_ EXHIBIT 1


63. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges’ and incorporates by reference
Paragraphs one through sixty-two as if set forth in full at length.

64. The Defendants’ and each of them violated the provisions of 47
U.8.¢, §217, by -failing to act and stop such calls under their employment,
direction and/or control. The Defendant knowingly allowed the initiation of
repeated, abandon calle along with cloaked Galler ID, in which case such calle
subsequently becams harassing, alarming and abusive or seriously annoying
to Plaintiff,

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as
follows:
Award Plaintiff punitive damages for the subject calls
addressed in Count One.
. &L COUNT TWO
GAGING IN PROHIBITED TELEPHONE ACT: ¥
PURSUANT TO 4 S.C. 88223 (a 3) &(E}.

65. . , Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges and incorporates by reference
Paragraphs one through sixty-four ag if set forth in full at length.

66. The Defendants’ and each of them violated the provisions of 47
ULS.C.§223(2}1C} by making ea telephone call or utilizing a
telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication
ensued, without disclosing their identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, or
harase plaintiff et his home.

87. The Defendants’ and eech of them purposely took measures to
obscure their identity from Plaintiff in each of their calis by blocking accurate

Caller ID.

13



‘Transcript - WEST BUSINESS SERVICES - Solicitation
To {201] 767 8153

Date of Solicitation - September 28, 2009

Norwood, NJ 07648

(Recipient) Barbara Zslme (BZ}

(Recipient) Richard, Zelma (RZ)

(RESPONDENT) West Business Services (WB)

CALL TRACE — RESULTS - ACTIVATE - No

CALLER ID / OUTPUT CALLER ID - CRECESUM - 0

887 — DATA INDICATOR - SPOOFED

IDENTIFIER - 800 714 4238 ~ ORIGIN - FALSE

START TIME ~ 8:16 AM{ETZ] DURATION - 3:37 mn/sec
‘Tratiscrber: Richard M. Zelma

Location Norwood, NJ 07648

Digital Logger - Recorded
Recording Operator: Richard M. Zelma.

[EVIDENCE DATE STAMP - Septembet - twenty - eight - two - thousand - nine]


Iv. NATURE OF CLAIMS

12. Plaintiff has always kept his telephone numbers under strict
control and not. shared with any business entity or individuel unless
necessary, as with the instant matter, it was offered only for health or medical
‘related concerns.

13. Plaintiff's prescription medication is provided by Defendant
Medco (“MEDCO"). Upon commencement of that relationship, Plaintiff clearly
instructed Medco not te call or share any information, including medical,
prescription or phone numbers with anyone, unless it pertained to a medical

related nesd oF urgency, thereby severing any Established Business

Relationship. (EBR} (HIPAA - 45 C.F.R. §164.501) [Emphasis added]

14, Material to the cails addressed herein, each of the defendants
management personnel denied, ad mausfum, they were selling anything in the
subject calls, but each were incapable of describing the purpose of their calls
other then Plaintiffs own perception and understanding that the defendants,
and seach of them were calling to encourage Plaintiff to continue to purchase
his prescription medication from Medco.

18. The FCC defines an “unsolicited advertisement” as “any material
advertising the commercial evallability or quality of any property, goods, or
services which is transmitted to auy person without thet person's Pprier
express invitation or pormisston, in writing or otherwise.” 47 U.S.C.
§227(a)(5); 47 C.P.R, § 64.1200(£)(13). ‘Emphasis added]

16. The FCC defines a ‘telephone solicitation” as “the fuitiation of a
telephone cali or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or

rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted



Transcript - VAROLII - Solicitation
To [201] 767 8153

Date of Solicitation - May 8, 2009
Norwood, NJ 07648
(Recipient) Richard Zelma (RZ)
(RESPONDENT) VAROLI (V1)
CALL TRACE ~ RESULTS ~ ACTIVATE - OUT OF AREA
CALLER ID / OUTPUT CALLER ID - CHECKSUM - 0
"887 - DATA INDICATOR - SPOOFED
IDENTIFIER - UNAVAILABLE- ORIGIN - FALSE
START TIME - 12:36 PM [ETZ] DURATION - 1:00 mn/sec
‘Transcriber: Richard M. Zelma
Location Norwood, NI 07648

Digite) Logger - Recorded
Recording Operator: Auto Record

[EVIDENCE DATE STAMP - May - eighth - two - thousand - nine]


33. (RZ): Are you with Medco’ or are you an outside company calling for or on
behalf of Medco?

34. (WB): No, I'm with Medco

35. (RZ): 1 understand that but are you with Medco by contract, meaning you're
calling on their behalf

36. (WB): No, I'm with Medco

37. (RZ): Your paycheck says Medco?

38. (WB): Yes.

39, (RZ): And what state are you in?

40. (WB): I'm calling. . . well - (inaudible) I'm actually calling from West.
41, (RZ: West? What's west?

42. (WB): West Business Services? We are a contracted company---

43. (RZ): (repeats) West Business Services?

44. (WB): Yes.

45, (RZ): Like in West Telemarketing Sewvices? ,

46, wa No, West Business Services.

