throbber
Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 1 of 12
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
`
`DAN L. BOGER, on behalf of himself and
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`__
`
`CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Preliminary Statement
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Dan L. Boger (“Mr. Boger”) (“Plaintiff”) brings this action to enforce
`
`the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47
`
`U.S.C. § 227, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about
`
`the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. See Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs.,
`
`LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740, 745 (2012).
`
`2.
`
`In violation of the TCPA, Citrix Systems, Inc. (“Citrix”) (“Defendant”) initiated
`
`automated telemarketing calls to Mr. Boger and other putative class members without their prior
`
`express written consent.
`
`3.
`
`Also in violation of the TCPA, Citrix failed to maintain adequate procedures to
`
`maintain an internal Citrix do not call list.
`
`4.
`
`Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands
`
`or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 2 of 12
`
`proposed nationwide classes of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on
`
`behalf of the Defendant.
`
`5.
`
`A class action is the best means of obtaining redress for the Defendant’s wide
`
`scale 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
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Dan Boger is a resident of the state of Maryland and this District.
`
`Defendant Citrix Systems, Inc. is a corporation organized in Delaware with its
`
`principal place of business in Florida, and conducts business in this District, including through
`
`the making of telemarketing calls, as it did with the Plaintiff.
`
`Jurisdiction & Venue
`
`8.
`
`The Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over these TCPA
`
`claims. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740 (2012).
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of
`
`the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District as the telemarketing calls
`
`that gave rise to the Plaintiff’s claims occurred here.
`
`The Telephone Consumer Protection Act
`
`10.
`
`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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 3 of 12
`
`The TCPA Prohibits Automated Telemarketing Calls
`
`11.
`
`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.” See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 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).
`
`12. 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.
`
`13.
`
`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
`
`Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order,
`
`18 F.C.C. Rcd. 14014, 14115 ¶ 165 (2003).
`
`14.
`
`In 2013, the FCC required prior express written consent for all autodialed or
`
`prerecorded telemarketing calls (“robocalls”) to wireless numbers and residential lines.
`
`Specifically, it ordered that:
`
`[A] consumer’s written consent to receive telemarketing robocalls
`must be signed and be sufficient to show that the consumer: (1)
`received “clear and conspicuous disclosure” of the consequences
`of providing the requested consent, i.e., that the consumer will
`receive future calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on
`behalf of a specific seller; and (2) having received this information,
`agrees unambiguously to receive such calls at a telephone number
`the consumer designates.[] In addition, the written agreement must
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 4 of 12
`
`be obtained “without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the
`agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or
`service.[]
`
`In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991,
`
`27 F.C.C. Rcd. 1830, 1844 (2012) (footnotes omitted).
`
`The TCPA’s Internal Do Not Call List Requirements
`
`15.
`
`The TCPA implementing regulations prohibit any company from initiating any
`
`telemarketing call unless the company has implemented internal procedures for maintaining a list
`
`of persons who request not to be called by the entity. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d). Such internal
`
`procedures must meet certain minimum requirements to allow the entity to initiate telemarketing
`
`calls. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(1)-(6).
`
`16.
`
`This includes the requirements that:
`
`
`
`“Persons or entities making calls for telemarketing purposes must have a written
`
`policy, available upon demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list” (47 C.F.R.
`
`64.1200(d)(1));
`
`
`
`
`
`“Personnel engaged in any aspect of telemarketing must be informed and trained
`
`in the existence and use of the do-not-call list” (47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(2));
`
`Persons or entities making telemarketing calls must honor do-not-call requests
`
`within a reasonable time, not to exceed thirty days, from the date such request is
`
`made (47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(3));
`
`
`
`“A person or entity making calls for telemarketing purposes must maintain a
`
`record of a consumer’s request not to receive further telemarketing calls. A do-
`
`not-call request must be honored for 5 years from the time the request is made.”
`
`(47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(6)).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 5 of 12
`
`17.
`
`Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(e), the rules set forth above in 47 C.F.R.
`
`64.1200(d) are “applicable to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or
`
`telemarketing calls to wireless telephone numbers….”
`
`Factual Allegations
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Citrix sells software and related products and services for workplace productivity.
`
`To generate business through sales, Citrix relies on telemarketing.
`
`20. One of the telemarketing strategies used by Citrix involves the use of an
`
`automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) to solicit customers through the use of a
`
`predictive dialer.
`
`21. Citrix engages in use of this equipment because it allows for thousands of
`
`automated calls to be placed at one time, but its telemarketing representatives, who are paid by
`
`the hour, only talk to individuals who pick up the telephone.
`
`22.
`
`Through this method, Citrix shifts the burden of wasted time to the consumers it
`
`calls with unsolicited messages.
`
`Calls to Mr. Boger
`
`23. Mr. Boger is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by
`
`47 U.S.C. § 153(39).
`
`24. Mr. Boger’s telephone number, (703) 328-XXXX, is assigned to a cellular
`
`telephone service.
`
`25. Mr. Boger received five automated calls from Citrix to that number.
`
`26.
