Case 4:21-cv-12549-MFL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 10/28/21 Page 1 of 41
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`ANN ARBOR DIVISION
`
`Mark W. Dobronski
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`AT&T Corp. and DIRECTV, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. __________
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants AT&T Corp. and DIRECTV, LLC
`
`(collectively the “Defendants”) hereby remove this action from the Circuit Court for
`
`the 22nd Judicial Circuit of the State of Michigan, County of Washtenaw to the
`
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Ann Arbor
`
`Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, 1441 and 1446. In support of
`
`removal, Defendants state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`By complaint dated October 7, 2021, Plaintiff Mark W. Dobronski
`
`(“Dobronski”) purportedly instituted this action against the Defendants. A true and
`
`correct copy of the complaint (“Complaint”) and writ of summons (“Summons”) are
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Complaint has been assigned docket number 21-
`
`001075-NZ in state court.
`
`744499488.1 28-Oct-21 13:15
`
`1
`
`21-12549
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-12549-MFL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 10/28/21 Page 2 of 41
`
`2.
`
`Defendants first received a copy of the Complaint on October 7, 2021.
`
`As reflected on the cover sheet to Exhibit A, at that time, the Complaint was served
`
`on The Corporation Company in Plymouth, MI.
`
`3.
`
`No other proceedings have been held in the Circuit Court for
`
`Washtenaw County, Michigan in this action and the Summons and Complaint
`
`constitute all process and pleadings served upon Defendants in this action. No
`
`Defendant has filed a responsive pleading to the Complaint.
`
`4.
`
`The Complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for allegedly
`
`violating federal law by using automated equipment to place solicitation calls to
`
`Plaintiff Dobronski without his permission and despite him being on the do-not-call
`
`list. Comp. at ¶¶ 49-89. Dobronski alleges that Defendants violated multiple sections
`
`of the federal law that prohibits such conduct, the Telephone Consumer Protection
`
`Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, and its implementing regulations. Comp. at ¶¶ 82-
`
`102. The Complaint also alleges similar claims arising under Michigan state law.
`
`Comp. at ¶¶ 103-108.
`
`5.
`
`Each of the claims arises out of the same basic allegations. Dobronski
`
`alleges that he registered his telephone number on the national do-not-call list.
`
`Comp. at ¶ 29. Despite that, he claims, he received calls that attempted to sell
`
`Defendants’ products while using inaccurate caller ID information. Id. at ¶¶ 49-89.
`
`744499488.1 28-Oct-21 13:15
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-12549-MFL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 10/28/21 Page 3 of 41
`
`Dobronski alleges that the calls continued even after he asked the caller to stop. Id.
`
`at ¶ 32.
`
`6.
`
`Because Dobronski’s complaint includes a claim against Defendants
`
`under the federal TCPA, this action arises under the “laws . . . of the United States”
`
`over which this Court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, this
`
`action is removable to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See Mims v. Arrow Fin.
`
`Servs. LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012).
`
`7.
`
`To the extent that Dobronski asserts claims under Michigan state law,
`
`this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over his claims because such claims are so
`
`related to Dobronski’s federal claim that they are part of the same case or
`
`controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`Indeed, the state and federal claims both rely on the exact same theory—that
`
`Defendants violated telemarketing requirements by making unauthorized and
`
`inappropriate calls to Dobronski.
`
`8.
`
`The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is
`
`a proper venue for removal because it is the federal judicial district in which the
`
`complaint alleges the events and/or conduct giving rise to the claims occurred,
`
`namely Dobronski’s receipt of the calls at issue.1 Additionally, the court where the
`
`state action was brought and is pending is located within the jurisdiction of the
`
`1 Dobronski alleges he is a resident of Washtenaw County. Complaint at ¶ 2.
`3
`
`744499488.1 28-Oct-21 13:15
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-12549-MFL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 10/28/21 Page 4 of 41
`
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and therefore this
`
`is the proper district court to which the action should be removed.
`
`9.
`
`All of the defendants are parties to this Notice of Removal.
`
`10. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), this Notice of Removal
`
`is timely and proper because thirty days have not expired since any defendant
`
`received the Complaint and because all defendants have joined in the removal.
`
`11.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendants have this same date given
`
`written notice of this filing to Dobronski and filed a true and correct copy of a Notice
`
`of Filing of Notice of Removal (“Notice of Filing”) with the Clerk of the Circuit
`
`Court for the State of Michigan, Washtenaw County. A copy of such Notice of Filing
`
`(without attachments) is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`12. By removing this matter to this Court, Defendants do not waive their
`
`rights to assert any and all defenses and/or objections in this action, including any
`
`right to assert that courts in the State of Michigan lack jurisdiction over these claims.
`
`13.
`
`The undersigned is counsel for, and is duly authorized to effect removal
`
`on behalf of, Defendants.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this action be removed
`
`from the Circuit Court of the 22nd Judicial District of the State of Michigan for the
`
`County of Washtenaw and that this Court take jurisdiction over further proceedings.
`
`744499488.1 28-Oct-21 13:15
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-12549-MFL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 10/28/21 Page 5 of 41
`
`Dated: October 28, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Roger P. Meyers
`BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC
`Roger P Meyers (P73255)
`100 W. Big Beaver Rd. Suite 400
`Troy, Michigan 48084
`(248) 822-7800
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`
`744499488.1 28-Oct-21 13:15
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-12549-MFL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 10/28/21 Page 6 of 41
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Roger P. Meyers, certify that on October 28, 2021 I caused a copy of the
`
`foregoing to be served upon the following by email and U.S. mail:
`
`Mark W. Dobronski
`P.O. Box. 85547
`Westland, MI 48185-0547
`Tel: 734-330-9671
`Email: markdobronski@yahoo.com
`
`/s/ Roger P. Meyers
`
`744499488.1 28-Oct-21 13:15
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-12549-MFL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 10/28/21 Page 7 of 41
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-12549-MFL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 10/28/21 Page 8 of 41
`
`Service of Process
`Transmittal
`10/07/2021
`CT Log Number 540382122
`
`TO:
`
`RE:
`
`FOR:
`
`Jill M Calafiore, Rm 3A119A
`AT&T Corp.
`One AT&T Way-
`Bedminster, NJ 07921-
`
`Process Served in Michigan
`
`AT&T Corp.  (Domestic State: NY)
`
`ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS:
`
`TITLE OF ACTION:
`
`MARK W. DOBRONSKI, an individual vs. AT&T CORP.
`
`DOCUMENT(S) SERVED:
`
`Summons, Complaint, Verification
`
`COURT/AGENCY:
`
`22nd Circuit Court - Washtenaw County, MI
`Case # 21001075NZ
`
`NATURE OF ACTION:
`
`Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
`
`ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVED:
`
`The Corporation Company, Plymouth, MI
`
`DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE:
`
`By Process Server on 10/07/2021 at 14:26
`
`JURISDICTION SERVED :
`
`Michigan
`
`APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE:
`
`Within 21 days after receipt
`
`ATTORNEY(S) / SENDER(S):
`
`Mark W. Dobronski
`Post Office Box 85547
`Westland, MI 48185-0547
`734-641-2300
`
`ACTION ITEMS:
`
`CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 10/08/2021, Expected Purge Date:
`10/18/2021
`
`Image SOP
`
`Email Notification,  Jill M Calafiore  jcalafiore@att.com
`
`REGISTERED AGENT ADDRESS:
`
`The Corporation Company
`40600 Ann Arbor Road E
`Suite 201
`Plymouth, MI 48170
`877-564-7529
`MajorAccountTeam2@wolterskluwer.com
`The information contained in this Transmittal is provided by CT for quick reference only. It does not constitute a legal opinion, and should not otherwise be
`relied on, as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any other information contained in the included documents. The recipient(s)
`of this form is responsible for reviewing and interpreting the included documents and taking appropriate action, including consulting with its legal and other
`advisors as necessary. CT disclaims all liability for the information contained in this form, including for any omissions or inaccuracies that may be contained
`therein.
`
`Page 1 of  2 / SH
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-12549-MFL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 10/28/21 Page 9 of 41
`
`Service of Process
`Transmittal
`10/07/2021
`CT Log Number 540382122
`
`TO:
`
`RE:
`
`FOR:
`
`Jill M Calafiore, Rm 3A119A
`AT&T Corp.
`One AT&T Way-
`Bedminster, NJ 07921-
`
`Process Served in Michigan
`
`AT&T Corp.  (Domestic State: NY)
`
` 
`DOCKET HISTORY:
`
`DOCUMENT(S) SERVED:
`
`DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE:
`
`TO:
`
`CT LOG NUMBER:
`
`Summons, Complaint
`
`By Process Server on 01/21/2021 at
`11:12
`
`Jill M Calafiore, Rm 3A119A
`AT&T Corp.
`
`538925622
`
`Page 2 of  2 / SH
`
`

