IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GEORGE MOORE on behalf of himself 

and others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

AUTO CARE WARRANTY 

SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 

/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Preliminary Statement

1. As the Supreme Court explained at the end of its term this year, “Americans 

passionately disagree about many things. But they are largely united in their disdain for 

robocalls. The Federal Government receives a staggering number of complaints about 

robocalls—3.7 million complaints in 2019 alone. The States likewise field a constant barrage of 

complaints. For nearly 30 years, the people’s representatives in Congress have been fighting 

back. As relevant here, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, known as the TCPA, 

generally prohibits robocalls to cell phones and home phones.” Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political

Consultants, No. 19-631, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3544, at *5 (July 6, 2020).

2. Defendant Auto Care Warranty Solutions, LLC (“Auto Care Warranty” or 

“Defendant”) engaged in a cold-calling, prerecorded telemarketing campaign to promote its 

vehicle service warranties to persons who had no prior relationship with the Defendant (the 

Telemarketing Campaign).

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/15/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
2

3. The Telemarketing Campaign engaged in by the Defendant also violated 815 

ILCS 305, the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act when it used a pre-recorded message.

4. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands 

or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action against the 

Defendant on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received calls during 

the Telemarketing Campaign. 

5. A class action is the best means of obtaining redress for the Defendant’s wide 

scale illegal telemarketing and is consistent both with the private right of action afforded by the 

TCPA and the fairness and efficiency goals of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Parties

6. Plaintiff George Moore is a resident of Illinois in this District.

7. Defendant Auto Care Warranty is and was at all relevant times a business entity 

duly formed with a principal address at 2000 East 4th Street, Number 304, Santa Ana, California 

92705, and a registered agent address at 1019 Costa Pacifico, #1407, Oceanside, California 

92054.

Jurisdiction & Venue

8. The Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over these TCPA 

claims. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740 (2012).

9. Defendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this District because it has 

continuous and systematic contacts with this District through its telemarketing efforts that target 

this District.

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/15/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2
3

10. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Plaintiff Moore is a 

resident of this district, which is where he received the illegal telemarketing calls that are the 

subject of this putative class action lawsuit. 

TCPA Background

11. In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA to regulate the explosive growth of the 

telemarketing industry. In so doing, Congress recognized that “[u]nrestricted telemarketing . . . 

can be an intrusive invasion of privacy [.]” Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. 

No. 102-243, § 2(5) (1991) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227).

The TCPA Prohibits Automated Telemarketing Calls

12. The TCPA makes it unlawful to (1) make calls to cellular telephone lines using an 

“automatic telephone dialing system,” or (2) make calls to any cellular or residential line using 

an artificial or prerecorded voice, without the call recipient’s prior express consent. See 47 

U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) & (B); In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. 

Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 27 F.C.C. Rcd. 1830, 1844 (2012). 

13. The TCPA provides a private cause of action to persons who receive such calls. 

See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

14. According to findings by the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”), the 

agency Congress vested with authority to issue regulations implementing the TCPA, such calls 

are prohibited because, as Congress found, automated or prerecorded telephone calls are a 

greater nuisance and invasion of privacy than live solicitation calls, and such calls can be costly 

and inconvenient.

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/15/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3
4

15. In 2013, the FCC required prior express written consent for all autodialed or 

prerecorded telemarketing calls (“robocalls”) to wireless numbers and residential lines. 

Specifically, it ordered that:

[A] consumer’s written consent to receive telemarketing robocalls must be signed 

and be sufficient to show that the consumer: (1) received “clear and conspicuous 

disclosure” of the consequences of providing the requested consent, i.e., that the 

consumer will receive future calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on 

behalf of a specific seller; and (2) having received this information, agrees 

unambiguously to receive such calls at a telephone number the consumer 

designates.[] In addition, the written agreement must be obtained “without 

requiring, directly or indirectly, that the agreement be executed as a condition of 

purchasing any good or service.[]”

In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 

27 F.C.C. Rcd. 1830, 1844 (2012) (footnotes omitted).

The National Do Not Call Registry

16. Second, § 227(c) of the TCPA requires the FCC to “initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding concerning the need to protect residential telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to 

avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1).

17. The National Do Not Call Registry allows consumers to register their telephone 

numbers and thereby indicate their desire not to receive telephone solicitations at those numbers. 

See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). 

