Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`Case No.: 3:20-cv-01557
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF:
`
`(1) Violations of the Telephone Consumer
`Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.;
`(2) Willful Violations of the Telephone
`Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §
`227, et seq.; and
`(3) Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
`CGS §§ 42-110a, et seq. and
`(4) Unjust Enrichment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JACKSON PAVELKA, on behalf of
`himself and all others similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Jackson Pavelka (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly
`
`situated, alleges the following upon information and belief based upon personal knowledge:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action for himself and others similarly situated seeking
`
`damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
`
`defendant Charter Communications, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Charter”), in negligently, knowingly,
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 16
`
`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”), thereby invading Plaintiff’s
`
`privacy.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`
`Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because Plaintiff seeks relief
`
`2.
`
`on behalf of a nationwide 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 at 400
`
`Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut 06901. 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. In addition to the CAFA jurisdictional
`
`claim the court has "arising under" jurisdiction of the TCPA pursuant to 28 USC § 1331
`
`jurisdiction as per the express holding of the Court in Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S.
`
`Ct. 740, 753, 181 L. Ed. 2d 881 (2012).
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1441(a) because Defendant’s principal place of business is
`
`within the State of Connecticut.
`
`4.
`
`Furthermore, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of
`
`Connecticut pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because this is the judicial district in which a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this case occurred.
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff, Jackson Pavelka (“Plaintiff”), is a natural person residing in Texas.
`
`Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Charter”) is a
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 16
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 400 Atlantic Street, Stamford,
`
`Connecticut 06901. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Charter Communications, Inc.
`
`conducted and conducts business in Connecticut, Texas and nationwide, either directly or
`
`through its agents.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff successfully registered his cellular telephone number, (817) XXX-4635,
`
`with the National Do Not Call Registry on March 18, 2019.
`
`8.
`
`Beginning on or around the morning of February 25, 2020, Defendant contacted
`
`Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in an attempt to communicate with Plaintiff regarding
`
`purchasing television, internet, and/or voice services from Defendant’s Spectrum brand. The
`
`original call came from (817) XXX-1454, what is believed to be an internet generated spoof
`
`number starting with the area code prefix (817).
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff asked Defendant’s representative for a callback number and was given
`
`the telephone number (915) XXX-0849, which is entirely different from the number that
`
`contacted Plaintiff to initiate the February 25, 2020 telephone call.
`
`10. Defendant again contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone on February 26,
`
`2020 in an attempt to communicate with Plaintiff regarding purchasing television, internet,
`
`and/or voice services from Defendant’s Spectrum brand. This telephone call came from (817)
`
`XXX-9154, what is believed to be an internet generated spoof number with the same area code
`
`prefix (817) and first three digits as Plaintiff’s own cellular telephone number.
`
`11. When Plaintiff answered this call, he heard a recorded voice. Upon pressing “1”
`
`to speak to a representative, a distinct pause was heard and there was a delay prior to a live
`
`person speaking, indicative of an automated telephone dialing system.
`
`12. Plaintiff verbally agreed to schedule an installation appointment during the course
`
`of this February 26, 2020 telephone call. He received an order confirmation number and
`
`Defendant Spectrum made an attempt to charge the Visa card he provided.
`
`13. On or around the afternoon of March 16, 2020, Defendant again contacted
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 16
`
`Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in an attempt to communicate with Plaintiff regarding
`
`purchasing television, internet, and/or voice services from Defendant’s Spectrum brand. This
`
`telephone call came from (817) XXX-6096, what is believed to be an internet generated spoof
`
`number with the same area code prefix (817) and first three digits as Plaintiff’s own cellular
`
`telephone number.
`
`14. Thereafter on March 16, 2020, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular
`
`telephone at 2:20pm. This telephone call came from (817) XXX-2430, what is believed to be an
`
`internet generated spoof number with the same area code prefix (817) and first three digits as
`
`Plaintiff’s own cellular telephone number.
`
`15. Thereafter on March 16, 2020, Defendant contacted Plaintiff for a third time at
`
`3:24pm on his cellular telephone. This telephone call came from (888) XXX-1995, the listed
`
`telephone number for an authorized Charter Spectrum retailer located in Castle Rock, Colorado.
