1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ANGEL BAKOV, and KINAYA HEWLETT, 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CONSOLIDATED TRAVEL HOLDINGS 

GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, JAMES 

H. VERRILLO, an individual, DANIEL E. 

LAMBERT, an individual, JENNIFER 

POOLE, an individual, and DONNA 

HIGGINS, an individual, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

)

 Case No. 

 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiffs Angel Bakov and Kinaya Hewlett bring this Class Action Complaint against 

Defendants Consolidated Travel Holdings Group, Inc., James H. Verrillo, Daniel E. Lambert, 

Jennifer Poole, and Donna Higgins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and 

allege upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their own experiences, upon record and 

testimonial evidence, upon investigation of counsel, and, as to other matters, upon information and 

belief: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. Defendants authorized, directed, or participated in a call center located in India 

making robocalls to millions of people around the U.S. offering a “free cruise.” Those calls were 

all made using “prerecorded voice,” within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”), and without the express written consent of the people answering 

those calls. Defendants thus violated the TCPA on a massive scale. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1
2 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because it involves a 

question of federal law. 

3. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they all have engaged 

in substantial and not isolated activity within this state. 

4. Venue is proper in this District because a substantial part of the events or omissions 

giving rise to the claim occurred here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1339(b)(2). 

III. PLAINTIFFS 

A. Angel Bakov 

5. Plaintiff Angel Bakov is an individual domiciled in Cook County, Illinois and a 

citizen of the State of Illinois. 

6. Defendants’ Indian call center operator, Virtual Voice Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 

(“Virtual Voice”) called Mr. Bakov March 26, 2015, March 27, 2015, April 17, 2015, April 27, 

2015, and—after filing the initial complaint in the Illinois Class Action—June 17, 2015. 

7. Mr. Bakov answered several of these calls from Virtual Voice, including the call in 

June 2015, and, when he did, he heard “Hi, this is Jennifer with Holiday Cruise Line on a recorded 

line. Can you hear me okay?” 

8. Mr. Bakov never consented to receiving these calls. 

9. These calls annoyed and frustrated Mr. Bakov. 

10. In particular, the call which occurred on June 17, 2015 was highly intrusive and 

upsetting. After Defendants had already made four unsolicited calls using prerecorded voice to 

Mr. Bakov, Mr. Bakov instituted the Illinois Class Action. Then, Defendants had the nerve to call 

him again. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:2
3 

11. Mr. Bakov received his final call on his cell phone while he was at his office where 

he was employed as an attorney. His cell phone ringer was activated and the phone rang. Mr. 

Bakov then picked up the call and heard the familiar prerecorded prompts from “Jennifer with 

Holiday Cruise Line.” 

12. During the time Mr. Bakov received his call, he was interrupted from the work he 

was performing on behalf of his clients. 

B. Kinaya Hewlett 

13. Plaintiff Kinaya Hewlett is an individual domiciled in Sacramento County, 

California and a citizen of the State of California. 

14. Virtual Voice called Ms. Hewlett on many occasions throughout 2015 and 2016. 

Ms. Hewlett’s records identify calls from numbers associated with Defendants on January 22, 

2015, January 24, 2015, January 27, 2015, March 8, 2016, and March 14, 2016. However, because 

Defendants used thousands of outgoing numbers during the Holiday Cruise Line campaign, this 

list is not exhaustive of all the calls Ms. Hewlett received from Defendants. 

15. Ms. Hewlett answered the calls she received from Virtual Voice in March 2016 

and, when she did, heard a prerecorded voice say, “Hi, this is Jennifer with Holiday Cruise Line 

on a recorded line. Can you hear me okay?” 

16. Ms. Hewlett never consented to receiving these calls. 

17. Ms. Hewlett received calls in March 2016 while she was in the house where she 

worked and lived as a home health aide. 

18. These calls annoyed and frustrated Ms. Hewlett so badly that she began screaming 

at the phone when she received the calls in March 2016. At this point, a live person came onto the 

line and began screaming back at her. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:3
4 

19. Ms. Hewlett was so distressed from the calls that she went on to spend money on 

purchasing a new phone plan so that Defendants would not know her new phone number. 

IV. DEFENDANTS 

A. Consolidated Travel Holdings Group, Inc. 

20. Consolidated Travel Holdings Group (“Consolidated Holdings”) is a Florida 

corporation with its principal place of business at 100 W. Cypress Creek Road, Suite 640, Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida 33309. 

21. Consolidated Holdings wholly owns non-party Consolidated World Travel, Inc. 

(“Consolidated Travel”) and Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (“Caribbean”). Consolidated Travel is a 

defendant in a related class, described below. Partial summary judgment was entered against 

Caribbean in an unrelated TCPA class action, which has since settled. Consolidated Travel ceased 

its U.S. operations in March 2016. 

B. James H. Verrillo 

22. Mr. Verrillo is an individual domiciled at 88987 Old Highway, Tavernier, Florida 

33070-4008 and a citizen of the State of Florida. 

23. Mr. Verrillo owns or controls, or has owned or controlled, numerous businesses in 

the marketing and hospitality industries, including Consolidated Holdings, Consolidated Travel, 

and Caribbean. 

24. During the relevant time, Consolidated Holdings had two directors. Mr. Verrillo 

was one of them. 

25. Mr. Verrillo ran the operations of Consolidated Travel, oversaw all its departments 

(including marketing, fulfillment, and customer service), determined salaries for higher-ranking 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:4
5 

employees, and, together with Mr. Lambert, made the decision to wind down its U.S. operations 

in March 2016. 

26. Mr. Verrillo authorized the illegal telemarketing campaign at issue in this lawsuit 

by, among other things, authorizing payments to Virtual Voice and others and receiving reporting 

regarding call volume and other similar matters. 

27. Since he has been involved in telemarketing for years, has been the subject of 

multiple government investigations regarding the illegality of his telemarketing activities, has 

entered multiple settlement agreements with State Attorneys General barring him from engaging 

in conduct at issue in this case, has been named as a defendant in numerous private lawsuits 

alleging TCPA violations, and has had judgment for TCPA violations entered against a company 

he owns or controls (Caribbean), Mr. Verrillo’s failure to comply with the law was intentional or 

represents a gross failure on his part. 

C. Daniel E. Lambert 

28. Mr. Lambert is an individual domiciled at 100 W Cypress Creek Rd, Suite 640, 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309-2181 and a citizen of the State of Florida. 

29. Mr. Lambert owns or controls, or has owned or controlled, numerous businesses in 

the marketing and hospitality industries, including Consolidated Holdings, Consolidated Travel, 

and Caribbean. 

30. During the relevant time, Consolidated Holdings had two directors. Mr. Lambert 

was one of them. 

31. Mr. Lambert ran the operations of Consolidated Travel, oversaw all departments 

(including marketing, fulfillment, and customer service), determined salaries for higher-ranking 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:5
6 

employees, and, together with Mr. Verrillo, decided to wind down its U.S. operations in March 

2016. 

32. Mr. Lambert authorized the illegal telemarketing campaign at issue in this lawsuit 

by, among other things, authorizing the agreement between Consolidated Travel and Virtual Voice 

and receiving reporting regarding call volume and other similar matters. 

33. Since he has been involved in telemarketing for years, has been the subject of 

multiple government investigations regarding the illegality of his telemarketing activities, has 

entered multiple settlement agreements with State Attorneys General barring him from engaging 

in conduct at issue in this case, has been named as a defendant in numerous private lawsuits 

alleging TCPA violations, and has had judgment for TCPA violations entered against a company 

he owns or controls (Caribbean), Mr. Lambert’s failure to comply with the law was intentional or 

represents a gross failure on his part. 

D. Jennifer Poole 

34. Defendant Jennifer Poole is an individual domiciled at 6762 NW 70th Avenue, 

Tamarac, Florida 33321 and a citizen of the State of Florida. 

35. During the Class Period, Ms. Poole was President and Director of Marketing for 

Consolidated Travel. 

36. Ms. Poole participated in the illegal telemarketing campaign at issue in this lawsuit 

by, among other things, testing the use of prerecorded voice in telemarketing calls, revising and 

approving the script used to create the prerecorded voice files VVT used, controlling the flow of 

calls transferred by VVT to CWT and its affiliates’ call centers in the U.S., providing various 

forms of day-to-day oversight or support for the campaign, and receiving and analyzing reporting 

regarding call volume and other similar matters. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:6
7 

37. Since she has been involved in telemarketing for years, has been employed by 

companies that were the subject of multiple government investigations regarding the illegality of 

those companies’ telemarketing activities, and has been named as a defendant in numerous private 

lawsuits alleging TCPA violations, Ms. Poole’s failure to comply with the law was intentional or 

represents a gross failure on her part. 

E. Donna Higgins 

38. Ms. Higgins is an individual domiciled in South Carolina. 

39. During the Class Period, Ms. Higgins was the President and Marketing Manager of 

Consolidated Travel. 

