1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL WOOD,

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 20-cv-4584

vs. )

)

CAPITAL VISION SERVICES, LLC; )

MYEYEDR. OPTOMETRISTS, LLC; )

MYEYEDR. OPTOMETRY OF ILLINOIS, LLC; )

) Jury Demanded

Defendant. )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Michael Wood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this 

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

alleges the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. Capital Vision Services, LLC (“Capital Vision”) manages and operates a network 

of MyEyeDr. optometry offices in 24 states and Washington D.C., to whom it sells marketing 

and promotional services, orchestrating a nationwide robocalling campaign. 

2. The individual MyEyeDr. optometry offices place automated, prerecorded calls 

on consumer cellphones, with the sole purpose of promoting and selling their services. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 with respect to Plaintiff’s TCPA claims. Mims v. Arrow Financial 

Services, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 740 (2012).

Case: 1:20-cv-04584 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
2

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants and venue is appropriate in 

this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because Defendant MyEyeDr. Optometry of Illinois, LLC 

does business in this District, made the call that is the subject of this lawsuit to Plaintiff in this 

district, and because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this cause of action 

occurred in this District.

STANDING

5. Defendant MyEyeDr. called Plaintiff using a pre-recorded voice message on

Plaintiff’s cell phone without his consent.

6. Plaintiff has a congressionally defined right to be free of such automated calls to 

his cell phone for which he has not given express consent.

7. Plaintiff has thus suffered an injury as a result of Defendant MyEyeDr.’s invasion 

of Plaintiff’s privacy, giving rise to standing before this Court. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 

1540, 1544 (2016), quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 580 (1992) (Congress 

has the power to define injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or 

controversy where none existed before.); Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F. 2d 1521, 1526-27 (7th Cir. 

1990) (“Congress can create new substantive rights, such as a right to be free from 

misrepresentations, and if that right is invaded the holder of the right can sue without running 

afoul of Article III, even if he incurs no other injury[.]”).

8. Plaintiff’s privacy was also invaded by Defendant MyEyeDr.’s conduct described 

below.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Michael Wood is a natural person who resides in this District.

Case: 1:20-cv-04584 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
3

10. Defendant Capital Vision is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal 

office in Vienna, Virginia. 

11. MyEyeDr. Optometrists, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company. MyEyeDr.

is the trade name used by a number of independently owned and operated optometry practices, 

including Defendants MyEyeDr. Optometry of Illinois, LLC.

12. Capital Vision manages MyEyeDr. optometry centers. 

FACTS

13. The factual bases for Defendant MyEyeDr.’s liability include a marketing pitch; 

lack of consent; use of an auto-dialer; targeting a cell phone; pre-recorded voicemails and loss of 

privacy, among others.

14. On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff received a call from the telephone number (312) 649-

9110, which is associated with MyEyeDr., located at 50 East Chicago Ave East, #1, Chicago, IL 

60611

15. Plaintiff did not pick up the call and Defendant left a voice mail.

16. The voice mail was a prerecorded voice message urging Plaintiff to call 

MyEyeDr. at the 312 number above or visit the website MyEyeDr.com and schedule an 

appointment with an eye doctor.

17. Defendant, and/or third parties on Defendant’s behalf, placed the call described

above using a prerecorded or artificial voice.

18. Plaintiff has excellent vision and has never needed nor sought the services of any 

eye-related health care provider.

19. Plaintiff has never given consent to any Defendant to call or text his cell phone

number.

Case: 1:20-cv-04584 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
4

20. Plaintiff does not know how MyEyeDr. came into possession of his cell phone 

number.

21. Plaintiff is the regular carrier and exclusive user of the cellular telephone that was 

called.

22. Defendant’s call constituted a call that was not for emergency purposes as defined 

by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).

23. The call Defendant MyEyeDr. made to Plaintiff violates 47 U.S.C. § 227.

24. Upon information and belief, MyEyeDr. already keeps records and data from 

which it can determine which phone numbers it has consent to call with a prerecorded voice but

has elected not to engage such to prevent TCPA violations for business reasons.