47, (RZ): Are you a part of West Telemarketing

48. (WB): Yes

49. (RZ): Where are you located, in Nebraska?

50. (WB): Mayfair, Arizona, Sir.

51. Po Okay, We don't participate in anything through a third party company.

52. (WB): Right. Well Medco has hired West to do some of their customer
service work. They are just ¢ contracting company that some companies


-EXHIBIT2 —


- Respectfully submitted,

By:
- ZELMA, pro se

Dated: April 25, 2011

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 4:6-1

i. I am the Plaintiff, pro se in this matter and make this
Certification in compliance with R. 406-1.

2. ‘The matter in controversy in this action is not the subject of
any other action pending in any’ Court or of a pending arbitration '
proceeding. No other action or arbitration is contemplated by plaintiff.

2. lam uneware of any other individual or entity which should
be joined in this action.

I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are
true and I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are

willfully false, I am subject to punishment,

. ZELMA, pro se

Dated; April 25, 2011

“a



controlled, participated in and profited from the wrongdoing of her company,
Caller Defendant West.. :

“aL. Nelson instructed. and directed her employees as well as
telephone sales representatives to falsely identify and misrepresent
themselves as [calling from] Medco. Acting in concert with Medco attorneys,
Nelson composed and approved & carefully orchestrated script in a scheme
that would provide a false sense of identity to the called party. Nelson was
instrumental) in the calls from West as she knowingly accepted and approved
Privileged, confidential and prohibited medical information, formulating that
information inte her script, to be used as the foundation fer her organizations
unlawful calis. :

42. Nelson alleges to be an attorney and compliance officer with
West, who, with reckless disregard of the law and attorney ethics, knowingly
accepted confidential medical information from a client and proceeded to
disseminate that information throughout her organization.

“43. Neither Nelson nor her company was in a need-to-know position
to obtain or acquire and maintain prohibited confidential medical prescription
information. Nelson knew that she would violate HIPAA regulations as well
as other federal and state medical related privacy regulations, relevant to the
within matter, but chose te de so anyway.

44. Nelson knowingly compromised ethics issues, failed miserably as
a compliance officer, ignoring previous no-call notices from Pisintiff and
turned a blind eye by accepting confidential prescription information. Nelson
“willfully engaged in prohibited activity for her organization with the intent to
profit from such confidential information used within her prohibited calls,

which was the result,



CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT

(CIS) _
Use for initial pleadings (not motions) under Ruse 4:5-4

CASE TYPES {oho0ss one ant enter number of case type in appropriate space on the reverse side.)
“Track | 180 days’ discovery
151 NAME CHANGE
475) 0 FORFEITURE
TENANCY

399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation, Compiax Commeniat or Cénatruction)
$82 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt coftection matters

505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM TNGLUDING O RCLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS)

S06 PIP COVERAGE

510 UMor UIM CLAIM -

$11 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT

S12 LEMON LAW

801 SUMMARY ACTION

802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (SUMMARY ACTION)

998 OTHER (Grtefly describe nature of action)

609 EMPLOYMENT (other .fxgn CEPA or LAD)

508 © CONTRACTICOMMERCIAL TRANSACTION

603 AUTO. NEGUGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY

605 PERSONAL INJUR’

610 AUTO. NEGLIGENCE — PROPERTY DAMAGE

@98 TORT-OTHER -
et

‘Track ii — 450 days' discovery
005 = CIVIL RIGHTS.
301 CONDEMNATION
602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY
604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
606 PROOUCT LIABILITY
607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
608 =TOXIC TORT
608 OCEFAMATION
$16 - WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES
617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION

618 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES
620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Track iv ~—~ Active Case Management by Individual Judge / 450 days’ discovery
156 ENVIRONMENTAUENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION
303° MT, LAUREL
508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL
513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION
514 INSURANCE FRAUD
70} ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS

” Centrally Ménaged Litigation (Track IV)
280 Zelnorm :
285 Stryker Trident Hip implants
Mass Tort (Track IV).
248 CIBAGEIGY 278 GADOLINIUM
266 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HRT 285 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL
271 ACCUTANE 282 FOSAMAX -
272“ BEXTRA/CELEBREX 283 DIGITEK
274 RISPERDAUSEROQUEUZYPREXA 224 NUVARING
275 ORTHO EVRA 266 LEVAQUIN
277 MAHWAH TOXIC DUMP SITE 601 ASBESTOS
278 ZOMETAVAREDIA 818 VIOXX
i you bate the case requires track oer than tat provid above, late indicat the reason 00 Side 1,
in the space under “Case Characteristics.”
Please check off each applicable catagory:
(Verbal Threshold (7 Putative Class Action [ride 59
pe page 2 ore



20. Medco shared such information with the Caller Defendants as
well as Defendant Nelson, solely with the intent to up-sell Plaintiff and retain
his business with Medco.

