UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

CAMP DRUG STORE, INC., individually 

and as the representative of classes of 

similarly-situated persons,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARKRAY USA, INC.

Defendant.

---------------------------------------------------------------

GLEN ELLYN PHARMACY, INC., 

individually and as the representative of 

classes of similarly-situated persons,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARKRAY USA, INC.

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20-cv-02511

Hon. John Z. Lee

CLASS ACTION 

 

Consolidated with case

No. 20-cv-2947

 

CONSOLIDATED AND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Camp Drug Store, Inc. (“Camp Drug”) and Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, 

Inc. (“Glen Ellyn” and, collectively with Camp Drug, “Plaintiffs”), bring this action 

on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly-situated and, except as to 

those allegations pertaining to Plaintiffs or their respective attorneys, which 

allegations are based upon personal knowledge except as stated otherwise, allege 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:162
2

the following upon information and belief against defendant Arkray USA, Inc.

(“Arkray” or “Defendant”):

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

1. On behalf of themselves and the class, Plaintiffs seek statutory 

damages and other relief from Defendant’s practice of sending unsolicited 

advertisements by facsimile.

2. Defendant has sent advertisements by facsimile in an attempt to 

market and sell property, goods, or services.

3. The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 USC § 227 (the 

“TCPA”), prohibits any person or entity from sending or having an agent send any 

“unsolicited advertisement” by facsimile (“junk faxes” or “unsolicited faxes”).

4. The TCPA mandates that if a person or entity sends an otherwiseunsolicited advertisement by facsimile to a fax recipient with which the sender has 

an “established business relationship,” then the sender must include a specific, 

clear, and conspicuous opt-out notice on the first page of the advertisement. See 47 

U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D); and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii).

5. The TCPA provides a private right of action and provides minimum 

statutory damages of $500 per violation. If the Court finds the advertisements were 

sent knowingly or willfully, then the Court can increase the damages up to three 

times $500.

6. Unsolicited faxes damage their recipients. An unsolicited fax wastes 

the recipient’s valuable time that would have been spent on something else. A junk 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:163
3

fax interrupts the recipient’s privacy. Unsolicited faxes tie up telephone lines, 

prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for 

authorized outgoing faxes, use paper and ink toner for the sender’s marketing 

purposes, cause undue wear and tear on the recipients’ fax machines, and require 

additional labor to attempt to discern the source and purpose of the unsolicited 

message.

7. On behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs

bring this case as a class action asserting claims against Defendant under the 

TCPA, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 (“ICFA”), and the common 

law of conversion and trespass. 

8. Plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages for each violation of the 

TCPA. 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Plaintiff Camp Drug Store, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its

principal place of business in Wood River, Illinois.

10. Plaintiff Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc., is an Illinois corporation with 

offices in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

11. Defendant Arkray is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 

business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

12. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 

47 U.S.C. § 227. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ ICFA, 

conversion and trespass claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367.

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:164
4

13. Personal jurisdiction exists over Defendant because it has transacted 

business and committed tortious acts within this State.

14. Venue is proper because Defendant transacts business and committed 

statutory torts within this District.

FACTS 

15. Defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and providing 

medical devices for diabetes management and urine analysis. 

16. On information and belief, Defendant sent advertisements in fax 

broadcasts to one or more lists of targeted recipients throughout the United States 

and throughout the class period alleged herein.

17. At least one of those faxes was sent to Camp Drug on April 23, 2020, a 

copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.

18. At least three of those faxes were sent to Glen Ellyn on March 26, 

2020, March 31, 2020 and April 22, 2020, copies of which are attached respectively 

as Exhibits B, C and D.

19. The faxes attached as Exhibits A through D advertised the commercial 

availability or quality of Defendant’s property, goods, or services. 

20. Plaintiffs are among the persons to whom Defendant sent 

advertisements by fax.

21. Plaintiffs each maintain telephone facsimile machines that 

automatically prints faxes onto paper using toner / ink

22. Plaintiffs did not expressly invite or give permission to receive 

advertisements by fax from Defendant.