40. Ms. Higgins authorized and participated in the illegal telemarketing campaign at 

issue in this lawsuit by, among other things, executing agreements with Virtual Voice, The 

Marketing Source, Inc., and Media Monitors, Inc., coordinating quality control work for the 

campaign, interacting with call centers, monitoring the compliance with “Do Not Call” requests, 

and receiving and analyzing reporting regarding call volume and other similar matters. 

41. Since she has been involved in telemarketing for years and has been employed by 

companies that were the subject of multiple government investigations regarding the illegality of 

those companies’ telemarketing activities, Ms. Higgins’ failure to comply with the law was 

intentional or represents a gross failure on her part. 

V. THE BAKOV I ACTION 

42. Plaintiffs Bakov and Hewlett are court-appointed class representatives in Bakov, et 

al. v. Consolidated World Travel, Inc. (d/b/a Holiday Cruise Line), No. 15-cv-2980 (N.D. Ill.) (the 

“Bakov I Action”), currently pending before Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber, U.S.D.J. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:7
8 

43. The Class Judge Leinenweber certified is defined as persons (1) who Virtual Voice 

Technologies called from December 29, 2014 through March 20, 2016, to market a cruise aboard 

the Grand Celebration cruise liner sold by Consolidated Travel, and (2) who answered such calls 

in the state of Illinois. 

44. In Bakov I, Plaintiffs are pursuing a single claim against Consolidated Travel for 

violations of the TCPA. 

45. On December 9, 2019, Judge Leinenweber issued an order granting summary 

judgment as to the issue of liability under the TCPA for Plaintiffs and the certified class. 

46. On March 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter class certification order and 

revise summary judgment order, to extend the certified class to all persons in the United States 

that received the robocalls, based on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., 953 

F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2020) (ECF No. 291). That motion is currently pending before the court. 

47. This lawsuit asserts the same claim on behalf of the same Class against additional 

parties who authorized, directed, or participated in the illegal telemarketing campaign at issue in 

the Illinois Class Action. 

48. Originally, Defendants were named as additional defendants to the Bakov I action, 

but were dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction on August 4, 2016. As to 

Verrillo, Lambert, Poole, and Higgins, the court found that specific jurisdiction did not exist 

because the plaintiffs did not allege that they “personally directed or participated in the violation, 

in order to establish specific jurisdiction.” ECF No. 78 at 5. The court also dismissed the alterego claims asserted herein against Consolidated Travel Holdings Group, Inc. because plaintiffs 

did not adequately allege an “injustice in the even the corporate veil is not pierced.” Id. at 7. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:8
9 

49. These concerns are no longer applicable. Plaintiffs have now supplemented their 

allegations regarding the individual defendants’ roles in the TCPA violations with facts learned 

through discovery in the Bakov I matter. And now that summary judgment has been granted in 

Bakov I, it is highly unlikely that the defendant in that matter will have sufficient resources to 

satisfy any judgment if the veil is not pierced, given that magnitude of its violations and 

tremendous liability. 

50. Plaintiffs also sought to assert these claims against Defendants in the Southern 

District of Florida, in an action styled as Bakov v. Consol. Travel Holdings, Inc., No 19-cv-61509 

(S.D. Fla.). But on April 9, 2020, the court dismissed the action without prejudice under the claimsplitting doctrine, finding that the claims were required to be asserted in the Northern District of 

Illinois. Thus, Plaintiffs have now instituted this action, and will seek to designate it as related to 

Bakov I. 

51. Plaintiffs allege that all the Defendants named herein, together with Consolidated 

Travel, are jointly and severally liable for violations of the TCPA. 

VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

A. The Illegal Telemarketing Campaign 

52. Consolidated Travel promotes vacation packages by mail, direct dial telephone 

calls, telephone call transfers, television, and radio for the purpose of selling vacation packages 

over the phone. The vacation package at issue here is a “free” two-night cruise for two aboard the 

Grand Celebration cruise liner sold for the cost of “port fees.” (the “Grand Celebration Vacation 

Package”). 

53. Consolidated Travel hired Virtual Voice, an Indian company, on a commission 

basis to help market and sell the Grand Celebration Vacation Package. From December 29, 2014, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:9
10 

through March 20, 2016 (the “Class Period”), Virtual Voice called millions of people in the U.S. 

to offer anybody who was interested “a free cruise simply to show you a great time.” Of those 

millions, hundreds of thousands are Class members. 