21, The dialog in the scripts the Caller Defendants used representing
Medco, as well as the message|[s] conveyad in those calls were purely to
encourage Plaintiff to continue to purchase the products, goods or services
(the Prescription medication)-from Medco:

22. Medco was clearly encouraging the purchase; investment in, its
goods, or services as the foundation of the prohibited calis. (Id 145818)

23. Medco’s callers initiated unsolicited advertisements as that term
is defined. (See; #15)

; 24. Medco solicited Plaintiff ‘ap that term is defined, via his

residential telephone line on the dates stated herein. {See; 116}

26. Medco is a benefactor to the calls at issue addressed herein.
VIL EA EV. E COMPLAINT
CALLER DEFENDANT - VAROLIE
26. In the instant matter, Caller Defendant Varolii made at least four

(4) calls to Plaintiff's residential telephone line using an ADAD, the exact

number of calis to be determined through contin

27, Each call was received on Plaintiffs Caller ID ag “UNAVAILABLE”
and devoid of a real phone number, made on the following dates and times;

May 5, 2009 at 9:37 AM
May 6, 2009 at 5:55 PM
May 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM
May 8, 2009 at 12:36 PM



to any person, but such term does not include a call or message (A) to any
person vith that person's prior express invitation or permission, (B) to any
person with whom the caller hee an established business relationship, or (C)
by a@ tax-exempt nonprofit organization. "47 U.S.C. §227(a)(4); 47 ‘CER. §
64.1200(f)(12). “[W]e have previously found that “prerecorded messages
containing free offers and information about goods and services that are
commercially available are prohibited to residential telephone subscribers, if
not otherwise exempt.” TCPA Revisions Report and Order, 18 FCC Red

14097-98 (2003). [Emphasis added]

Vv. TS RELEVANT:
FACILITATOR DEFENDANT ~ MEDCO

17. On or about May 2009, Medco implemented a campaign strategy
to reach out to its customers in an ongoing effort to retain that customer base,
given the known fact that the customer could shop elsewhere for their
prescription medications. ,

18. Subject to more. formal discovery, on or about May, 2009, Plaintiff
received several phone calis to his residential phone line from call-centers
Medco contracted with to deliver a message via an Automated Dialing and
Announcement Device (ADAD), which. contained a carefully orchestrated
script, with dialog to encourage Plaintiff to stay with Medco as his primary
prescription medication provider.

18. With instruction, approval, direction end knowledge of its in-
house counsel[s}, Medco violated Plaintiff's privacy and confidentiality by
recklessly and carelessly shearing not only Plaintiffs phone numbér, but in

addition, collaborated with and divulged to third parties (the Caller

Defendants), all of Plaintiffs pharmaceutical related information. Id,
5



NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the Office of Attorney General for

the State of New Jersey pursuant to W.J.S.A. §56:8-20 of the within claim

based upon violations ofthe Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey no-call
law. . . .

I hereby certify that contemporaneous with the filing hereof, a
copy of this pleading. has been mailed to the aforesaid Office of Attorney
General for the State of New Jersey at the New Jersey State Division of Law,

Hughes Justice Complex, 25 W. Market St., P.O. Box 112, Trenton, NJ 08625-
0112. .

ICHARD M. ZELMA, pro se
PLAINTIFF . .
Dated: April 25, 2011
Norwood, NJ 07648

NOTICE TO REALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
FOR THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

“NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to Michael Carter, Regional Manager,
Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, for
the within claims based upon violations of The Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996.

It is with Plaintiffs information, knowledge, understanding and
belief that various Medco in-house counsels were familfar with the foregoing
conduct and did approve the unlawful sharing of personally protected
medical information. .

I hereby certify that contemperansous with the filing hereof, a

copy of this pleading has been maiied to the aforesaid at; Jacob Javits
Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, Suite 3312, New York, NY 10278,

RICHARD M. ZELMA, pro se
PLAINTIFF .
Dated: Apri] 25, 2011
Norwood, NJ 07648



through continuing discovery, maliciously forging their identity to falsely
display a Medco toll free number on Plaintiffs caller ID.

35, On September 28, 2008, a West telephone sales representative,
reading from a carefully orchestrated script, recited Plaintiffs specific
prescription information by name and dosage and proceeded to converse with
Plaintiff seeking additional prescription medication Plaintiff was currently
taking. A transcript of said-call is attached herewith and made a part hereof
as [EXHIBIT - 2} , -

36. The script used by West was nothing more then an attempt,
shrouded in disguise, to solicit Plaintiff with an “up-sell”, to keep Plaintiff as
a Medco customer, to encourage his continued use of their products, goods or
services, along with an implied suggestion that Medco has competition in that
industry. { Id 113,15&16)

37. The Caller Defendants and each of them used an autodialer to
initiate the calls at issue and did so absent express written consent from
Plaintiff. (Id 112, 15816) , ,

38. Caller Defendant West was placed on notice back in 1998 and
was prohibited from calling Plaintiff when notica was sent to (West) counsel,
Thomas J, Culhane, Esq.

38. Caller Defendant West using the (ADAD) to initiate calls to

Plaintiffs residential telephone line was a violation of law.

VII. FA = Ci L. a
EE - NELS
40. Plaintiff does not seek to pierce the corporate veil or shield, but

sues Nelson individually in her capacity ae owner, officer, principal, craator,

Producer and in-house counsel, who approved, instructed, directed,

&



1. In- Ring count -2
2. (BZ): Hello

3. (WB): Hello, my name is Emily Dean. I am a benefit specialist with Medco.
Is Richard Zelma available?

