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 

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 

43 Danbury Road 

Wilton, CT 06897 

Telephone: (203) 653-2250 

Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Judy Sexton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Judy Sexton, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Conn Appliances, Inc., 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:16-cv-00207-ROS Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 5
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 

 Plaintiff, Judy Sexton (hereafter “Plaintiff”), by undersigned counsel, brings the 

following complaint against Conn Appliances, Inc. (hereafter “Defendant”) and 

alleges as follows: 

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises out of Defendant’s repeated violations of the 

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

2. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), 28 U.S.C. § 

1331. 

3. Venue is proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), where 

the acts and transactions giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred in this district and/or 

where Defendant transacts business in this district. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Mesa, Arizona, and is a 

“person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

5. Defendant is a business entity located in The Woodlands, Texas, and is a 

“person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

6. Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt asserted to 

be owed to Defendant. 

Case 2:16-cv-00207-ROS Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 5
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 

7. At all times mentioned herein where Defendant communicated with any 

person via telephone, such communication was done via Defendant’s agent, 

representative or employee. 

8. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff utilized a cellular telephone 

service and was assigned the following telephone number: 480-XXX-9664 (hereafter 

“Number”). 

9. Defendant placed calls to Plaintiff’s Number in an attempt to collect a 

debt. 

10. The aforementioned calls were placed using an automatic telephone 

dialing system (“ATDS”) and/or by using an artificial or prerecorded voice 

(“Robocalls”). 

11. When Plaintiff answered the calls from Defendant, she heard a 

prerecorded message requesting a call back. 

12. On or about September 19, 2015, Plaintiff directed Defendant to cease 

calling her Number. 

13. Despite being unequivocally advised by Plaintiff to stop calling, 

Defendant continued to call Plaintiff using an ATDS and/or prerecorded message at an 

excessive and harassing rate. 

14. Defendant’s calls directly interfered with Plaintiff’s right to peacefully 

enjoy a service that Plaintiff paid for and caused Plaintiff a significant amount of 

anxiety, frustration and annoyance. 

Case 2:16-cv-00207-ROS Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 5
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 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 

U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

15. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

complaint as though fully stated herein. 

16. The TCPA prohibits Defendant from using, other than for emergency 

purposes, an ATDS and/or Robocalls when calling Plaintiff’s Number absent 

Plaintiff’s prior express consent to do so. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). 

17. Defendant’s telephone system has the earmark of using an ATDS and/or 

using Robocalls in that Plaintiff, upon answering calls from Defendant, heard a 

prerecorded message requesting a call back. 

18. Defendant called Plaintiff’s Number using an ATDS and/or Robocalls 

without Plaintiff’s consent in that Defendant either never had Plaintiff’s prior express 

consent to do so or such consent was effectively revoked when Plaintiff requested that 

Defendant cease all further calls. 

19. Defendant continued to willfully call Plaintiff’s Number using an ATDS 

and/or Robocalls knowing that it lacked the requisite consent to do so in violation of 

the TCPA. 

20. Plaintiff was harmed and suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s 

actions. 

Case 2:16-cv-00207-ROS Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

21. The TCPA creates a private right of action against persons who violate 

the Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). 

22. As a result of each call made in violation of the TCPA, Plaintiff is 

entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages. 

23. As a result of each call made knowingly and/or willingly in violation of 

the TCPA, Plaintiff may be entitled to an award of treble damages. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant for: 

A. Statutory damages of $500.00 for each call determined to be in violation 

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

B. Treble damages for each violation determined to be willful and/or 

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

C. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

DATED: January 26, 2016 TRINETTE G. KENT 

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent, Esq.

Lemberg Law, LLC 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Judy Sexton 

Case 2:16-cv-00207-ROS Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 5 of 5