`
`On September 4 and 10, 2015, Citrix placed automated calls to Mr. Boger’s
`
`cellular telephone number, (703) 328-XXXX. The caller each time was “Dillon” at “Citrix” and
`
`on each call he proceeded to promote Citrix products and services.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 6 of 12
`
`27.
`
`On December 14, 2015, Citrix placed another automated call to Mr. Boger’s
`
`cellular telephone number, (703) 328-XXXX. The caller was “Adam” at “Citrix” and he
`
`proceeded to promote Citrix products and services.
`
`28.
`
`On May 3, 2016, Citrix placed another automated call to Mr. Boger’s cellular
`
`telephone number, (703) 328-XXXX. The caller was “Jason” at “Citrix,” calling from the caller
`
`ID (919) 948-1567. Mr. Boger explicitly told the caller to add him to their Do Not Call list and
`
`asked for a manager. He spoke with Trevor Jones, Vertical Manager, and asked why he was still
`
`receiving calls from Citrix even though he had previously told it to stop calling him. Mr. Jones’
`
`response was that maybe Mr. Boger spoke with someone on a different team.
`
`29.
`
`Even after speaking with a manager on the May 3, 2016 call, Citrix continued to
`
`make automated calls to Mr. Boger’s cellular telephone number, (703) 328-XXX. Mr. Boger
`
`received such a call from an unidentified female representative of “Citrix” on May 25, 2016 from
`
`the caller ID 919-948-1773.
`
`30.
`
`On the May 25, 2016 call, Mr. Boger told the caller that he had previously and
`
`repeatedly requested to be placed on Citrix’s Do Not Call list and, again, asked for a manager.
`
`31. Mr. Boger spoke with Sam Schlunz, manager of the Sales Team. Mr. Schlunz
`
`told Mr. Boger that Citrix has multiple Do Not Call lists and that he would place him on their Do
`
`Not Call list.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff then sent correspondence to Citrix on June 16, 2016 asking it for any
`
`evidence it may have of his consent to call him, which he asserted did not exist.
`
`33.
`
`Brian Benfer, Senior Manager at Citrix, responded via email. He confirmed that
`
`all of the call dates Plaintiff referenced were accurate, but provided no evidence of Plaintiff’s
`
`consent to the calls. He further confirmed that while Citrix’s notes in its database stated that
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 7 of 12
`
`Plaintiff had requested twice to be added to Citrix’s Do Not Call list prior to his request on May
`
`25, 2016, his number had not been added to Citrix’s Do Not Call list.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff alleged in his correspondence to Citrix that an ATDS was used to place
`
`the calls to him. He had noticed that there was a distinctive pause before sales representatives
`
`came onto the line that was indicative of use of a predictive dialer. Rather than make any
`
`attempt to refute Plaintiff’s allegation that an ATDS was used, Citrix informed him that it did not
`
`intend to call cellular phones, as using an ATDS to call cellular phones is prohibited by the
`
`TCPA. Citrix told him “its not clear right now how a cell phone got through.”
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff and the other call recipients were harmed by these calls. They were
`
`temporarily deprived of legitimate use of their phones because the phone line was tied up, they
`
`were charged for the calls, and their privacy was improperly invaded.
`
`36. Moreover, these calls injured Plaintiff because they were frustrating, obnoxious,
`
`annoying, were a nuisance, and disturbed the solitude of Plaintiff and the class members.
`
`Class Action Allegations
`
`As authorized by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings
`
`37.
`
`this action on behalf of classes of all other persons or entities similarly situated throughout the
`
`United States.
`
`38.
`
`The classes of persons Plaintiff proposes to represent is tentatively defined as:
`
`Class 1
`
`All persons within the United States to whom: (a) Defendant and/or a third party
`acting on its behalf, made one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b)
`promoting Defendant’s products or services; (c) to their cellular telephone
`number; (d) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
`prerecorded voice; and (e) at any time in the period that begins four years before
`the date of the filing of this Complaint to trial.
`
`Class 2
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 8 of 12
`
`All natural persons within the United States to whom: (a) Defendant and/or a third
`party acting on their behalf, made two or more calls in a twelve-month period; (b)
`which constitute telemarketing; (c) at any time in the period that begins four years
`before the date of the filing of this Complaint to trial.
`
`39.
`
`Excluded from the classes are counsel, the Defendant, and any entities in which
`
`
`
`the Defendant has a controlling interest, the Defendant’s agents and employees, any judge to
`
`whom this action is assigned, and any member of such judge’s staff and immediate family.
`
`40.
`
`The classes as defined above are identifiable through phone records and phone
`
`number databases.
`
`41.
`
`The potential class members number at least in the thousands. Individual joinder
`
`of these persons is impracticable.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff is a member of the classes.
