Case 1:22-cv-00830-BPG Document 1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 10
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`ANDREW PERRONG, individually and on
`behalf of a class of all persons and entities
`similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`CONSTELLATION ENERGY
`CORPORATION and ALLIANCE
`SHAREHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS,
`LLC
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
` /
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Preliminary Statement
`
`As the Supreme Court explained, “Americans passionately disagree about many
`
`1.
`
`things. But they are largely united in their disdain for robocalls. The Federal Government
`
`receives a staggering number of complaints about robocalls—3.7 million complaints in 2019
`
`alone. The States likewise field a constant barrage of complaints. For nearly 30 years, the
`
`people’s representatives in Congress have been fighting back. As relevant here, the Telephone
`
`Consumer Protection Act of 1991, known as the TCPA, generally prohibits robocalls to cell
`
`phones and home phones.” Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2343
`
`(2020).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Andrew Perrong alleges that Alliance Shareholder Communications,
`
`LLC (“Alliance Shareholder”) sent pre-recorded telemarketing calls to his cellular telephone and
`
`those of other putative class members for the purposes of advertising Constellation Energy
`
`Corporation (“Constellation Energy”) goods and services, which is prohibited by the TCPA.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00830-BPG Document 1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 10
`
`3.
`
`Because the calls to Plaintiff were transmitted using technology capable of
`
`generating thousands of similar calls per day, Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of proposed
`
`nationwide a class of other persons who were sent the same illegal telemarketing calls.
`
`4.
`
`A class action is the best means of obtaining redress for the Defendants’ illegal
`
`telemarketing and is consistent both with the private right of action afforded by the TCPA and
`
`the fairness and efficiency goals of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Parties
`
`Plaintiff Andrew Perrong is an individual.
`
`Defendant Alliance Shareholder Communications, LLC is a New Jersey limited
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`liability company.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Constellation Energy Corporation is a corporation headquartered in
`
`Baltimore, MD in this District.
`
`Jurisdiction & Venue
`
`8.
`
`The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the
`
`Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law.
`
`9.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Constellation Energy Corporation
`
`because it is a resident of this District. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Alliance
`
`Shareholder Communications because it worked with Constellation Energy Corporation in this
`
`District to organize the calling conduct at issue. Moreover, upon information and belief, the
`
`agreement between Constellation Energy Corporation and Alliance Shareholder
`
`Communications would have had any disputes between the two subject to Maryland law.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00830-BPG Document 1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 10
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the Defendant
`
`Constellation Energy Corporation resides in this District and organized the calling conduct at
`
`issue from this District.
`
`The Telephone Consumer Protection Act
`
`11.
`
`In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA to regulate the explosive growth of the
`
`telemarketing industry. In so doing, Congress recognized that “[u]nrestricted telemarketing …
`
`can be an intrusive invasion of privacy [.]” Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L.
`
`No. 102-243, § 2(5) (1991) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227).
`
`The TCPA Prohibits Automated Telemarketing Calls
`
`12.
`
`The TCPA makes it unlawful “to make any call (other than a call made for
`
`emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an
`
`automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice … to any telephone
`
`number assigned to a … cellular telephone service…or any service for which the called party is
`
`charged for the call.” See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).
`
`13.
`
`The TCPA provides a private cause of action to persons who receive calls in
`
`violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).
`
`14.
`
`According to findings by the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”), the
`
`agency Congress vested with authority to issue regulations implementing the TCPA, such calls
`
`are prohibited because, as Congress found, automated or prerecorded telephone calls are a
`
`greater nuisance and invasion of privacy than live solicitation calls, and such calls can be costly
`
`and inconvenient.
`
`15.
`
`The FCC also recognized that “wireless customers are charged for incoming calls
`
`whether they pay in advance or after the minutes are used.” In re Rules and Regulations
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00830-BPG Document 1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 4 of 10
`
`Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order,
`
`18 FCC Rcd. 14014, 14115, ¶ 165 (2003).
`
`16.
`
`Constellation Energy provides electric power, natural gas, and energy
`
`Factual Allegations
`
`management services.
`
`17.
`
`Constellation Energy has shareholders and is a publicly traded company, trading
`
`under NASDAQ Ticker CEG.
`
`18.
`
`Constellation Energy engaged in a program to repurchase its stock under a
`
`buyback program.
`
`19.
`
`To solicit individuals to sell their stock back to Constellation Energy,
`
`Constellation engaged Alliance as its agent to contact individuals and inform them about buying
`
`Constellation stock.
`
`20.
`
`Alliance Shareholder telemarketing efforts include the use of automated pre-
`
`recorded message calls.
`
`Call to Mr. Perrong
`
`21. Mr. Perrong is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47
`
`U.S.C. § 153(39).
`
`22.
`
`On March 24, 2022, Mr. Perrong received a pre-recorded call on his number for
`
`which he is charged per minute for the calls, 215-947-XXXX.
`
`23.
`
`That Number, which is assigned to a VoIP telephone service, is charged for each
`
`call it receives.
`
`24.
`
`The service charges a ring charge of $0.005 for the provision of Caller ID Name
`
`lookup information for each call placed to the Number, even if the call is not answered.
`
`25.
`
`The service also charges a per-minute charge of $0.004 per minute for voice
`
`charges for each minute of talk time, including voicemail time, for each call placed to the
`
`Number.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00830-BPG Document 1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 5 of 10
`
`26.
`
`The Number is therefore “assigned to a . . . service for which the called party is
`
`charged for the call” and any calls placed to that number are subject to the restrictions
`
`enumerated in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`The number called had been on the National Do Not Call Registry.
`
`The pre-recorded message stated:
`
`Good day, you recently received information in the mail regarding a
`voluntary program being offered to shareholders owning fewer than 100
`shares of Constellation Energy common stock. This provides an opportunity
`to conveniently sell your shares of Constellation Energy to sell your shares
`through this program. Your properly completed acceptance card must be
`received by April 27, 2022. All terms in this program are contained in the
`letter that was recently mailed to you. If you have any further questions,
`please press one now to speak to a representative or if you've received this
`message on your voicemail, you may contact Alliance Shareholder
`Communications LLC, the manager of this program, toll free at 1-800-574-
`6107 between the hours of 9am and 5pm. Eastern time Monday through
`Friday. As a reminder, the program expires on April 27, 2022. Thank you
`and have a great day.
`
`However, Mr. Perrong is not a shareholder of Constellation Energy.
`
`Indeed, prior to filing this lawsuit, Mr. Perrong contacted Alliance Shareholder.
`
`31. Mr. Perrong inquired how Alliance Shareholder obtained his phone number to
`
`make the pre-recorded call.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Alliance Shareholder did not respond.
`
`The privacy of Mr. Perrong and the putative class members was infringed upon
`
`because the pre-recorded telemarketing calls occupied their telephone lines from legitimate
`
`communications.
`
`
`
`Constellation Energy’s Liability for Alliance Shareholder’s Conduct
`
`34.
`
`The Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) is tasked with promulgating
`
`rules and orders related to enforcement of the TCPA. See 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00830-BPG Document 1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 6 of 10
`
`35.
`
`The FCC has explained that its “rules generally establish that the party on whose
`
`behalf a solicitation is made bears ultimate responsibility for any violations.” See In re Rules &
`
`Regulations Implementing the TCPA, CC Docket No. 92-90, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`
`10 FCC Rcd 12391, 12397 (¶ 13) (1995).
`
`36.
`
`In their January 4, 2008 ruling, the FCC reiterated that a company on whose
`
`behalf a telephone call is made bears the responsibility for any violations. Id. (specifically
`
`recognizing “on behalf of” liability in the context of an autodialed or prerecorded message call
`
`sent to a consumer by a third party on another entity’s behalf under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)).
`
`37.
`
`By hiring a company to make calls on its behalf, Constellation Energy
`
`“manifest[ed] assent to another person . . . that the agent shall act on the principal’s behalf and
`
`subject to the principal’s control” as described in the Restatement (Third) of Agency.
`
`38. Moreover, Constellation Energy maintained interim control over the actions of
`
`Shareholder Communications.
`
`39.
`
`Furthermore, Constellation Energy, as it was trying to contact potential
`
`shareholders, provided Alliance Shareholder Communications with the individuals to contact
`
`with pre-recorded calls.
`
`40.
`
`Indeed, when Mr. Perrong contacted Alliance Shareholder Communications about
`
`the pre-recorded call, it informed him that “Constellation Energy Stock has
`
`hired Alliance Advisors, as its agent, and provided your number.”
`
`41.
`
`Finally, the May 2013 FCC Ruling states that called parties may obtain “evidence
`
`of these kinds of relationships . . . through discovery, if they are not independently privy to such
`
`information.” Id. at 6592-593 (¶ 46). Moreover, evidence of circumstances pointing to apparent
`
`authority on behalf of the telemarketer “should be sufficient to place upon the seller the burden
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00830-BPG Document 1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 7 of 10
`
`of demonstrating that a reasonable consumer would not sensibly assume that the telemarketer
`
`was acting as the seller’s authorized agent.” Id. at 6593 (¶ 46).
`
`Class Action Statement
`
`42.
`
`As authorized by Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all other persons or entities similarly situated
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`43.