18. A listing on the Registry “must be honored indefinitely, or until the registration is 

cancelled by the consumer or the telephone number is removed by the database administrator.” 

Id. 

19. The TCPA and implementing regulations prohibit the initiation of telephone 

solicitations to residential telephone subscribers to the Registry and provides a private right of 

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/15/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4
5

action against any entity that makes those calls, or “on whose behalf” such calls are promoted. 

47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). 

Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act

20. In Illinois, the Automatic Telephone Dialers Act (“ATDA”) prohibits 

21. “play[ing] a prerecorded message placed by an autodialer without the consent of 

the called party”. 815 ILCS 305/30(b). 

22. The ATDA provides for treble actual damages, statutory damages of $500 per 

violation, and costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 815 ILCS 305/30(c). 

23. Passage of the 2013 amendments to the ATDA providing for statutory damages, 

as invoked here, was unanimous in the Illinois legislature. 

Factual Allegations

Calls to Mr. Moore

24. The Defendant contacted Mr. Moore on two of his telephone numbers.

25. The first number, (630) 699-XXXX, is a residential number registered to a 

cellular telephone service.

26. The second number, (727) 753-XXXX, is a residential number.

27. Both numbers have been continuously on the National Do Not Call Registry for 

years prior to the receipt of the calls at issue.

28. On at least February 17, March 6, April 2, April 17, June 9, 17 and 19, 2020, Mr. 

Moore received a pre-recorded telemarketing call from Auto Care Warranty.

29. The June 19, 2020 call was made to the (630) 699-XXXX number.

30. The remaining calls were made to the (727) 753-XXXX number.

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/15/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5
6

31. The pre-recorded call began each time by describing vehicle warranty services

and asked the Plaintiff to press the number “1” to be connected with a live representative.

32. The purpose of these calls was to generate sales for Auto Care Warranty.

33. The Plaintiff was not interested in the services being offered and attempted to 

ignore the calls.

34. However, the calls continued.

35. On June 26, 2020, the Plaintiff received another call from the Defendant on the 

(727) 753-XXXX number.

36. To confirm the identity of the calling party, the Plaintiff listened to the 

telemarketing pitch and provided identifying information.

37. The Plaintiff received a letter from Auto Care Warranty regarding the 

telemarketing call he had received.

38. Auto Care Warranty further confirmed their identity by being affiliated with 

Matrix Warranty Solutions, Inc, a company that sponsors and administers the vehicle service 

warranty contracts offered by Auto Care Warranty.

39. After the call, the Plaintiff contacted Auto Care Warranty regarding the 

telemarketing solicitation calls he had received and demanded any information that Auto Care 

Warranty had that would permit the call.

40. The Plaintiff received no response.

41. Plaintiff and all members of the classes, defined below, have been harmed by the 

acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they were subjected to annoying 

and harassing calls that constitute a nuisance. The calls also occupied Plaintiff’s telephone lines

from legitimate communication and wasted his time. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/15/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6
7

42. Plaintiff has not provided Defendant with his prior express written consent to 

place telemarketing calls to him.

Class Action Allegations

43. As authorized by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings

this action on behalf of the following classes of persons or entities similarly situated throughout 

the United States.

44. The classes of persons Plaintiff proposes to represent are tentatively defined as:

DO NOT CALL LIST CLASS

All persons within the United States to whom: (a) Defendant or a 

third party acting on their behalf, made at least two telephone

solicitation calls during a 12-month period; (b) promoting vehicle 

warranty services (c) to a residential or cellular telephone number

registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days 

prior to the first call; (d) on or after four years from the filing of the 

Complaint.

PRERECORDED CLASS

All persons within the United States to whom: (a) Defendant or a 

third party acting on their behalf, made one or more telephone calls

promoting vehicle warranty services; (b) to a residential or cellular 

telephone number; (c) through the use of a prerecorded voice; and 

(d) on or after four years from the filing of the Complaint.

IL ATDA SUBCLASS

All Illinois residents to whom: (a) Defendant and/or a third party acting on 

its behalf, made one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) to a 

residential or cellular telephone number; (c) through the use of a

prerecorded voice; and (d) at any time in the period that begins four years 

before the date of filing this Complaint to trial.

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/15/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7
8

45. Excluded from the classes are the Defendant, and any entities in which the 

Defendant have a controlling interest, the Defendant’ agents and employees, any judge to whom 

this action is assigned, and any member of such judge’s staff and immediate family.

