Case 5:22-cv-00263 Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rachel Blyumkin (SBN: 326718)
`LAW OFFICES OF RACHEL BLYUMKIN
`Email: rachel@thedebtdefense.com
`1001 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2236
`Los Angeles California 90017
`Tel: 833-952-9669
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Peter Morris
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`PETER MORRIS, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-00263
`
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
`OF:
`1. TELEPHONE CONSUMER
`PROTECTION ACT [47 U.S.C.
`§227(b)]
`2. VIOLATIONS OF THE
`TELEPHONE CONSUMER
`PROTECTION ACT [47 U.S.C.
`§227(c)]
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SPORE LIFE SCIENCES US INC., and
`DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each
`of them,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant(s).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00263 Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`PETER MORRIS (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated, alleges the following upon information and belief based upon personal
`
`knowledge
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others
`
`similarly situated seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
`
`resulting from the illegal actions of SPORE LIFE SCIENCES US INC. (“Defendant”),
`
`in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular
`
`telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47. U.S.C. § 227 et
`
`seq. (“TCPA”) and related regulations, thereby invading Plaintiff’s privacy.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`2.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because Plaintiff, a
`
`resident of California, seeks relief on behalf of a Class, which will result in at least one
`
`class member belonging to a different state than that of Defendant, a company with its
`
`principal place of business in the State of Delaware, and incorporated in the state of
`
`Delaware. Plaintiff also seeks up to $1,500.00 in damages for each call in violation of
`
`the TCPA, which, when aggregated among a proposed class in the thousands, exceeds
`
`the $5,000,000.00 threshold for federal court jurisdiction. Therefore, both diversity
`
`jurisdiction and the damages threshold under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
`
`(“CAFA”) are present, and this Court has jurisdiction. The Court further has
`
`jurisdiction as Plaintiff seeks redress under Federal Statutes of the United States of
`
`22
`
`America.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Central District
`
`of California pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because
`
`Defendant does business within the State of California and Plaintiff resides within the
`
`26
`
`County of Riverside.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff is a natural person residing in California and is a “person” as
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00263 Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (39).
`
`5.
`
`Defendant is an herbal medicine company selling and soliciting herbal
`
`medicine aimed at consumers and is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (39).
`
`6.
`
`The named Defendant, and its subsidiaries and agents, are collectively
`
`referred to as “Defendants.” The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued
`
`herein as DOE DEFENDANTS 1 through 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to
`
`Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious names. Each of the
`
`Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible for the unlawful acts
`
`alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend the Complaint to reflect the
`
`true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants when such identities become known.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all relevant times, each and every
`
`Defendant was acting as an agent and/or employee of each of the other Defendants and
`
`was acting within the course and scope of said agency and/or employment with the full
`
`knowledge and consent of each of the other Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and
`
`believes that each of the acts and/or omissions complained of herein was made known
`
`to, and ratified by, each of the other Defendants.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`8.
`
`Beginning in or around October 2021, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on
`
`Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 7099, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`to purchase Defendant’s service.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`9.
`
`Defendant utilized an “artificial or prerecorded voice” as prohibited by 47
`
`U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) during its solicitation calls to Plaintiff.
`
`10. When Plaintiff answered the call, or if Plaintiff did not answer the call and
`
`it went to voicemail, Defendant had various male and female voices, all prerecorded,
`
`say the same exact sales script nearly verbatim, if not verbatim.
`
`11. Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone
`
`27
`
`number (916)-701-2206, and others.
`
`28
`
`12. Defendant’s calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00263 Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).
`
`13. Defendant’s calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular
`
`telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47
`
`U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).
`
`14. During all relevant times, Defendant did not possess Plaintiff’s “prior
`
`express consent” nor had a prior established business relationship with Plaintiff to
`
`receive calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice on her cellular telephone pursuant
`
`to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).
`
`15. Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its marketing business to
`
`10
`
`Plaintiff on her cellular telephone ending in 4541, at least fifteen (15) to twenty (20) in
`
`11
`
`sum.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16. Such calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §
`
`64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant’s services.
`
`17. Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls from Defendant within a 12-
`
`15
`
`month period.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`18. During the calls Defendant placed to Plaintiff’s cellular phone,
`
`Defendant’s agents identified themselves as calling from Defendant’s business.
`
`19. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Defendant employs
`
`scraping technology to collect phone numbers off of publicly listed websites, in an
`
`effort to generate sales leads. However, Defendant uses automated prerecorded voice
`
`technology to place these calls, without obtaining the prior express consent of the
`
`22
`
`recipient of the call.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`20. Defendant’s automated calls are a widespread public nuisance, and have
`
`been the subject of various complaints on online forums.
`
`21. Plaintiff, like the other putative class members whom she seeks to
`
`represent, has no prior established business relationship with Defendant, and has never
`
`provided Defendant with his phone number.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00263 Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`22. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others
`
`similarly situated, as a member the two proposed classes (hereafter, jointly, “The
`
`Classes”). The class concerning the Prerecorded Voice claims for no prior express
`
`consent (hereafter “The PRV Class”) is defined as follows:
`
`All persons within the United States who received any
`
`solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Defendant to said
`
`person’s cellular telephone made through the use of any
`
`prerecorded voice and such person had not previously consented
`
`to receiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing of
`
`this Complaint
`
`23. Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, The PRV Class, consisting of all
`
`persons within the United States who received any collection telephone calls from
`
`Defendant to said person’s cellular telephone made through the use of any artificial or
`
`prerecorded voice and such person had not previously provided their cellular telephone
`
`number to Defendant within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.