`
`Upon answering, Plaintiff was asked if he wanted to purchase Spectrum services but was unable
`
`to pay up front. At the conclusion of this telephone call, Plaintiff verbally requested that
`
`Defendant not contact him again.
`
`16. On or around the morning of March 17, 2020, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on
`
`his cellular telephone. This telephone call came from (407) XXX-2518, what is believed to be an
`
`internet generated spoof number. Plaintiff again verbally requested that Defendant not contact
`
`him again.
`
`17. On or around the evening of March 19, 2020, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his
`
`cellular telephone. This telephone call came from (844) XXX-0145, Defendant’s automated
`
`service number. Plaintiff listened to the recorded prompts and pressed “3” to cancel his
`
`installation appointment. He heard a recording that said “Please hold while I transfer you to a
`
`representative.” Plaintiff hung up the call before speaking with a live person.
`
`18. On or around the afternoon of March 20, 2020, Plaintiff received another
`
`telephone call from Defendant’s automated service number. Plaintiff again listened to the
`
`recorded prompts and again pressed “3” to cancel his installation appointment. After pressing
`
` 4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 16
`
`“3” he heard another recorded prompt that said “Press one if you wish to cancel.” Plaintiff
`
`pressed “1” and heard a voice beginning to say something, but Plaintiff hung up the call.
`
`19. Later on or around the afternoon of March 20, 2020, Plaintiff received yet another
`
`automated telephone call from Defendant’s automated service number. Plaintiff did not answer
`
`this call, but a voicemail left on his cellular telephone said “Hello. This is Spectrum. Your
`
`Spectrum technician Christopher is en route to your appointment...” Despite Plaintiff attempting
`
`to cancel this same installation appointment on two previous occasions.
`
`20. On or around the morning of March 30, 2020, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on
`
`his cellular telephone. This telephone call came from (585) XXX-8862, what is believed to be an
`
`internet generated spoof number. Plaintiff again verbally requested that Defendant not contact
`
`him again.
`
`21. On or around the morning of April 8, 2020, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his
`
`cellular telephone. This telephone call came from (740) XXX-6196, what is believed to be an
`
`internet generated spoof number.
`
`22. On or around the afternoon of April 10, 2020, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on
`
`his cellular telephone despite his numerous requests to stop calling him. This telephone call came
`
`from (334) XXX-4032, the listed telephone number for an authorized Charter Spectrum retailer
`
`located in Selma, Alabama. Plaintiff again verbally requested that Defendant not contact him
`
`again.
`
`TEXT MESSAGES
`
`23. Beginning on or around the afternoon of September 18, 2020, Defendant
`
`contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone at (817) XXX-4635, via SMS message, in an attempt
`
`to communicate with Plaintiff regarding purchasing television, internet, and/or voice services
`
`from Defendant’s Spectrum brand. The original text message came from (915) XXX-2318, what
`
`is believed to be an internet generated spoof number starting with area code prefix (915).
`
`24. On or around the afternoon of October 1, 2020, Defendant again contacted
`
`Plaintiff on his cellular telephone at (817) XXX-4635 via SMS message, in an attempt to
`
` 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 6 of 16
`
`communicate with Plaintiff regarding purchasing television, internet, and/or voice services from
`
`Defendant’s Spectrum brand. The text message came from (833) XXX-0263, a toll-free number.
`
`25. Plaintiff distinctly heard a pause after answering the Defendant’s intrusive phone
`
`call, resulting in a delay prior to a live person speaking indicative of an automated telephone
`
`dialing system.
`
`26. Furthermore, numerous other complaints confirm Defendant’s improper use of
`
`spoofed local phone numbers for unwanted automated robocalls. Some of these are set forth on
`
`various internet sites which can be accessed at the following links quoted below-
`
`
` “...[T]hey try to trick you into taking their call by changing their number each
`time they call”
`https://www.reddit.com/r/orlando/comments/7d7j9u/opting_out_of_spectrum_sal
`es_calls/
`
`“...[U]sing different numbers to spam me with sales pitches”
`https://www.reddit.com/r/Spectrum/comments/em07nz/tired_of_the_spectrum_sp
`am_calls/
`
`
`27.