46. The classes as defined above are identifiable through phone records and phone 

number databases. 

47. The potential class members number at least in the thousands. Individual joinder 

of these persons is impracticable. 

48. Plaintiff is a member of the classes.

49. There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and to the proposed 

classes, including but not limited to the following:

a. Whether Defendant violated the TCPA by calling individuals on the 

National Do Not Call Registry;

b. Whether Defendant’s calls are solicitations;

c. Whether Defendant made calls using a prerecorded voice;

d. Whether Defendant placed calls without obtaining the recipients’ prior 

express written consent for the call; and

e. Whether the Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to statutory 

damages as a result of Defendant’s actions.

50. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of class members.

51. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the classes because his interests do not 

conflict with the interests of the classes, he will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

classes, and is represented by counsel skilled and experienced in class actions, including TCPA 

class actions.

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/15/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8
9

52. The actions of the Defendant are generally applicable to the classes as a whole 

and to Plaintiff.

53. Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only 

individual class members, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy. The only individual question concerns identification of class 

members, which will be ascertainable from records maintained by Defendant and/or their agents.

54. The likelihood that individual members of the classes will prosecute separate 

actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual case. 

Legal Claims

Count One

Violations of the TCPA’s Do Not Call Provisions

55. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set 

forth herein.

56. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) by 

initiating, or having one of their vendors initiate on their behalf, multiple solicitation calls within 

a 12-month period to residential telephone numbers despite their registration on the National Do 

Not Call Registry and without signed, written prior express invitation or permission. 

57. Defendant’s violations were negligent and/or willful.

Count Two

Violation of the TCPA’s Automated Telemarketing Call Provisions

58. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set 

forth herein.

59. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B), 47 

C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2), and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3) by initiating, or having one of their 

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/15/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9
10

vendors initiate on their behalf, a call that includes an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing 

to the Plaintiff’s residential and cellular telephone numbers using a pre-recorded voice without 

his prior express written consent. 

60. Defendant’s violations were negligent and/or willful.

Count Three

Violations of the ATDA, 815 ILCS 305/1 et seq.

61. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully 

herein. 

62. The ATDA prohibits “play[ing] a prerecorded message placed by an autodialer 

without the consent of the called party.” 815 ILCS 305/30(b).

63. Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff or the other members of the IL 

ATDA Sub-Class to play a prerecorded message placed by an autodialer.

64. Nonetheless, Defendant called the phones of Plaintiff and the other members of 

the IL ATDA Sub-Class using a telephone dialing or accessing device, machine, computer or 

system capable of storing telephone numbers which is programmed to sequentially or randomly 

access the stored telephone numbers in order to automatically connect a telephone with a 

recorded message. No human being physically dialed each digit of Plaintiff’s or the other IL 

ATDA Sub-Class members’ phone numbers to connect their telephones with a recorded 

message. 

65. Consequently, Defendant violated the ATDA by playing a prerecorded message 

placed by an autodialer during calls to the phones of Plaintiff and the other IL ATDA Sub-Class 

members, without such persons’ consent, or by the fact that others did so on their behalf. 

66. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to Section 30(c)-(c-5) of the

ATDA, Plaintiff and the other members of the IL ATDA Sub-Class were harmed and are each

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/15/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10
11

entitled to statutory damages of $500 per violation and three times any actual damages, as well

as costs and attorneys’ fees. 815 ILCS 305/30(c)-(c-5).

Relief Sought

For himself and all Classes members, Plaintiff requests the following relief:

A. Certification of the proposed Classes;

B. Appointment of Plaintiff as representative of the Classes;

C. Appointment of the undersigned counsel as counsel for the Classes;

D. A declaration that Defendant and/or their affiliates, agents, and/or other related 

entities’ actions complained of herein violate the TCPA;

E. An order enjoining Defendant and/or their affiliates, agents, and/or other related 

entities, as provided by law, from using pre-recorded messages;

F. An award to Plaintiff and the Classes of damages, as allowed by law;

G. Leave to amend this Complaint to conform to the evidence presented at trial; and

H. Orders granting such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary, just, 

and proper.

Plaintiff requests a jury trial as to all claims of the complaint so triable.

PLAINTIFF,

By his attorneys

/s/ Anthony I. Paronich

Anthony I. Paronich

Paronich Law, P.C.

350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400

Hingham, MA 02043

(508) 221-1510

anthony@paronichlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/15/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11