`
`There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and to the proposed
`
`classes, including but not limited to the following;
`
`a. Whether Defendant used an ATDS to send telemarketing calls;
`
`b. Whether Defendant violated the TCPA by failing to implement adequate
`
`procedures to maintain an internal do-not-call list;
`
`c. Whether Defendant placed calls without obtaining the recipients’ prior
`
`express invitation or permission for the call;
`
`d. Whether Defendant’s TCPA violations were negligent, willful, or knowing
`
`e. Whether the Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to statutory damages
`
`as a result of Defendant’s actions.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are based on the same facts and legal theories as class members,
`
`and therefore are typical of the claims of class members.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 9 of 12
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the classes because his interests do not
`
`conflict with the interests of the classes, he will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
`
`classes, and he is represented by counsel skilled and experienced in class actions, including
`
`TCPA class actions.
`
`46.
`
`The actions of the Defendant are generally applicable to the classes as a whole
`
`and to Plaintiff.
`
`47.
`
`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
`
`adjudication of the controversy. The only individual question concerns identification of class
`
`members, which will be ascertainable from records maintained by Defendant and/or its agents.
`
`48.
`
`The likelihood that individual members of the classes will prosecute separate
`
`actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual case.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff is not aware of any litigation concerning this controversy already
`
`commenced by others who meet the criteria for class membership described above.
`
`
`
`50.
`
`forth herein.
`
`Legal Claims
`
`Count One:
`Violation of the TCPA’s provisions
`prohibiting autodialer calls to cell phones
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set
`
`51.
`
`The Defendant violated the TCPA by (a) initiating a telephone call using an
`
`automated dialing system or prerecorded voice to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular
`
`telephone service, or (b) by the fact that others caused the initiation of those calls on its behalf.
`
`See 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(1)(iii); 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 10 of 12
`
`52.
`
`The Defendant’s violations were negligent and/or knowing.
`
`
`
`Count Two:
`Violation of the TCPA’s Do Not Call provisions
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set
`
`53.
`
`forth herein.
`
`54.
`
`The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendant constitute violations of the
`
`FCC’s regulations implementing subsection 227(c) of the TCPA which prohibit anyone from
`
`making any call for telemarketing purposes to any residential or wireless telephone subscriber
`
`unless the caller has implemented the required minimum procedures for maintaining a list of
`
`persons who do not want to receive calls made by or on behalf of such person or entity. 47
`
`C.F.R. 64.1200(d).
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`The Defendant failed to maintain an internal do-not-call list;
`
`The Defendant failed to train its personnel as to the existence of and/or use of a
`
`do-not-call list;
`
`57.
`
` The Defendant did not honor do-not-call requests, much less for five years as
`
`required.
`
`58.
`
`The Defendant’s violations were willful and/or knowing.
`
`Count Three:
`Violation of the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set
`
`59.
`
`forth herein.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 11 of 12
`
`60.
`
`The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendants constitute violations of the
`
`Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann. Com. Law §§ 14-3201, et seq.,
`
`(“Maryland TCPA”) which prohibits a person from violating the TCPA.
`
`61. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Maryland TCPA, Plaintiff and
`
`members of the classes presumptively are entitled to an award of $500 in damages for each and
`
`every call that violates the statute as well as their attorney fees pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Com.
`
`Law § 14-3202(b)(1).
`
`Relief Sought
`
`WHEREFORE, for himself and all class members, Plaintiff requests the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`That the Court certify the proposed classes;
`
`That the Court appoint Plaintiff as class representative;
`
`That the Court appoint the undersigned counsel as counsel for the classes;
`
`That the Court enter a judgment permanently enjoining the Defendant from
`
`engaging in or relying upon telemarketing, or, alternatively, from engaging in or relying
`
`upon telemarketing that violates the TCPA;
`
`E.
`
`That the Court enter a judgment enjoining Defendant from making telemarketing
`
`calls until it establishes adequate procedures for maintenance of an internal do-not-call
`
`list are in place;
`
`F.
`
`That the Court enter a judgment awarding any other injunctive relief necessary to
`
`ensure the Defendant’s compliance with the TCPA;
`
`G.
`
`That the Court enter a judgment awarding Plaintiffs and all class members
`
`statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA and $1,500 for each knowing
`
`or willful violation;
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01234-LKG Document 1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 12 of 12
`
`H.
`
`An award of attorneys’ fees and costs to counsel for Plaintiff and the classes, as
`
`permitted by law;
`
`I.
`
`Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff requests a jury trial as to all claims of the complaint so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF, Dan Boger,
`By his attorneys
`
`
`
`
`____________/s/______________________
`Stephen H. Ring
`STEPHEN H. RING, PC
`9901 Belward Campus Drive, Suite 175
`Rockville, Maryland 20850
`(301) 563-9249
`USDC-MD Attorney No. 00405
`shr@ringlaw.us
`
`Joseph F. Murray
`Jonathan Misny
`MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
`1114 Dublin Road
`Columbus, OH 43215
`Telephone: 614.488.0400
`Facsimile: 614.488.0401
`E-mail: tiffany@mmmb.com
`Subject to pro hac vice admission
`
`Anthony Paronich
`PARONICH LAW, P.C.
`350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
`Hingham, MA 02043
`Telephone (617) 485-0018
`Facsimile (508) 318-8100
`https://www.paronichlaw.com
`Subject to pro hac vice admission
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`12
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket