/15 Page 11 of 11