`
`Due to its pervasive, knowing and willful policy of purposely targeting people’s
`
`mobile phones without express permission, Defendant Charter has been sued on at least two
`
`prior occasions for the very misconduct alleged herein. See Anderson v. Charter
`
`Communications Inc, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2:17-cv-01684 (filed April 27, 2017);
`
`Moore v. Charter Communications Inc, Northern District of Illinois, 1:20-cv-00980 (filed
`
`February 11, 2020). These cases, as well as others Charter has resolved by settlement, provide
`
`notice of the continuing violations, further confirming the knowing and willful nature of the acts.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant’s improper robocalling is not limited to the numbers that called Mr.
`
`Pavelka, but rather numerous places throughout the country as part of their clear and patent
`
`disregard of call recipients’ privacy rights. In addition to the above filed federal court actions,
`
`further examples of Charter’s misconduct is set forth at
`
` 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 7 of 16
`
`“I’ve gotten continuous sales calls from this company. I've received over 10 sales calls
`
`from this company. Everytime they call I tell them I'm not interested and ask them to quit
`
`calling me. They will not stop.”
`
`https://www.bbb.org/us/tx/plano/profile/telecommunications/spectrumvoip-0875-
`
`90003432/complaints.
`
`“Will not stop calling us even after requesting do not call back and please add us to do not
`
`call list. Calls at least twice per week every week Will not stop calling us. We do not want
`
`to do business with them and they will not take us off the call list. These have become
`
`nuisance calls.”
`
`https://www.bbb.org/us/tx/plano/profile/telecommunications/spectrumvoip-0875-
`
`90003432/complaints
`
`29.
`
` Defendant’s misconduct is not an isolated event but part of a clear, organized and
`
`systemic pattern or practice emanating from its corporate headquarters in Stamford Connecticut
`
`specifically intended to invade people’s privacy by targeting their mobile phones.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant’s acts leading to the invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy and willful violation
`
`of the TCPA are part of a systemic and widespread policy, pattern and/or practice of Defendant,
`
`expressly seeking to ignore the rights of Plaintiff and others by contacting persons such as the
`
`Plaintiff in violation of law to further its business interest. Although many of their victims may
`
`reside outside of Connecticut, the wrongful conduct plainly emanates from the Defendant’s
`
`headquarters in Stamford Connecticut.
`
`31.
`
`The Defendant’s acts and omissions previously set forth is violative of several
`
`statutes and well established common law doctrines, including the Telephone Consumer Protection
`
`Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., and CUTPA C.G.S. §42-110b, et seq.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 8 of 16
`
`32.
`
`Defendant used an “automated telephone dialing system,” as defined by 47 U.S.C.
`
`§ 227(a)(1) to place its calls and texts to Plaintiff seeking to communicate with Plaintiff
`
`regarding purchasing Spectrum television, internet and telephone services from Charter
`
`Communications, Inc.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant’s call(s) constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as
`
`defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).
`
`34.
`
`Defendant never received Plaintiff’s “prior express consent” to receive calls using
`
`an automated dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone
`
`pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure and/or other applicable law, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as a
`
`member of the proposed class (hereafter "the Class") defined as follows:
`
`All persons within the United States who received any telephone calls or
`
`texts from Defendant to said person’s cellular telephone made through the
`
`use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
`
`voice and such person had not previously provided express consent to
`
`receiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the Class, consisting of All persons within
`
`the United States who received any telephone call from Defendant to said person’s cellular
`
`telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an 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.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 9 of 16
`
`37.
`
`Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, Defendant, any entity in
`
`which Defendant has a controlling interest, and Defendant’s officers, directors, affiliates, legal
`
`representatives, employees, co-conspirators, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded
`
`from the Class are any judges, justices or judicial officers presiding over this matter and the
`
`members of their immediate families and judicial staff.
`
`38.
`
`This action is properly maintainable as a class action. This action satisfies the
`
`numerosity, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority requirements for a class action.
`
`39.