`
`24. Defendant, its employees and agents are excluded from The Classes.
`
`Plaintiff does not know the number of members in The Classes, but believes the Classes
`
`members number in the thousands, if not more. Thus, this matter should be certified as
`
`a Class Action to assist in the expeditious litigation of the matter.
`
`25. The Classes are so numerous that the individual joinder of all of its
`
`members is impractical. While the exact number and identities of The Classes members
`
`are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate
`
`discovery, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that The Classes
`
`includes thousands of members. Plaintiff alleges that The Classes members may be
`
`ascertained by the records maintained by Defendant.
`
`26. Plaintiff and members of The PRV Class were harmed by the acts of
`
`Defendant in at least the following ways: Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00263 Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`PRV Class members via their cellular telephones thereby causing Plaintiff and PRV
`
`Class members to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which Plaintiff
`
`and PRV Class members had previously paid by having to retrieve or administer
`
`messages left by Defendant during those illegal calls, and invading the privacy of said
`
`Plaintiff and PRV Class
`
`27. Common questions of fact and law exist as to all members of The PRV
`
`Class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of The
`
`PRV Class. These common legal and factual questions, which do not vary between
`
`PRV Class members, and which may be determined without reference to the individual
`
`10
`
`circumstances of any PRV Class members, include, but are not limited to, the
`
`11
`
`following:
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`a. Whether, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint,
`
`Defendant made any telemarketing/solicitation call (other than a call
`
`made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent
`
`of the called party) to a PRV Class member using any automatic
`
`telephone dialing system or any artificial or prerecorded voice to any
`
`telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service
`
`b. Whether Plaintiff and the PRV Class members were damaged thereby,
`
`and the extent of damages for such violation; and
`
`c. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct
`
`in the future.
`
`28. As a person that received numerous telemarketing/solicitation calls from
`
`Defendant using an artificial or prerecorded voice, without Plaintiff’s prior express
`
`consent, Plaintiff is asserting claims that are typical of The PRV Class.
`
`29. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of
`
`The Classes. Plaintiff has retained attorneys experienced in the prosecution of class
`
`27
`
`actions.
`
`28
`
`30. A class action is superior to other available methods of fair and efficient
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00263 Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`adjudication of this controversy, since individual litigation of the claims of all Classes
`
`members is impracticable. Even if every Classes member could afford individual
`
`litigation, the court system could not. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts in
`
`which individual litigation of numerous issues would proceed. Individualized litigation
`
`would also present the potential for varying, inconsistent, or contradictory judgments
`
`and would magnify the delay and expense to all parties and to the court system resulting
`
`from multiple trials of the same complex factual issues. By contrast, the conduct of this
`
`action as a class action presents fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources
`
`of the parties and of the court system, and protects the rights of each Classes member.
`
`31. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Classes members would
`
`create a risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be
`
`dispositive of the interests of the other Classes members not parties to such
`
`adjudications or that would substantially impair or impede the ability of such non-party
`
`Class members to protect their interests.
`
`32. Defendant has acted or refused to act in respects generally applicable to
`
`The Classes, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief with regard to the
`
`17
`
`members of the Classes as a whole.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Negligent Violations of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act
`
`47 U.S.C. §227(b).
`
`On Behalf of the PRV Class
`
`33. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference into this cause of action the
`
`allegations set forth above at Paragraphs 1-32.
`
`34. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and
`
`multiple negligent violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every
`
`one of the above cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), and in particular 47 U.S.C. §
`
`27
`
`227 (b)(1)(A).
`
`28
`
`35. As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00263 Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled an award of $500.00 in statutory damages,
`
`for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).
`
`36. Plaintiff and the PRV Class members are also entitled to and seek
`
`injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Knowing and/or Willful Violations of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act
`
`47 U.S.C. §227(b).
`
`On Behalf of the PRV Class
`
`37. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference into this cause of action the
`
`allegations set forth above at Paragraphs 1-36.
`
`38. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and
`
`multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to
`
`each and every one of the above cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), and in
`
`14
`
`particular 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A).
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`39. As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C.
`
`§ 227(b), Plaintiff and the PRV Class members are entitled an award of $1,500.00 in
`
`statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B)
`
`18
`
`and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`40. Plaintiff and the Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive
`
`relief prohibiting such conduct in the future.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant for:
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1),
`
`Plaintiff and the PRV Class members are entitled to and request $500 in statutory
`
`damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(B).
`
`Any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00263 Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`3.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s willful and/or knowing violations of 47 U.S.C.
`
`§227(b)(1), Plaintiff and the PRV Class members are entitled to and request treble
`
`damages, as provided by statute, up to $1,500, for each and every violation, pursuant
`
`to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(C).
`
`4.
`
`Any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by a jury.
`
`
`
`DATED: February 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Rachel Blyumkin
`Rachel Blyumkin
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`