54. Virtual Voice was Consolidated Travel’s agent in making phone calls to Plaintiffs 

and class members. Consolidated Travel conferred upon Virtual Voice express, implied, and 

apparent authority to market its “free cruise” product, make phone calls to class members, and 

violate the TCPA. 

55. These calls all began with the same innocuous introduction: “Hi, this is Jennifer 

with Holiday Cruise Line on a recorded line. Can you hear me okay?” (Consolidated Travel was 

doing business during the Class Period as Holiday Cruise Line.) There was, however, no 

“Jennifer.” The people who answered these calls were listening to a recording of a professional 

voice actor reading from a script approved by Consolidated Travel. 

56. Nor was Consolidated Travel out to give anyone a “free cruise.” What Consolidated 

Travel wanted was to “upsell” the people who received Virtual Voice’s calls on bigger vacation 

packages that ran a thousand dollars or more. 

57. The prerecorded voice prompts that Consolidated Travel approved were misleading 

in several other respects. For example, the prompts stated or indicated that the person receiving 

the call was a winner or had been selected, or was otherwise being included in a select group, to 

receive a “free cruise.” That was not true. Consolidated Travel was willing to and did sell the 

Grand Celebration Vacation Package to anyone over 18 with access to a credit or debit card. The 

prompts stated that the Grand Celebration Vacation Package was “free.” That was also untrue. 

Consolidated Travel charged, at minimum, $118 in “port fees.” The prompts stated that the purpose 

of the telemarketing call was to generate word of mouth advertising. That was untrue. This 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:10
11 

telemarketing campaign was not intended to and in fact did not generate any word of mouth 

advertising. 

58. To make these misleading sales calls, Virtual Voice call centers used a type of 

“soundboard” telemarketing technology called Virtual Voice Technology software (“VVT 

Software”) to play prerecorded voice prompts that were scripted and recorded beforehand. 

59. Use of prerecorded voice was important to Consolidated Travel. While Virtual 

Voice agents generally spoke English as a second language and thus spoke with a noticeable Indian 

accent, scripted audio files could be recorded accent-free. 

60. Virtual Voice agents accessed the VVT Software like any other website. After 

navigating to the site and logging in with a username and password, Virtual Voice agents gained 

access to a main screen from which they could make and transfer calls. This software was designed 

to be “idiot proof.” There was a dial next button onscreen and, next to that, dozens of voice prompt 

buttons. Clicking the dial next button would begin a call. Clicking a voice prompt button would 

play a corresponding prerecorded voice file. 

61. Virtual Voice agents could choose between forty-seven different voice messages 

on the main screen. The messages vary from an initial greeting (“Hi, this is Jennifer . . .”) to 

inquiring about the caller’s interest (“. . . wouldn’t you be interested in a free cruise to the 

Bahamas?”) to completing a final transfer to CWT (“This looks really good. Congratulations you 

do qualify for the free cruise . . . But I just want to tell you that there is nothing like a cruise to the 

Bahamas. So I am going to place you on a brief hold to connect you to the cruise specialist.”). The 

messages also include basic interjections (“Hold on” and “could you repeat that?”) and other 

discrete disclosures (“you should know that I’m not selling anything,” “I’m a real person,” and 

“I’m assisted by prerecorded audio.”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:11
12 

62. When a call was answered, Virtual Voice agents were required to play the first 

prerecorded prompt (“Hi, this is Jennifer with Holiday Cruise Line . . .”). Virtual Voice agents 

played this prompt on every call made to class members. 

63. Virtual Voice agents were instructed to click on these various prompts to generate 

interest in the Grand Celebration Vacation Package, to get these potential customers qualified, and 

then to transfer the calls to Consolidated Travel and its affiliates’ call centers in the U.S. 

64. Virtual Voice agents made multiple calls simultaneously by logging into two 

different computers at the same time and by wearing two headsets. 

65. Virtual Voice agents did not use their own voices to speak with consumers because 

they were not authorized to deviate from the preapproved script. 

66. No one consented to receiving calls from Consolidated Travel, Virtual Voice, or 

any of the Defendants. 

67. By making such unwanted calls, Defendants caused Plaintiffs and each of the Class 

members actual harm, including the aggravation and nuisance that necessarily accompanies the 

receipt of unsolicited calls, and the monies paid to their carriers for the receipt of such calls. 