`
`Numerosity: The proposed Class is so numerous that individual joinder of all
`
`members is impracticable. Due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved, Plaintiff does
`
`not know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number in the
`
`thousands, if not more. Plaintiff alleges that the Class may be ascertained by the records
`
`maintained by Defendant.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at
`
`least the following ways: Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff and Class members via their
`
`cellular telephones thereby causing Plaintiff and Class members, without their “ prior express
`
`consent,” to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which Plaintiff and Class
`
`members had previously paid by having to retrieve or administer message(s) left by Defendant
`
`during those illegal calls, and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and Class members as well as
`
`causing aggravation, inconvenience, annoyance, disturbance, and intrusion on seclusion, and
`
`expressly violating the substantive right to be free from unwanted phone calls and texts.
`
`
`41.
`
`Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate: There are only a few legal
`
`and factual issues to determine if there is liability under the TCPA and for each of those
`
`questions of law and fact, common issues to the Class predominate over any questions that may
`
`affect individual Class members, in that the claims of all Class members for each of the claims
`
` 9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 10 of 16
`
`herein can be established with common proof. Common questions of fact and law include, but
`
`are not limited to, the following:
`
`(a) Whether, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendant
`
`made any calls (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with
`
`the prior express consent of the called party) to a Class member using any
`
`automated dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any
`
`telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service;
`
`(b) Whether Plaintiff and the Class members were damaged thereby, and the
`
`extent of the statutory damages for each such violation; and
`
`(c) Whether the Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in
`
`the future.
`
`42.
`
`Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of members of the Class,
`
`as Plaintiff was subject to the same common course of conduct by Defendant as all Class
`
`members. The injuries to each member of the Class were caused directly by Defendant’s
`
`wrongful conduct as alleged herein.
`
`43.
`
`Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and
`
`protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in
`
`handling complex class action litigation. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to prosecuting
`
`this action vigorously on behalf of the Class and have financial resources to do so.
`
`44.
`
`Superiority of Class Action: A class action is superior to other available methods
`
`for the fair and efficient adjudication of the present controversy. Class members have little
`
`interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions because the individual
`
`damage claims of each Class member are not substantial enough to warrant individual filings. In
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 11 of 16
`
`sum, for many, if not most, Class members, a class action is the only feasible mechanism that
`
`will allow them an opportunity for legal redress and justice. Plaintiff is unaware of any litigation
`
`concerning the present controversy already commenced by members of the Class. The conduct
`
`of this action as a class action in this forum, with respect to some or all of the issues presented
`
`herein, presents fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and of the
`
`court system, and protects the rights of each Class member.
`
`45. Moreover, individualized litigation would also present the potential for varying,
`
`inconsistent, or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant, and would magnify the delay
`
`and expense to all parties and to the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same
`
`factual issues. The adjudication of individual Class members’ claims would also, as a practical
`
`matter, be dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to the adjudication, and could
`
`substantially impair or impede the ability of other Class members to protect their interests.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff and the members of the Class have suffered and will continue to suffer
`
`harm as a result of Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct. Defendant has acted, or refused
`
`to act, in respects generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final and
`
`injunctive relief with regard to the members of the Class as a whole.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(VIOLATION OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
`
`47 U.S.C. ET SEQ.)
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation
`
`set forth in each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint, as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`48.
`
`The foregoing acts and omission of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 12 of 16
`
`violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the above cited
`
`provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.
`
`49.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., Plaintiff and the
`
`Class Members are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every
`
`violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief
`
`prohibiting such conduct in the future. Furthermore, due to the widespread and pervasive nature
`
`of Defendant’s misconduct as well as its now well established practice of settling with individual
`
`complainants whenever it does get called out for its misconduct, the nature of this claim calls out
`
`for the application of the capable of repetition yet avoiding review exception to the mootness
`
`doctrine, regardless of any resolution of an individual complainants claim for damages.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF
`
`THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. ET SEQ.)
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation
`
`set forth in each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint, as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`52.
`
`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, et seq.
`
`53.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., Plaintiff and the
`
`Class Members are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every
`
`violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 13 of 16
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief
`
`prohibiting such conduct in the future.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(VIOLATION OF THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, C.G.S. §42-110A, ET SEQ.)
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every prior and subsequent allegation
`
`as though fully set forth at this point.
`
`56.
`
`As set forth in more detail above, Defendant has engaged in a persistent,
`
`widespread and willful campaign of flagrant violation of the TCPA’s letter and spirit, resulting in
`
`multiple prior lawsuits and numerous other complaints, continuing to the present even after the
`
`filing of this complaint.
`
`57.
`
` Defendant’s misconduct demonstrates a widespread national pattern or practice
`
`of willful invasion of privacy and violation of federal law which clearly emanate from its
`
`corporate headquarters and nerve center.
`
`58.
`
`The foregoing conduct of the Defendant constitutes a violation of the Connecticut
`
`Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §42-110a, et seq. on the part of the Defendant in that said actions
`
`in the course of the Defendant's trade or business were immoral, oppressive, unscrupulous, and
`
`caused substantial injury to the Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff class.
`
`59.
`
`The Defendant’s conduct caused substantial ascertainable loss to the Plaintiff and
`
`members of the Plaintiff class, including but not limited to the loss of data and/or minute allotments
`
`for their phones due to the receipt of the unwanted call, ancillary and consequential damages
`
`required to respond to the same and protect against future such invasions, including obtaining
`
`protection against similar such calls, and fees and expenses required to deal with this invasion of
`
`their privacy rights.
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 14 of 16
`
`60.
`
`Additionally, the Defendant obtained substantial benefit as a direct result of their
`
`invasion of the privacy of the Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff class, which in equity and good
`
`conscience ought not be able to keep.
`
`61.
`
`A copy of this complaint has been mailed to the Attorney General of the State of
`
`Connecticut and the Commissioner of Consumer Protection.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(UNJUST ENRICHMENT/RESTITUTION)
`
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every prior and subsequent allegation
`
`62.
`
`as though fully set forth at this point.
`
`63.
`
`Defendant has willfully and consciously engaged in a massive and profitable
`
`scheme, pattern and/or practice of intentionally invading the privacy of numerous persons in
`
`violation of federal law and established principles of privacy, expressly designed to enrich
`
`Defendant at the expense of the Plaintiff and the class he brings this claim on behalf of.
`
`64.
`
` The Defendant has obtained substantial benefit as a direct result of their invasion of
`
`the privacy of the Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff class, which it in equity and good
`
`conscience ought not be able to keep.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, prays for relief and
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`judgment as follows:
`
`1.
`
`An order certifying this action as a class action and appointing Plaintiff and his
`
`counsel to represent the Class;
`
`2.
`
`For the first cause of action:
`
` Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to and request $500.00 in statutory
`
`damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.;
`
` Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendant, their agents,
`
`servants and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, from
`
`engaging in, and continuing to engage in, the unlawful calls made with
`
`automated dialing systems to cellular phones without prior express consent;
`
` Attorneys’ fees, costs and any and all other relief that the Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`3.
`
`For the second cause of action:
`
` Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to and request $1,500.00 in statutory
`
`damages, for each and every violation , pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.;
`
` Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendant, their agents,
`
`servants and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, from
`
`engaging in, and continuing to engage in, the unlawful calls made with
`
`automated dialing systems to cellular phones without prior express consent;
`
` Attorneys’ fees, costs and any and all other relief that the Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`4.
`
`For the third cause of action:
`
` Compensatory and punitive damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to
`
`C.G.S. §42-110a et seq.;
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01557-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 16 of 16
`
` Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendant, their agents,
`
`servants and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, from
`
`engaging in, and continuing to engage in, the unlawful calls made with
`
`automated dialing systems to cellular phones without prior express consent;
`
` Disgorgement of all proceeds flowing from Defendant’s unjust and unlawful
`
`pattern and practice of invasion of privacy by unwanted and illegal means
`
` Attorneys’ fees, costs and any and all other relief that the Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`5.
`
`For the fourth cause of action:
`
` Disgorgement of all proceeds flowing from Defendant’s unjust and unlawful
`
`pattern and practice of invasion of privacy by unwanted and illegal means
`
` Any other relief in law or equity as may be justified by the proof
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 14, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs and each of them demand a jury trial on all such triable issues and causes of
`
`action.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE PLAINTIFF
`
`By /s/ Brenden P. Leydon
`Brenden P. Leydon, Esq.
`WOCL LEYDON LLC
`80 Fourth Street
`Stamford, CT 06905
`Phone: (203) 333-3339
`Fax: (203) 324-1407
`Email: BLeydon@woclleydon.com
`Federal Bar No.: CT16026
`
`
`
`16
`
`