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:165
5

23. Defendant’s fax did not contain the opt-out notices required by the 

TCPA. See, e.g., Exhibits A through D.

24. On information and belief, Defendant sent faxes to Plaintiffs and more 

than 39 other recipients without their prior express permission or invitation, and 

without the opt-out notice required on faxes sent to persons with whom Defendant 

can demonstrate an “established business relationship.” This allegation is based, in 

part, on the fact that Plaintiffs never expressly invited or permitted anyone to send 

the subject fax advertisement to it, that the faxes attached as Exhibits A through D

is a generic form fax, that sending advertisements by fax is an inexpensive way to 

reach a wide audience, and that the faxes attached as Exhibits A through D has no 

opt-out notice.

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS 

25. Plaintiffs brings this action as a class action on behalf of themselves

and the following classes of all others similarly-situated as members of the class, 

initially defined as follows:

The TCPA Class 

All persons sent at least one telephone facsimile message (a “fax”): (1) 

on or after April 23, 2016; (2) from or on behalf of Arkray; (3) 

advertising Arkray’s property, goods, or services; (4) without the fax 

recipient’s prior express invitation or permission; and (5) without the

clear and conspicuous opt-out notice required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200

(a) (4) (iii).

The ICFA Class 

All persons sent at least one telephone facsimile message (a “fax”): (1) 

on or after April 23, 2017; (2) from or on behalf of Arkray; (3) 

advertising Arkray’s property, goods, or services; (4) without the fax 

recipient’s prior express invitation or permission; and (5) without the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:166
6

clear and conspicuous opt-out notice required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 

(a) (4) (iii).

The Common Law Class 

All persons sent at least one telephone facsimile message (a “fax”): (1) 

on or after April 23, 2015; (2) from or on behalf of Arkray; (3) 

advertising Arkray’s property, goods, or services; (4) without the fax 

recipient’s prior express invitation or permission; and (5) without the 

clear and conspicuous opt-out notice required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 

(a) (4) (iii). 

Plaintiffs anticipate modifying the proposed class definitions—including proposing 

subclasses if appropriate—after discovery about the scope of Defendant’s fax 

advertising practices as well as discovery as to any potential affirmative defenses 

Defendant may plead.

26. Excluded from the class are Defendant, any entity in which Defendant 

has a controlling interest, Defendant’s employees, officers and directors, 

Defendant’s legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, and any Judge 

assigned to this action, and his or her family.

27. On information and belief, Defendant’s fax advertising campaigns 

involved other, substantially-similar advertisements also sent without the opt-out 

notice required by the TCPA. Plaintiffs intend to locate those advertisements in 

discovery. See Exhibit E, a Demand for Preservation of All Tangible Documents 

Including Electronically Stored Information.

28. This action is brought, and may properly be maintained as, a class 

action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. This action satisfies Rule 23 (a)’s numerosity, 

commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements. Additionally, prosecution of 

Plaintiffs’ claims separately from the putative class’s claims would create a risk of 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:167
7

inconsistent or varying adjudications under Rule 23 (b) (1) (A). Furthermore, the 

questions of law or fact that are common in this action predominate over any 

individual questions of law or fact making class representation the superior method 

to adjudicate this controversy under Rule 23 (b) (3).

29. Numerosity/Impracticality of Joinder: On information and belief, the 

class includes more than thirty-nine persons and, thus, is so numerous that joinder 

of all members is impracticable. The precise number of class members and their 

identities are unknown to Plaintiff, but can be obtained from Defendant’s records or 

the records of third parties.