25. Defendant knew about the TCPA before making the calls to Plaintiff but made the 

illegal call to a cellular phone in spite of such knowledge. 

26. Defendant also knew that it did not have “prior express consent” to call a phone 

number that had been obtained through skip trace or any means other than directly from the 

called party, or that any such consent had been revoked.

27. The telephone call was annoying to Plaintiff, invaded Plaintiff’s privacy interests, 

and temporarily blocked use of Plaintiff’s cellular telephone line for other potential callers.

28. The telephone call was intentionally, willfully and knowingly initiated. 

29. The telephone call was not initiated by accident or mistake.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

30. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class consisting of a:

Prerecorded Voice Class

Case: 1:20-cv-04584 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
5

All persons in the United States whose cellular telephone number, on or after four years

prior to the filing of this action, MyEyeDr. called using a prerecorded voice message, 

where such calling occurred without the person’s prior express consent.

31. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a second class consisting of:

32. Upon information and belief, in the four years prior to the filing of this action, 

there were more than 100 persons whose cell phone number MyEyeDr. called using a 

prerecorded or artificial voice without permission. 

33. Common questions of law or fact exist as to all members of the class, which 

predominate over any questions solely affecting any individual member, including Plaintiff. 

Such questions common to the class include but are not limited to:

a. Whether the calls to Plaintiff and the class were made using a prerecorded 

or artificial voice message as such term is defined or understood under the 

TCPA and applicable FCC regulations and orders;

b. Whether the calls to Plaintiff and the class were made using an ATDS as 

that term is defined by the TCPA and applicable FCC regulations and 

orders;

c. Whether Nationwide had prior express consent to the cell phone numbers 

of Plaintiff and the other members of the class; and

d. Damages, including whether any violations were performed willfully or 

knowingly such that Plaintiff and the other members of the class are 

entitled to treble damages under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

34. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the class. The 

factual and legal bases of Defendant’s liability to Plaintiff and the other members of the classes

are the same: MyEyeDr. violated the TCPA by causing prerecorded calls to be made to the 

cellular telephone number of each member of the class, without permission.

Case: 1:20-cv-04584 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
6

35. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff has 

no interests that might conflict with the interests of the class. Plaintiff is interested in pursuing

his claims vigorously, and he has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and 

complex litigation.

36. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of 

similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, 

efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual action 

would entail. There are, on information and belief, thousands of class members, such that joinder

of all members is impracticable.

37. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that 

would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

38. Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the class, thereby making relief appropriate with respect to the class as 

a whole. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class, should they even 

realize that their rights have been violated, would likely create the risk of inconsistent or varying 

adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that would establish incompatible 

standards of conduct.

39. The identity of the class is, on information and belief, readily identifiable from 

Defendant’s records.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Wood, individually and on behalf of the class, respectfully 

requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendants for:

Case: 1:20-cv-04584 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
7

A. A certification of the class as alleged herein;

B. A declaration that MyEyeDr. violated the TCPA as to Plaintiff and the 

class;

C. Injunctive relief aimed at ensuring the prevention of MyEyeDr. from 

violating the TCPA in the future, including:

1. Requiring MyEyeDr., to hire a Court-approved, independent 

auditing company to (a) investigate all allegations of TCPA 

violations, and (b) audit no less than 10% of MyEyeDr.’s outbound 

calls to ensure that MyEyeDr. had consent and that the consumer 

had not previously asked that calls stop, and (c) report the results 

of the above investigations to the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel on a 

quarterly basis.

D. Damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), for each and every call 

made using an artificial or prerecorded voice to each and every class 

member;

E. Treble damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), as to each violation;

F. Attorneys’ fees and costs, as permitted by law; and

G. Such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.

Dated: August 5, 2020 By: /s/ Michael W. Drew

Plaintiff’s Attorney

Case: 1:20-cv-04584 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
8

Michael Drew

Neighborhood Legal LLC

20 N. Clark Suite 3300

Chicago, IL 60602

Ph: (312) 967-7220

mwd@neighborhoodlegal.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04584 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8