4. (BZ): Just e second. What Was the company?
5. (WB): Medco. We're his prescription drug... (Inaudibte)

6. (BZ): Ob. Just a minute.
7. (RZ): Helio,
8. (WB): Hello. Yes, Mr. Zea?

9. (RZ): Yes.

10. (WB): Yes, my name is Emily Dean. I am @ benefit specielist with Medco,
Yes, we are your prescription drug benefit manager through Alcatel Lucent
and I am actually calling today in reference to a letter that you may have
Tecently received from us explaining that the costs on your long term
medications would be going up et your local pharmacy, but by going
through Medco by Mail you can actually help keep those costs down and
Save Money on your prescriptions. Now before I continue though, I just
need to inform you that this call may be monitored and recorded for quality
assurance. And here at Medco we take our patient privacy and protection

‘ very seriously. So just to verify that I am speaking with the correct person, I
would just need for you to either verify your date of birth or your shipping
address, please.

V1. (RZ): OK and I need to inform you that this call is being recorded.
12. (WB); OK and what ia your address?

12. {RZ}: 940 Blanche Avenue in Norwood.


EXHIBIT A


“83. Galier Defendants dialers use Protocol Signaling System 7 (SS7)
{Caller ID]. The Caller Deféndants’ willfully or knowingly blocked, cloaked,
spoofed, deprogrammed, manipulated or shrouded the actual numbers from
which such. calls initiated, causing “-UNAVAILABLE-* to appear in Caller ID
or purposely programmed a toll-free number to be displayed in Piaintiffs
Caller ID as the source from which the subject call{s] originated.

54. It is a technical impossibility for Signaling System 7 (SS7) to
transmit a toll-free phone number that terminates on @ recipients caller ID as
the source from which the call originated. Toll-free numbers are technically
shell numbers, incapable of initiating phone calls. A toll-free number has data
backed by a real phone number, that real number is often referred to as a
“POT’s” number or Plain Old Telephone number. It is technically known as the
.Ring-To or Trenslation Number. It igs a number subscribed to or assigned by a
Common Carrier to the Caller Defendants and it is the actual number initiating
the call{s]. Material to the within matter, “That” number was purposely
disguised for one specific reason, to hide the callers identity and evade
liability. ~

- 55. Upon Plaintiffs information, knowledge and belief, the Caller
Defendants, either individually or in concert with others, and at all times
material and relevant hereto; willfully or knowingly directed, contracted,
overseen and retained their own affiliates and subsidiaries or hired others,
herein referred to as Does’ and ABC Corporations, to solicit Plaintiff for the

defendants calls.and did so as described and defined above.

56. The defendants and each of them caused undue harassment,

substantial and emotional distress and abuse.by annoying and alarming

Plaintiffs household with multiple unidentified and/or abandoned calls.
11



45. Nelson previously claimed to have consent to receive Plaintiffs |
confidential medical information, but when asked to Produce such
documentation or authorization, failed, refused or was unable to do so.

46. Plaintiff sues Defendant Nelson under the Responsible Corporate
Officer Doctrine.

IX. ADDITIONAL rT HE MPL AIN'

47, _ Plaintiffs” phone numbers were listed with the Federal Trade
Commissions national do-not-call list, effective, October 1, 2003. 116 C.P.R.
310 et seg} ,

43. Plaintiffe' phone numbers weré Placed on the NO-CALL lst
administered by the State of New Jersey, effective May 17, 2004. [NULS.A
856:8-119] ;

ag. Plaintiff severed his established business relationship (EBR) with
Medco upon commencement of ordering prescriptions. {1d 1912&13}

50. The Facilitater Defendant and Caller Defendants sre for-profit
entities, whose calls are not exempt from harassing, alarming and annoying
residents in the privacy and solitude of their home.

Bi. A business relationship with the Caller Defendants does not
exist.

62. Upon .Plisintiffs information, knowledge and belief, the Caller
Defendants’, either individually or in concert with others, and at all times
material and relevant; owned, operated and/or controlled “customer Premises
[telephone] equipment" (CPE) as defined by Title 47 U.S.C. §§153(14) and (29),
and that said “customer premises equipment’, Originated, routed and/or

terminated telecommunications.

10



Directory of Superior Court Deputy Clerk’s Offices
County Lawyer Referral and Legal Services Offices

ATLANTIC COUNTY:

LAWYER REFERRAL
Deputy Clerk of the Superior Comt . (609) 345-3444
Civil Division, Direct Filing LEGAL SERVICES
i . . (609) 348-4200
LAWYER REFERRAL
Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court (201) 488-0044
Civil Division, Room 115 LEGAL SERVICES
Justice Center, {0 Main St. (201) 487-2166
Hackensack, NJ 07601
BURLINGTON COUNTY: LAWYER REFERRAL
Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court : (609) 261-4862
Central Processing Office . LEGAL SERVICES
Attn: Judicial Intake (800) 496-4570
First Fl., Courts Facility °
49 Rancocar Rd,
Mt, Holly, NJ 08060
CAMDEN COUNTY: .| LAWYER REFERRAL
Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court (856) 964-4520
Civil Processing Office LEGAL SERVICES
Hall of Justice (856) 964-2010
Ist Fl, Suite 150 .
101 South $* Street
Camden, NJ. 08103
CAPE MAY COUNTY: . LAWYER REFERRAL
Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court (609) 463-0313
9.N, Main Street . LEGAL SERVICES
Cape May Court House, NJ 08210 (603) 465-3001
CUMBERLAND COUNTY: LAWYER REFERRAL
Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court (856) 696-5550
Civil Case Management Office . LEGAL SERVICES
60 West Broad Street (856) 691-0494
P.O, Box 10 .
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
ESSEX COUNTY: . 7 LAWYER REFERRAL
Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court (973) 622-6204
Civil Customer Service . LEGAL SERVICES
Hall of Records, Room 201 (973) 624-4500
465 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Newark, NJ.07102

Revised 09/01/2010, CN 10782-Engtish (Appendix XILA} :
Directory of Superior Court Dapuity Clerk's Offices / County Lawyer Referral and Legal Services Page 2 af 4
Revised 11/2010, CN: 10153-English


Attomey in fact: Richard M. Zelma, pro se SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

940 Blanch Avenue . : BERGEN COUNTY
Norwood, New Jersey 07648 .
Tel: 201 767 8153 LAW DIVISION
Attomey for SELF
RICHARD M. ZELMA Docket No. BER ~ L — 3778 - 11
Plaintiff
Vs. : CIVIL ACTION

Medco Health Solutions Inc., d/b/a Medco;
Varolli, Inc.; West Corporation, d/h/a West
Business Services Inc. and Janette Kay Nelson

Defendant(s) SUMMONS

From The State of Mew YJersep To The Defendant(s) Named Above:

The plaintiff, named above, has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The complaint
attached to’ this summons states the basis for this lawsuit, If you dispute this complaint, you or your attorney must
file a written answer or motion and proof of service with the deputy clerk of the Superior Court in the county
listed above within 35 days from the date you received this summons, not counting the date you received it. (The
address of cach deputy clerk of the Superior Court is provided.) If the complaint is one in foreclosure, then you
must file your written answer or motion and proof of service with the Clerk of the Superior Court, Hughes Justice
Complex, P.O. Box 971, Trenton, NJ 08625-0971. A filing fee payable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey and
a completed Case Information Statement (available from the deputy clerk of the Superior Court) must accompany
your answer or motion when it is filed. You must also send a copy of your answer or motion to plaintiff's attomey
whose name and address appear above, or. to plaintiff, if no attorney is named above. A telephone call will not
protect your rights; you must file and serve # written answer or motion (with fee of $135.00 and completed Case
Information Statement) if you want the court to hear your defense. .

Ifyou do not file and serve a written answer or motion within 35 days, the court may enter a judgment against you
for the relief plaintiff demands, plus interest and costs of suit. If judgment is entered against you, the Sheriff may
seize your money, wages or property to pay all or part of the judgment.

Af you cannot afford an attormey, you may call the Legal Services office in the county where you live or the Legal
Services of New Jersey Statewide Hotline at 1-888-LSNJ-LAW (1-888-576-5529). A list of these offices is
provided. If you do not have an attorney and are not eligible for free legal assistance, you may obtain a referral to

an attorney by calling one of the Lawyer Referral Services. A list of these is also provided.

DATED: April 27, 2011

Name and Address of Defendants to Be Served:
Defs’. Medco Health Solutions Inc., Serve: The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209
Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle, DE 19801. .

Defs’. Varolii, Inc.; Serve: Corporation Service Company, 306 Deschutes Way SW, Ste. 304,

Tumwater, WA. 98501. . : :

Defs’. West Corporation. Serve: CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, Suite 1900, 233

South 13TM Street, Lincoln, NB 68508. .

Def; Janette Kay Nelson; Serve individually at; West, 11808 Miracle Hills Drive, Omaha NB
68154 . . ‘

Revised 09/01/2010, CN 10792-English (Appendix XIE-A)


28. Upon Plaintiff's greeting to each of the repeated calla from
Varolii, there was no response from the originating end, subsequently causing
alarm to plaintiff and his wife that they were being stalked or harassed.

29, Caller Defendant Varolii failed or refused to incorporate the
requisite “abandoned cali” announcement material to each of the subject calls
Plaintiff answered. Varolii ‘violated the provisions of 47 C.F.R, §§64.1200
(b)(1)&(2) and (c)(2). ,

30. Upon receipt of the forth unidentified call, plaintiffs greeting was
responded to by an (ADAD) with a Brerecorded message claiming to be
“Medco” and wanting to speak with Plaintiff about ways to help keep
prescription drug costs as low as possible.

31. . The dialog of that call was a deception; its sole Purpose to thwart
the law by using “reverse consent”, encouraging Plaintiff to call back and
listen to a spiel about Medco's products, goods or services. A tranecript of the
subject call is attached herewith and made a part hereof as EXHIBIT-1.

32. That message claimed to have Plaintiffs prescription information
and proceeded to encourage Plaintiff to stay with Medco, dialog commonly
defined under New Jerseys no-call law definition as an “upsell”; a prohibited
and misleading call.