30. Commonality and Predominance: There is a well-defined community of 

interest and common questions of law and fact that predominate over any question 

affecting only individual members of the class. These common legal and factual 

questions, which do not vary from one class member to another, and which may be 

determined without reference to the individual circumstances of any class member, 

include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Whether Defendant sent unsolicited advertisements by fax; 

b. Whether Defendant’s faxes advertised the commercial 

availability or quality of property, goods, or services;

c. The manner and method Defendant used to compile or obtain 

the lists of fax numbers to which they sent advertisements by fax; 

d. Whether Defendant faxed advertisements without first 

obtaining the recipients’ express permission or invitation;

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:168
8

e. Whether Defendant included clear and conspicuous opt-out 

notices on their faxed advertisements, including all content the TCPA

requires;

f. Whether Defendant is directly or vicariously liable for violating 

the TCPA;

g. Whether Plaintiffs and the other class members are entitled to 

statutory damages;

h. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from faxing 

advertisements in the future;

i. Whether the Court should award trebled damages;

j. Whether Defendant’s conduct violated ICFA; 

k. Whether Defendant’s conduct constituted common law 

conversion; and

l. Whether Defendant’s conduct constituted trespass.

31. Typicality of Claims: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the 

other class members because Plaintiffs and all class members were injured by the 

same wrongful practices. Plaintiffs and the members of the class received 

Defendant’s advertisements by facsimile and those advertisements did not contain 

an opt-out notice as required by the TCPA. Under the facts of this case, because the 

focus is on Defendant’s conduct, if Plaintiffs prevail on their claims, then the 

putative class members will prevail as well. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:169
9

32. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of 

the class because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the class it 

seeks to represent. Plaintiffs retained counsel competent and experienced in 

complex class action litigation, and TCPA litigation in particular, and Plaintiffs

intend to vigorously prosecute this action. Plaintiffs and their respective counsel 

will fairly and adequately protect the interest of members of the class.

33. Prosecution of Separate Claims would yield Inconsistent Results: Even 

though the questions of fact and law in this action are predominantly common to 

Plaintiffs and the putative class members, separate adjudication of each class 

member’s claims would yield inconsistent and varying adjudications. Such 

inconsistent rulings would create incompatible standards for Defendant to operate 

under if or when class members bring additional lawsuits concerning the same 

unsolicited fax advertisements of if Defendants choose to advertise by fax again in 

the future.

34. A Class Action is the Superior Method of Adjudicating the Common 

Questions of Law or Fact that Predominate over Individual Questions: A class 

action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of this lawsuit because individual litigation of the claims of all class members is 

economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. The likelihood of individual 

class members prosecuting separate claims is remote, and even if every class 

member could afford individual litigation, the court system would be unduly 

burdened by individual litigation of such cases. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty to be 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:170
10

encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance 

as a class action. Relief concerning Plaintiffs’ rights under the laws herein alleged 

and with respect to the class would be proper. Plaintiffs envision no difficulty in the 

management of this action as a class action.

COUNT I 

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

35. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully set 

forth herein.

36. Plaintiffs bring Count I on behalf of themselves and a class of 

similarly-situated persons (the “TCPA Class”).

37. The TCPA prohibits the “use of any telephone facsimile machine, 

computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone 

facsimile machine....” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (1).

38. The TCPA defines “unsolicited advertisement,” as “any material 

advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services 

which is transmitted to any person without that person’s express invitation or 

permission.” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a) (4).

39. The TCPA provides:

3. Private right of action. A person may, if 

otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a 

state, bring in an appropriate court of that state:

(A) An action based on a violation of this 

subsection or the regulations prescribed under this 

subsection to enjoin such violation,

(B) An action to recover for actual 

monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:171
11

$500 in damages for each such violation, whichever 

is greater, or

(C) Both such actions.

47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).

40. In relevant part, the TCPA states that “[t]he [Federal 

Communications] Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the 

requirements of this subsection . . . in implementing the requirements of this 

subsection, the Commission shall provide that a notice contained in an unsolicited 

advertisement complies with the requirements under this subparagraph only if . . . 

(i) the notice is clear and conspicuous . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) (i).

41. Additionally, “a notice contained in an unsolicited advertisement 

complies with the requirements under this subparagraph only if . . . (ii) the notice 

states that the recipient may make a request to the sender of the unsolicited 

advertisement not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone 

facsimile machine or machines and that failure to comply, within the shortest 

reasonable time, as determined by the Commission, with such a request meeting 

the requirements under subparagraph (E) is unlawful . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) 

(D) (ii). The shortest reasonable time has been determined to be thirty (30) days. 47 

C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii) (B).

42. The opt-out notice must also include “a domestic contact telephone and 

facsimile number for the recipient to transmit such a request to the sender” as well 

as a “cost-free mechanism for a recipient to transmit a request pursuant to such 

notice . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) (iv).

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:172
12

43. “A notice contained in an unsolicited advertisement complies with the 

requirements under this subparagraph only if . . . (v) the telephone and facsimile 

machine numbers and the cost-free mechanism . . . permit an individual or business 

to make such a request at any time on any day of the week.” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) 

(D) (v).

44. The FCC’s regulations of opt-out notices on facsimile advertisements 

are set forth at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii)

45. The Court, in its discretion, can treble the statutory damages if the 

violation was knowing or willful. 47 U.S.C. § 227.

46. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. by sending advertisements 

by fax to Plaintiffs and the other class members without their prior express 

invitation or permission and, to the extent Defendant will contend it sent the 

facsimiles on the basis of “established business relationship,” by failing to include 

the clear, conspicuous, and content-rich opt-out notice on the first page of each 

facsimile.

47. Facsimile advertising imposes burdens on unwilling recipients that are 

distinct from those imposed by other types of advertising. The content of the 

required opt-out notice is designed to ensure that the recipients know how to 

prevent and avoid future fax transmissions of advertising material, and to provide 

the various cost-free means Congress required to be made available to do so. If 

senders do not clearly and conspicuously provide the opt-out content to the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:173
13

recipients, then the recipients are unable to stop the burdens imposed by this form 

of advertisement.

48. The TCPA is a strict liability statute and Defendant is liable to 

Plaintiffs and the other class members even if their actions were negligent.

49. Defendant is liable because it sent the faxes, caused the faxes to be 

sent, participated in the activity giving rise to and/or constituting the violation, the 

faxes were sent on its behalf, and/or under general principles of vicarious liability 

applicable under the TCPA, including actual authority, apparent authority and 

ratification.

50. Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and the other 

class members had not given express invitation or permission for Defendant or 

anybody else to send them advertisements by facsimile and that the faxes did not 

display the opt-out notices required by the TCPA (including the FCC’s regulations).

51. Defendant’s actions caused damages to Plaintiffs and the other class

members. Receiving Defendant’s junk faxes caused the recipients to lose paper and 

toner consumed in the printing of Defendant’s faxes. Moreover, the subject faxes 

used Plaintiffs’ and the class’s fax machines. The subject faxes cost Plaintiffs time, 

as Plaintiffs and their employees wasted time receiving, reviewing and routing 

Defendant’s illegal faxes. Time otherwise would have been spent on Plaintiffs’

business activities. Defendant’s faxes unlawfully interrupted Plaintiffs’ and the 

other class members’ privacy interests in being left alone. Finally, the injury and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:174
14

property damage sustained by Plaintiffs and the other class members from the 

sending of the faxes occurred outside Defendant’s premises.

52. Even if Defendant did not intend to cause damage to Plaintiffs and the 

other class members, did not intend to violate their privacy, and did not intend to 

waste the recipients’ valuable time with Defendant’s advertisements, those facts are 

irrelevant because the TCPA is a strict liability statute.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant, as follows:

A. That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be 

properly maintained as a class action, appoint Plaintiffs as the representatives of 

the class, and appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel for the class;

B. That the Court award $500.00 in statutory damages against Defendant 

for each of its violations of the TCPA;

C. That the Court treble the statutory damages to $1,500 per violation if 

it finds that Defendant knowingly or willfully violated the TCPA;

D. That the Court enter an injunction prohibiting Defendant from sending 

advertisements by fax without first demonstrating that it has obtained express 

invitation or permission to fax advertisements or included the required opt-out 

notice on each advertisement sent by fax to a person with whom Defendant has an 

established business relationship; and

E. That the Court award costs and such further relief as the Court may 

deem just and proper.