68. To redress these injuries, Plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages to Plaintiffs 

and the Class under the TCPA, and an order trebling such award of statutory damages, together 

with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

B. Consolidated Holdings Is The Alter Ego Of Consolidated Travel 

69. Consolidated Holdings does not observe corporate formalities with its subsidiaries, 

Consolidated Travel and Caribbean. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:12
13 

70. Consolidated Holdings and Consolidated Travel share and comingle assets. 

Consolidated Travel employees, including Ms. Poole and Ms. Higgins, received compensation for 

their work as employees or Consolidated Travel from Caribbean. 

71. Consolidated Holdings directed Consolidated Tavel employees to use the same 

office space and other assets of Caribbean. When Mr. Verrillo and Mr. Lambert decided to end 

their telemarketing campaign activities through Caribbean, they started up a new one through 

Consolidated Travel. The Consolidated Travel campaign—the one at issue in this action—was 

staffed by the same personnel, working in the same office, sitting at the same desks, and using the 

same telephone numbers as had been used for the Caribbean campaign. 

C. Consolidated Travel Did Not Observe Corporate Formalities 

72. There was a complete failure to observe corporate formalities at Consolidated 

Travel. Ms. Poole has testified that she was named “President” of Consolidated Travel but had no 

idea whether she was ever actually elected to this position or what her duties were. She also 

testified she could not recall ever attending a single board meeting. She was never shown 

Consolidated Travel’s finances. 

D. Verrillo And Lambert Used Consolidated Travel For An Improper Purpose 

73. Mr. Verrillo and Mr. Lambert have a history of engaging in wrongful telemarketing 

activities, including those owned by Consolidated Holdings, and then dissolving such companies 

after they incur liability. 

74. For example, in 1999, Mr. Verrillo and Mr. Lambert were named in lawsuits filed 

by Attorneys Generals of 18 states, including Illinois, for unfair and deceptive practices related to 

the marketing and sale of cruises. The Court entered a Final Judgment And Consent Decree as to 

Mr. Verrillo, Mr. Lambert, and their companies. Under the Final Judgment, Mr. Verrillo and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:13
14 

Mr. Lambert agreed that they were permanently enjoined in Illinois from, among other things, 

“Representing to any consumer, directly or by implication, that the consumer is a ‘winner’ or that 

the consumer has been ‘selected’ or is otherwise being included in a select group for receipt of a 

prize or opportunity unless that is, in fact, true . . . when, in fact, the enterprise is a promotional 

scheme designed to make contact with prospective customers, and all . . . of those ‘entering’ 

receive the same ‘prize.’” 

75. In 2008, the Florida Attorney General commenced an action against another 

company owned by Mr. Verrillo and Mr. Lambert, Imperial Majesty Cruise Line, LLC 

(“Imperial”) for misleading telemarketing or advertising practices. See State of Florida v. Imperial 

Majesty Cruise Line, LLC, No. 08-54154(18) (Fla. Cir. Ct.). On November 17, 2010, a Florida 

judge banned Imperial from charging fees above the advertised fare and ordered the company to 

pay $16 million in fines and restitution. Three years prior to that order, however, Mr. Verrillo and 

Mr. Lambert had already dissolved Imperial. As a result, Majesty, Mr. Verrillo, and Mr. Lambert 

avoided paying that amount. 

76. Consolidated Holdings, Mr. Verrillo, and Mr. Lambert have also been the subject 

of a federal investigation. On March 3, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission, along with ten state 

attorneys general, commenced an action against a Caribbean for violations of the Telemarketing 

Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rules. See FTC et al. v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. et 

al., No. 15-cv-60423 (S.D. Fla.). The FTC entered into a consent judgment with Caribbean, 

whereby Caribbean agreed to refrain from further robocalls and to pay $500,000 in order to 

suspend a civil penalty of $7,730,000. 

77. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission 

(“CRTC”)—the FTC’s Canadian counterpart—has also investigated Consolidated Holdings. On 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:14
15 

March 11, 2015, the CRTC fined Consolidated Holdings $200,000 for engaging in violations of 

Canadian telemarketing law involving calls advertising free cruises. Notice of Violation: 

Consolidated Travel Holdings Croup, Inc., CRTC (Mar. 11, 2015), http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ 

eng/archive/2015/vt150311.htm. Among the cited violations, the Canadian agency stated that 

Consolidated Holdings initiated calls using an automatic dialing-announcing device without 

obtaining express consent. Based on essentially the same conduct, numerous class actions have 

been filed against Caribbean Cruise Line since 2012. See Birchmeier v. Caribbean Cruise Line, 

Inc., 302 F.R.D. 240, 243 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (discussing alleged telemarketing campaign involving 

political surveys); see also Jackson v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., et al., No. 2:14-02485 

(E.D.N.Y.); Gordon v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., et al., No. 1:14-05848 (N.D. Ill.); Izsak, et al. 

v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., No. 0:14-62231 (S.D. Fla.). 

VII. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

78. Plaintiffs bring Count I, as set forth below, on behalf of themselves and as a class 

action pursuant to the provisions of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

on behalf of the same exact class they already represent in the Illinois action: 

All persons in the United States (1) who Virtual Voice Technologies 

called from December 29, 2014 through March 20, 2016, to market 

a cruise aboard the Grand Celebration cruise liner sold by 

Consolidated Travel, and (2) who answered such calls. 

79. Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because 

Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as 

would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims. 

80. Numerosity – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). The members of the Class 

are so numerous that individual joinder of all Class members is impracticable. The Class consists 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:15
16 

of hundreds of thousands of people. Tens of thousands of Class members have already been 

identified in the Illinois Class Action. 

81. Commonality and Predominance – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) and 

23(b)(3). This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over any 

questions affecting individual Class members, including, without limitation: 

a. Whether Virtual Voice called Plaintiffs and Class members; 

b. Whether Virtual Voice used the same technology (the VVT Software) to 

call Plaintiffs and Class members throughout the Class Period; 

c. Whether Virtual Voice agents used the VVT Software to play prerecorded 

voice to Plaintiffs and Class members; 

d. Whether using the VVT Software to play prerecorded voice constitutes use 

of “prerecorded voice” within the meaning of the TCPA; 

e. Whether Virtual Voice’s conduct violated the TCPA; 

f. Whether Defendants’ are personally liable for such violations; 

g. Whether Defendants’ violations of the TCPA were willful and knowing; 

and 

h. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to statutory or other 

forms of monetary relief, and the amounts of such relief. 

82. Typicality – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs’ claims are typical 

of the other Class members’ claims because, among other things, all Class members were 

comparably injured through the uniform prohibited conduct described above. 

83. Adequacy of Representation – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs 

are adequate representatives of the Class because their interests do not conflict with the interests 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:16
17 

of the other Class members they seek to represent; they have retained counsel competent and 

experienced in complex commercial and class action litigation; and Plaintiffs intend to prosecute 

this action vigorously. The interests of the Class members will be fairly and adequately protected 

by the Plaintiffs and their counsel. 

84. Superiority – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). A class action is superior 

to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, and no 

unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. The 

damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiffs and the other Class members are 

relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to individually litigate 

their claims against Defendants, so it would be impracticable for Class members to individually 

seek redress for Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Even if Class members could afford individual 

litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent 

or contradictory judgments, and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. 

By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the 

benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive judicial supervision. 

VIII. CLAIMS ALLEGED 

COUNT I 

Violation of the TCPA 

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)–(B) 

(On behalf of the Class) 

85. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if 

fully stated herein. 

86. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitute numerous and multiple 

violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227 et seq. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:17
18 

87. As a result of Defendants’ violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiffs and Class 

members are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages for each and every call made in 

violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). 

88. Because Defendants’ violations were knowing or willful, Plaintiffs and members 

of the proposed class are entitled to treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each and every call made 

in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C). 

89. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class are also entitled to an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 

IX. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

90. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury 

of any and all issues in this action so triable of right. 

X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Bakov and Hewlett individually and on behalf of the Class, 

requests that the Court enter an Order: 

A. Certifying the Class as defined above, appointing Plaintiffs as the representatives 

of the Class, and appointing their counsel as Class Counsel; 

B. Awarding statutory damages; 

C. Awarding of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 

D. Granting such other and further relief that the Court deems reasonable and just. 

Date: April 22, 2020 CARLSON LYNCH LLP 

 

/s/ Katrina Carroll

Katrina Carroll 

kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com 

Kyle A. Shamberg 

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:18
19 

kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com 

111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Telephone: (312) 750-1265 

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 

Yitzchak Kopel (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

ykopel@bursor.com 

888 Seventh Avenue 

New York, NY 10019 

Telephone: (646) 837-7127 

LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Jeremy Nash (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

jnash@litedepalma.com 

570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 

Newark, NJ 07102 

Telephone: (973) 623-3000 

JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C. 

Jeffrey Grant Brown 

65 West Jackson Blvd. 

Suite 107 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Jeff@jgbrownlaw.com

Tel: 312.789.9700 

Fax: 312.789.9702 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-02459 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:19