33, Caller Defendant Varolii, using an {(ADAD}) and initiating calls to
Plaintiffs residential telephone line with a prerecorded message was a
violation of law. Id.

Vi, RELEV, E) OMPL,
CALLER DEPENDANT - WEST
34. Caller Defendant West initiated a ¢all to Plaintiff's residential

telephone line on September 28, 2009 and other dates that may surface
7



10.

i.

12,

13.

14.

* (RZ): Hello... HELLO

(VI): This is Medco your prescription drug benefit manager calling
on behalf of your health plan. ‘

(RZ): Hello

.{¥0: If this is... Richard... Zelma.., press one... if not press

{¥ij: This is Medco, your prescription drug benefit manager calling
for... Richard... Zelma ... on behalf of your health plan.

(R2):-Hello, is this a recording? .. . Hallo - hello

(V1): We would like to speak with you about ways to belp keep
prescription drug costs as low as possible. Please call us at 1-2-6-6-
4-6-9-0-2-0-5 and enter message code (inaudible). ..

(RZ): Hello, could you please repeat that.
{V1}: Thank you from Medco. Good bye.

END OF CALL


hire.
53, (RZ): For what purpose?

54, (WB): They're just - It's an outsourcing company sir.
55: (RZ): It's what?

56. (WB): An outsourced company.

57. (RZ): What do you mean - an outsourced company?

58, (WB): Well, they hire West.to manage some of their more customer service
business.

$9. (RZ): What kind of phone are you using? Are you on a cell phone?
60. (WB): No, Tm on a headset, sir.

G1. (RZ): You're on a headset?

62. (WB): Yes.

63. (RZ): Well, the connection is awful,

64. (WB): Okay.

68. (RZ): Alright.

68. (WB): Alright. Well there is also a 1 800 number on your prescription drug
ID card, sir, and we are available to you 24/7 as well. Thank you.

87. END OF CALL


may be served upon CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, Suite 1900,
233 South 13TM Street, Lincoln, NB 68508.
EFEND. = NETTE 24 LSO)

a Upon information, knowledge and belief, Defendant Janette Kay
Nelson (hereinafter, “Nelson” or “Defendant”) is Vice President and Senior
Counsel at West. Nelson is the decision maker and driving force behind the
unlawful calis initiated from her organization. Nelson is located at 11808
Miracle Hills Drive, Omaha NB 68164 and may be served at that location.

a. Defendant Does’ and ABC corporations’ identities are currently
unknown to Plaintiff and such parties will be identified as that information
becomes available,

MI. | JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10, The facts giving tise to this complaint had their primary effect in
the County of Bergen. This-court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
NuLS.A, §56:8-119 et seg; 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq: 47 U.S.C. §217; 47 U.S.C.
§§ 223 (a)(i}(C),(D),(E}(2) & (a)(1NC) and NLJ.S.4, §2C:33-4(c). Thie Court has
general and specific personal juriediction over the defendant because it has
engaged in substantial, continuous and systematic activities by repeatedly
initiating unwanted calls into New Jersey, within this County, to Plaintiff, a
resident whose phone numbers are on the Federal and Stetes no-call list and
the controlling jurisdiction in’ which the Violations occurred.

ii. As further set out below, the defendants’ and each of them
purposely directed their activities towards Plaintiff's residential phone line,
deliberately and in a continually harassing manner, alarming and annoying his

household for their own financial gain.



68. The Defendants’ and each of them violated the provisions of 47
ULS.C.§223 (a)(1}D) by making or causing Plaintiffs telephone to repeatedly or
continuously ring, with intent to harass Plaintiff at his home.

68. The Defendants’ and each of them abandoned most of their calls
material to each campaign subsequently causing alarm in Plaintiffs household.

70. The Defendants’ and each of them violated the provisions of 47
ULS.C,.§223 (a}(1}(E) by initiating excessive and repeated telephone calls or
repeatedly initiating communication with a telecommunications device, some

of which conversation or communication ensued, solely to harass Plaintiff at

his home.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against
Defendants as follows:
Award Plaintiff punitive damages for the harassing
calls addressed in Count Two.
EN. COUNT THREE .
E HIBIT: 0}
t= 233-
EP; ED. RAS
7i. ° Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges and incorporates by reference

Paragraphs one through seventy above as if set forth in full at length.

72. The Defendants’ and each of them violated the provisions of
N.J.S.A. §2C:33-4(c) by initiating in excessive unlawful calls to a residential
telephone subscriber, with the purpose to harass and repeatedly committed
these acts or practices to alarm or seriously annoy Plaintiff.

73. The Defendants’ and each of them violated the provisions of
NuLS.A. §2C:33-4(c} by initiating in excessive unlawful calle to Plaintiff in

which they repeatedly shrouded Caller ID to evade identity.

14



{a} Award Plaintiff Punitive damages for the series
of calls subject to Count One.

(b} Award Plaintiff Punitive damages for the series
of calls subject to Count Two.