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:175
15

COUNT II 

ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD ACT 

 

53. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully set 

forth herein.

54. Plaintiffs bring Count I on behalf of themselves and a class of 

similarly-situated persons (the “ICFA Class”).

55. Defendants engaged in unfair acts and practices, in violation of ICFA § 

2, 815 ILCS 505/2, by sending unsolicited fax advertising to Plaintiffs and others.

56. Unsolicited fax advertising is contrary to the TCPA and also Illinois 

law. 720 ILCS 5/26-3(b) makes it a petty offense to transmit unsolicited fax

advertisements to Illinois residents.

57. Defendants engaged in an unfair practice and an unfair method of 

competition by engaging in conduct that is contrary to public policy, unscrupulous, 

and caused injury to recipients of their advertising.

58. Plaintiffs and each class member suffered damages as a result of 

receipt of the unsolicited faxes, in the form of paper and ink or toner consumed as a 

result. 

59. Defendants engaged in such conduct in the course of trade and 

commerce.

60. Defendants’ conduct caused recipients of their advertising to bear the 

cost thereof.

61. This gave Defendants an unfair competitive advantage over businesses 

that advertise lawfully, such as by direct mail. For example, an advertising 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:176
16

campaign targeting one million recipients would cost $500,000 if sent by U.S. mail 

but only $20,000 if done by fax broadcasting. The reason is that instead of spending 

$480,000 on printing and mailing his ad, the fax broadcaster misappropriates the 

recipients’ paper and ink. “Receiving a junk fax is like getting junk mail with the 

postage due”. Remarks of Cong. Edward Markey, 135 Cong Rec E 2549, Tuesday, 

July 18, 1989, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.

62. Defendants’ shifting of advertising costs to Plaintiffs and the class 

members in this manner makes such practice unfair. In addition, Defendant’s 

conduct was contrary to public policy, as established by the TCPA and Illinois 

statutory and common law.

63. Defendants should be enjoined from committing similar violations in 

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant, as follows:

A. That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be 

properly maintained as a class action, appoint Plaintiffs as the representatives of 

the class, and appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel for the class;

B. That the Court award compensatory damages against Defendant for 

each of its violations of the ICFA;

D. That the Court enter an injunction prohibiting Defendant from sending 

advertisements by fax without first demonstrating that it has obtained express 

invitation or permission to fax advertisements or included the required opt-out 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:177
17

notice on each advertisement sent by fax to a person with whom Defendant has an 

established business relationship; and

E. That the Court award attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs;

F. That the Court enter such further relief as the Court may deem just 

and proper.

COUNT III 

CONVERSION 

64. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs preceding Count I as though fully 

set forth herein. 

65. Plaintiffs bring Count III on behalf of themselves and a class of 

similarly-situated persons and alleging claims under the common law of conversion

(the “Common Law Class”).

66. By sending unsolicited faxes to Plaintiffs and the other class members, 

Defendant improperly and unlawfully converted their fax machines, toner and 

paper to Defendant’s own use. Defendant also converted the recipients’ time to their 

own marketing use.

67. Immediately prior to the sending of the unsolicited faxes, Plaintiffs

and the other class members owned an unqualified and immediate right to 

possession of their fax machines, paper, toner, and employee time.

68. By sending the unsolicited faxes, Defendant permanently 

misappropriated the class members’ fax machines, toner, paper, and employee time 

to their own use. Such misappropriation was wrongful and without authorization.

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:178
18

69. Defendant knew or should have known that its misappropriation of 

paper, toner, and employee time was wrongful and without authorization.

70. Plaintiffs and the other class members were deprived of the use of the 

fax machines, paper, toner, and employee time, which could no longer be used for 

any other purpose. Plaintiffs and each class member thereby suffered damages as a 

result of their receipt of unsolicited fax advertisements from Defendant.

71. Defendant’s unsolicited faxes that Plaintiffs received effectively stole 

Plaintiffs’ employees’ time by forcing one or more employees to receive, review, and 

act upon Defendant’s illegal faxes. Just the time spent in retrieving an unsolicited 

facsimile from the fax machine, reviewing it, and tossing it in the garbage can is 

burdensome and wasteful and converts Plaintiffs’ valuable time to Defendant’s

marketing effort. Defendant knew or should have known employees’ time is 

valuable to Plaintiffs and the other class members. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant, as follows:

A. That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be 

properly maintained as a class action, appoint Plaintiffs as the representative of the 

class, and appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel for the class;

B. That the Court award compensatory damages against Defendant for 

each of its violations of the ICFA;

D. That the Court enter an injunction prohibiting Defendant from sending 

advertisements by fax without first demonstrating that it has obtained express 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:179
19

invitation or permission to fax advertisements or included the required opt-out 

notice on each advertisement sent by fax to a person with whom Defendant has an 

established business relationship; and

E. That the Court award attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs;

F. That the Court enter such further relief as the Court may deem just 

and proper.

COUNT IV 

TRESPASS 

72. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs preceding Count I as though fully 

set forth herein. 

73. Plaintiffs bring Count IV on behalf of themselves and a class of 

similarly-situated persons and alleging claims under the common law of conversion 

(the “Common Law Class”).

74. Plaintiffs and the class members were entitled to possession of the 

equipment they used to receive faxes.

75. Defendants’ sending Plaintiffs and the class members unsolicited faxes 

interfered with their use of the receiving equipment and constitutes a trespass to 

such equipment. 

76. Defendants acted either intentionally or negligently in engaging in 

such conduct.

77. Plaintiffs and each class member suffered damages as a result of 

receipt of the unsolicited faxes.

78. Defendants should be enjoined from continuing trespasses.

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:180
20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant, as follows:

A. That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be 

properly maintained as a class action, appoint Plaintiffs as the representatives of 

the class, and appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel for the class;

B. That the Court award compensatory damages against Defendant for 

each of its trespasses;

C. That the Court enter an injunction prohibiting Defendant from sending 

advertisements by fax without first demonstrating that it has obtained express 

invitation or permission to fax advertisements or included the required opt-out 

notice on each advertisement sent by fax to a person with whom Defendant has an 

established business relationship; and

D. That the Court award costs;

E. That the Court enter such further relief as the Court may deem just 

and proper.

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:181
21

Respectfully submitted,

CAMP DRUG STORE, INC., individually and as 

the representative of a class of similarly-situated 

persons,

By: /s/ Phillip A. Bock

One of their attorneys

Phillip A. Bock (ARDC #6224502)

Jonathan B. Piper (ARDC #6196071)

BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC (#44533)

134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-658-5500

Facsimile: 312-658-5555

Email: service@classlawyers.com

GLEN ELLYN PHARMACY, INC., individually 

and as the representative of classes of similarlysituated persons,

By: /s/ Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Cathleen M. Combs

Dulijaza (Julie) Clark

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER

& GOODWIN, LLC

20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Telephone: (312) 739-4200

Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury.

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:182
22

NOTICE OF LIEN AND ASSIGNMENT 

 Please be advised that we claim a lien upon any recovery herein for 1/3 or such 

amount as a court awards. All rights relating to attorney’s fees have been assigned 

to counsel.

/s/ Phillip A. Bock

Phillip A. Bock (ARDC #6224502)

Jonathan B. Piper (ARDC #6196071)

BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC (#44533)

134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-658-5500

Facsimile: 312-658-5555

Email: service@classlawyers.com

/s/ Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER

& GOODWIN, LLC

20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Telephone: (312) 739-4200

Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that, on July 28, 2020, he caused a 

copy of the foregoing to be served upon all counsel of record using the ECF system.

s/ Phillip A. Bock

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 26 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:183