`
`The Class of persons Plaintiff proposes to represent include:
`
`All persons within the United States to whom: (a) Alliance Shareholder and/or a
`third party acting on their behalf, made one or more non-emergency telephone calls
`for Constellation Energy; (b) to their cellular telephone number or number that is
`charged per the call; (c) using an artificial or prerecorded voice; and (d) at any time
`in the period that begins four years before the date of the filing of this Complaint to
`trial.
`
`
`
`44.
`
`Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, any entities in which the Defendants
`
`have a controlling interest, the Defendants’ agents and employees, any Judge to whom this action
`
`is assigned, and any member of the Judge’s staff and immediate family.
`
`45.
`
`The proposed Class members are identifiable through phone records and phone
`
`number databases, which are with the Defendants or their agents.
`
`46.
`
`The automated technology used to contact the Plaintiff is capable of contacting
`
`hundreds of thousands of people a day, and so the potential Class members number in the
`
`thousands, at least. Individual joinder of these persons is impracticable.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff is a member of the Class.
`
`48.
`
`There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and to the proposed
`
`Class, including but not limited to the following:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00830-BPG Document 1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 8 of 10
`
`a. Whether Alliance Shareholder used a pre-recorded message to make the
`
`calls at issue;
`
`b. Whether Constellation Energy is vicariously liable for the conduct of
`
`Alliance Shareholder;
`
`c. Whether the Defendants placed telemarketing calls without obtaining the
`
`recipients’ valid prior express consent;
`
`d. Whether the Defendants’ violations of the TCPA were negligent, willful, or
`
`knowing; and
`
`e. Whether the Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to statutory
`
`damages because of Defendants’ actions.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are based on the same facts and legal theories as the claims of
`
`all class members, and therefore are typical of the claims of class members, as the Plaintiff and
`
`class members all received telephone calls through the same or similar dialing system and pre-
`
`recorded message on a cellular telephone line.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests do not
`
`conflict with the interests of the Class, he will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
`
`Class, and he is represented by counsel skilled and experienced in class actions, including TCPA
`
`class actions.
`
`51.
`
`In fact, the Plaintiff has foregone a simpler path to recovery by filing this matter
`
`as a putative class action, as opposed to an individual claim.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`The actions of the Defendant are generally applicable to the Class and to Plaintiff.
`
`Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only
`
`individual class members, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00830-BPG Document 1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 9 of 10
`
`adjudication of the controversy. The only individual question concerns identification of class
`
`members, which will be ascertainable from records maintained by Defendant and/or their agents.
`
`54.
`
`The likelihood that individual class members will prosecute separate actions is
`
`remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual case, and given the small
`
`recoveries available through individual actions.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff is not aware of any litigation concerning this controversy already
`
`commenced by others who meet the criteria for class membership described above.
`
`Legal Claims
`
`Count One:
`Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set
`
`56.
`
`forth herein.
`
`57.
`
`The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants and/or their affiliates, agents,
`
`and/or other persons or entities acting on Defendants’ behalf constitute numerous and multiple
`
`violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, by making calls, except for emergency purposes, to the
`
`cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the Class using a pre-recorded message.
`
`58.
`
`If the Defendants’ conduct is found to be knowing or willful, the Plaintiff and
`
`members of the Class are entitled to an award of up to treble damages.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff and members of the Class are also entitled to and do seek injunctive
`
`relief prohibiting Defendants and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting
`
`on Defendants’ behalf from violating the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, by making calls, except for
`
`emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers using a prerecorded voice in the future.
`
`Relief Sought
`
`For himself and all class members, Plaintiff requests the following relief:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00830-BPG Document 1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 10 of 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Certification of the proposed Class;
`
`Appointment of Plaintiff as representative of the Class;
`
`Appointment of the undersigned counsel as counsel for the Class;
`
`A declaration that Defendants and/or their affiliates, agents, and/or other related
`
`entities’ actions complained of herein violate the TCPA;
`
`E.
`
`An order enjoining Defendants and/or their affiliates, agents, and/or other related
`
`entities, as provided by law, from engaging in the unlawful conduct set forth herein;
`
`An award to Plaintiff and the Class of damages, as allowed by law;
`
`Leave to amend this Complaint to conform to the evidence presented at trial; and
`
`Orders granting such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary, just,
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`and proper.
`
`Plaintiff requests a jury trial as to all claims of the complaint so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`By his attorneys,
`
`
`__/s/_________________________
`John McGowan Bar ID #21477
`Kinner & McGowan PLLC
`413 East Capitol Street, SE First Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20003
`Telephone: (202) 846-7148
`Email: jmcgowan@kinnermcgowan.com
`
`__/s/___________________________
`Anthony Paronich
`PARONICH LAW P.C.
`350 Lincoln Street Suite 2400
`Hingham, MA 02043
`Telephone: (617) 485-0018
`Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
`Subject to Pro Hac Vice
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`