{c) Award Plaintiff punitive damages for the series
of unlawful calle subject to Count Three

(3) Award Plaintiff punitive and actual damages
for the series of unlewful calls subject to Count Four

(e) Award Plaintiff the cost of this litigation
pursuant to NLS.A. §56:8-19
' (f) Award Plaintiff attorney fees as applicable,
pursuant to TN.J.S.A, §56:8-19 ot seq]

(g) Award Plaintiff Permanent Injunctive Relief
pursuant to NWLS.A. §20:39-4{c} and 47 ‘Us.C.
S227(bU3MAd ,

(bh) In the alternative, award Plaintiff any Other
Equitable Relief the Court deeme justified to stop the
aggravated harassment addressed and described
herein.

(i) Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this
prayer, in the event additional vielations surface

through continuing discovery. .

(jy Plaintiff waives any award in excess of
$74,500.00, (Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred

Dollars), excluding costs and /or legal fees

16



n PARTIES

3. Richard M. Zelma (hereinafter, “Plaintiff"), is a natural person
and senior citizen, residing at 940 Blanch Avenue, in the Borough of Norwood,
Bergen County New Jersey, 07648.

¥, i - MEDCO

4. Upon information and belief, Facilitator Defendant, Medco Health
Solutions Inc., (hereinafter, “Medco” or “Facilitator Defendant") is a Delaware
Corporation with its principal place of business located at 100 Parsons Pond
Drive, Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417.

§. Medco is a supplier of prescription (Pharmacy) medications to
Plaintiff, Medco may be served with Process at; The Corporation Trust
Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New

Castle, DE 19801.

CALLER DEFENDANT - VAROLII
8. . Upon information and belief, Caller Defendant Varolii,

Inc., (hereinafter, “Varolii” or “Caller Defendant") is a Seattle Washington
Corporation, having call-center capability to deliver massa personelized
communications (Voice Broadcasting), with its principal place of business
located at 821 2"” Avenue, Suite 1000, Seattle, WA. Varolii may.be served eat
the Corporation Service Company, 300 Deschutes Way SW, Ste 304, Tumwater,
WA. 98501.
LER DEFEN: : ¢ te)

7. Upon information and belief, Caller Defendant West
Corporation, d/b/a West Business Services, (hereinafter, “West” or “Caller
Defendant") is among other things, a telemarketing entity with its principal

Place of business located at’ 11808 Miracle Hills Drive, Omaha NB 68154. West
2



14. (WB): Okay, and city, state, and zip code?

15, (RZ): Why?

16. (we): I need to verify I'm speaking with the correct person.
17. (RZ): Well you called ms, right?

18, (WB): Right.

19, (RZ): So, what are you trying to confirm?

20. (WB): Well, I was just trying to con- (Inaudible) to verify that 1 was
speaking with the correct person and it's for your privacy and protection sir.

21, (RZ): Oh.

22. (WB): I just need for you to verify the state-and zip code as well, please,
23. (RZ): The state?
24, (WB): Yeah.

25. (RZ): New Jersey. 07648,

26. (WB): Thank you so much. And I see here that you are taking the Nexium
caps? Let's see here. The Nexium caps 40mg. Are you still taking those?

27. (RZ}: No.

28. (WB): Okay. I also see that you were taking the Nasonex scant free nasal
spray 17 grams...(unintelligible). Are you still taking those by any chance?

29, (RZ): No.

30. (WB): Okay. I do see that you are getting most of your medications filled
through Medco by Mail and if you need anything processed or refilled we
can also take care of that if you'd like,

31. (RZ): Well isn't that the way it always works?

32. (WB): Yes, it looks like you are getting your medications filled through
Medico by Mail already. And that's fine-


KWON

SUPERIOR COURT BERGEN COUNTY
FILED

APR 27 201

RICHARD M. ZELMA :
Richard M. Zelma, Pro Se . .
940 Blanch Avenue

Norwood, New Jersey 07648 . :

Tel. No: 201 767 813

Richard M. Zeima- 1. SUPERIOR. coir oF OF NEW JERSEY
. Plaintiff LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY
Ve. {
Medco Health Solutions inc., | . IVISI
d/b/a Medco end Varolii, Inc. and | LAW D ON
Business Sorvines ee WSS DOCKET NO.L~ 3778-11
Janstta Kay Nelson end John |
Does’ (1-10) and: ABC | vil Action
Corporations’ (1-10); each ‘ecting | :
-{ individually, in concert, or as @ |- (COMPLAINT
‘i BETRODYCTION
2 Plaintiff, Richerd M. Zelma, residing et 840 Blanch Avenus,

Norwood, New Jersey, by way of Complaint as against Defendant says as

follows:

2.. This suit is brought’ pursuant to applicable euthoritier: WLES.A.
566:8- 418 et seq; 47 TLE.G, 8227 ot seq: ‘MLBAL 820:38-4(c); 47 U.S.C.
9217; and 47 U8.c, 88223(a)(IC){D)&(E}, which prohibits continued

; unwanted calls made by telephone, over a period of tims, directed at

Plaintiff's residential telophone line, causing undue harassment, substantial

and emotional distress, abuses, annoying and alarming bis household with

multiple repeated unidentified abandoned calle or callie which were falasly

identified and misrepreasnted by third parties.



diz XT.

CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT

ag

(cis) PAYMENT TyPE: (ick Dice Oca
Use for initia! Law Division GHGICK NO.
Cwvil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 AMOUNT:

Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c},
if information above the black bar is not completed or OVERPAYMENT:
_ if attomey’‘s signature Is not affixed.

BATCH NUMBER:
1. ATTORNEYPRO SE NAME 2. TELEPHONE NUMBER ‘3. COUNTY OF VENUE

Richard M. Zaima (201) 767-8153 Bergen
“FIRM NAME (if applicable) , 8. DOCKET NUMBER (When available)

NIA ; BER-L- 3778 - 14

6. OFFICE ADDRESS TOOCUMENT TYPE

940 Blanch Avenues . COMPLAINT:

Norwood NJ 07648 8. JURY DEMAND:

: ' Dyes ino

‘9. NAME OF PARTY (6.g., John Doe, Piaintiy 0. CAPTION

Richard M. Zeima, pro se RICHARD M. ZELMA vs, Medeo Health Solutions Inc., d/b/a Medco:

PLAINTIFF Varolii, Inc.; West Corporation, d/b/a West Business Services Inc., and

Janette Kay Nelson
11. CASE TYPE NUMBER 12.1S THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CASE? L] YES BNO
(See reverse side for listing) ,
AF YOU HAVE CHECKED "YES." SEE N.J.S.A 2A:59A-27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDING
698 YOUR OBLIGATION TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT.
15. RELATED CASES PENDING?. _ | 1a. iF YES, LIST DOCKET NUMBERS
Oyes  Bno .

15. DO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING
ANY PARTIES (erising outofaama =[]VES NO
transaction or occurrence)?

18. NAME OF DEFENDANTS PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY, IF KNOWN

THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCEDINTO EV
CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION
17, DO PARTIES HAVE A CURRENT, ‘YES, IS THAT

RELATIONSHIP

( EMPLovER-EMPLOYEE D REDneaaor CDIOTHER fexpisin)
CO] rem ‘BUSINESS

18. DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THIS:
CASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES Oves xo
BY THE LOSING PARTY?

USE THIS SPACE THe COURT ‘SPECIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY Wi OR ACCELERATED

20. BO YOU Of YOUR CLIENT REED ANY IF YES, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE
DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS? yes NO =——- REQUESTED ACCOMMODA

7Y. WILL AN INTERPRETER BE NEEDED?
- Tlves BNO; IFES, POR WHAT LANGUAGE:

22, I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitied to the court, and wiil be
redacted from all documents suhatified in the future in accordance with Rute 1:38-7(b).

page 1 of


57. The defendants’ knew or should have known their conduct would

upset and annoy and cause alarm to plaintiff, which was the result.

SE, Defendants’ are therefore liable along with the currently

unnemed defendants, under the terms of 47 U.S.C. §217.
: 58. Plaintiff will suffer continual harassment along with substantial
emotional distress and abuse that will often annoy and elarm his household if
each of the Defendants’ are permitted to continue to engage in their
questionable practices, if Permanent Injunctive Relief is not granted.

60. At all times relevant, the Caller Defendants’ purposely, willfully
-or knowingly made the calls at issue, to Plaintiff's residential telephone line,
initiated or caused the making of those calls, which were purely commercial in
nature, to benefit the Defendant's own financial gain,

é1. The violations described herein were caused by the acts,
omissions, and/or failures of the defendants and each of them, their counsel,
partner{s], manager{s], officer[s], agent{[s}],  affiliate{[s], directorjs],
subsidiaries and/or employee|s], each acting within or under the scope of
their employment, agency or control,

@Z. | Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks relief against the Facilitator
Defendant, Caller Defendants’ and individual Defendant Nelson for actual
damages, (47 U.S.C. 227 et seg) punitive damages, remedial damages pursuant
to NLJ.S.A, §56:8-119 as well as Permanent Injunctive Relief pursuant to the

foregoing and as against each defendant.

X. COUNT ONE
ENGA RO!

ACTIVITY PURSUANT TO 47 U.5.C, 6237

mes



WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against
Defendants as. follows: ,
Award Plaintiff punitive damages for each of the
unlawful calls addressed in Count Three.
"sail. COUNT FOUR

ENGAGING IN PROHIBITED
ACTIVITY PURSUANT TO _N.J.S.A. §56:8-118
2) U.S.C, £2: Ft

74, Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges” and incorporates by reference
Paragraphs one through seventy-three abave as if set forth in full at length.

76. The Defendants and each of. them initiated multiple phone calls to
Plaintiffs residential telephone line, in a campaign to up-sell Plaintiff, to
maintain his customer status ‘with Medco as his prescription provider.

76. The New Jersey no-call-law, codified at MLS.AL §56:8-119 defines
-"Telemarketing* ag @ plan, program or campaign which is conducted by
telephone to encourage the purchase or rental of, or investment in,
merchandise, but does. not include the solicitation of sales through media
other than a telephone call.”

77. ° The Defendants and each of them initiated those calls to Plaintiff
with. the intent to encourage the continued purchase of Medco's products,
services and merchandise, i.e., prescription medications.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against
Defendants as follows:
‘Award Plaintiff punitive and actuel damages for each
of the unlawful calls addressed in Count Four,
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff praye that this Court:

1S