`

`Approved, SCAO
`
`STATE OF MICHIGAN
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`COUNTY PROBATE
`
`22nd
`
`2,
`
`Original - Court
`1st copy - Defendant
`
`SUMMONS
`
`2nd copy - Plaintiff
`3rd copy - Return
`
`CASE NO.
`21-001075-NZ
`
`J UDGE CAROL KUHNKE
`
`Court address
`101 EAST HURON STREET
`
`
`
`ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48104-1446
`
`Court telephone no.
`(734) 222-3001
`
`Plaintiff's name(s), address(es), and telephone no(s).
`MARK W. DOBRONSKI
`TEL: (734) 330-9671
`PO BOX 85547
`WESTLAND, MI 48185-0547
`
`Plaintiff's attorney, bar no., address, and telephone no.
`PRO SE
`
`Defendant's name(s), address(es), and telephone no(s).
`AT&T CORP.
`40600 ANN ARBOR RD E STE 201
`PLYMOUTH, MI 48170-4675
`and
`DIRECTV, LLC
`40600 ANN ARBOR RD E STE 201
`PLYMOUTH, MI 48170-4675
`
`Instructions: Check the items below that apply to you and provide any required information. Submit this form to the court clerk along with your complaint and,
`if necessary, a case inventory addendum (form MC 21). The summons section will be completed by the court clerk.
`
`Domestic Relations Case
`El There are no pending or resolved cases within the jurisdiction of the family division of the circuit court involving the family or
`family members of the person(s) who are the subject of the complaint.
`El There is one or more pending or resolved cases within the jurisdiction of the family division of the circuit court involving
`the family or family members of the person(s) who are the subject of the complaint. I have separately filed a completed
`confidential case inventory (form MC 21) listing those cases.
`CI It is unknown if there are pending or resolved cases within the jurisdiction of the family division of the circuit court involving
`the family or family members of the person(s) who are the subject of the complaint.
`
`Civil Case
`EIThis is a business case in which all or part of the action includes a business or commercial dispute under MCL 600.8035.
`LI MDHHS and a contracted health plan may have a right to recover expenses in this case. I certify that notice and a copy of
`the complaint will be provided to MDHHS and (if applicable) the contracted health plan in accordance with MCL 400.106(4).
`E There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in the
`complaint.
`El A civil action between these parties or other parties arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in the complaint has
`
`been previously filed in CI this court, C7
`
` Court, where
`
`it was given case number
`
` and assigned to Judge
`
`The action El remains El is no longer pending.
`
`Summons section completed by court clerk.
`
`I SUMMONS
`
`NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT: In the name of the people of the State of Michigan you are notified:
`1. You are being sued.
`2. YOU HAVE 21 DAYS after receiving this summons and a copy of the complaint to file a written answer with the court and
`serve a copy on the other party or take other lawful action with the court (28 days if you were served by mail or you were
`served outside this state).
`3. If you do not answer or take other action within the time allowed, judgment may be entered against you for the relief
`demanded in the complaint.
`tpq u ire a foreign language interpreter
`4. If you require special accommodations to use the court because of a,4atg- ' .
`pp ,
`to help you fully participate in court proceedings, please contact thifppitiipiediàt!th t9 make arrangements.
`Issue date
`Court clerk,.
`Expiration date*
`01-05-2022
`*This summons is invalid unless served on or before its expiration date. This docume t
`
`rri
`
`MC 01 (9/19) SUMMONS
`
`heltlie4of the court.
`led
`0 • 4
`40..•
`r")
`/ • .f.0.%..)4 Z-102(B), MCR 2.103, MCR 2.104, MCR 2.105
`
`

`

`STATE OF MICHIGAN
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 22" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`WASHTENAW COUNTY
`
`Case No. 21-001075-NZ
`
`JUDGE CAROL KUHNKE
`
`MARK W. DOBRONSKI,
`an individual,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`AT&T CORP.,
`a New York corporation; and,
`
`DIRECTV, LLC,
`a California limited liability company,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Mark W. Dobronski
`Post Office Box 85547
`Westland, Michigan 48185-0547
`Telephone: (734) 330-9671
`Email: markdobronski@yahoo.com
`Plaintiff In Propria Persona
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`NOW COMES the Plaintiff, MARK W. DOBRONSKI, appearing in propria persona,
`
`and for his complaint against Defendants alleges:
`
`1. This matter arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"),
`
`47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., the Michigan Telephone Companies as Common Carriers Act
`
`("MTCCCA"), M.C.L. § 484.101, et seq., the Michigan Home Solicitation Sales Act
`
`("MHSSA"), M.C.L. § 445.101, et seq., and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"),
`
`M.C.L. § 445.901, et seq.
`
`

`

`Parties
`
`2. Plaintiff is an individual, of the age of majority, a citizen of the United States of
`
`America, has a residence and conducts business in Lima Township, Washtenaw County,
`
`Michigan, and has a place of business, and conducts business in the City of Westland, Wayne
`
`County, Michigan.
`
`3. Upon information and belief, Defendant AT&T INC. ("AT&T") is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, which is qualified and
`
`registered to do business in the State of Michigan, with a registered office located at 40600 Ann
`
`Arbor Road East, Suite 201, Plymouth, Michigan 48170-4675.
`
`4. Upon information and belief, Defendant DIRECTV, LLC ("DirecTv") is a limited
`
`liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, which is
`
`qualified and registered to do business in the State of Michigan, with a registered office located
`
`at 40600 Ann Arbor Road East, Suite 201, Plymouth, Michigan 48170-4675.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this complaint pursuant to 47
`
`U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), and M.C.L. § 600.601.
`
`6. This Court has general jurisdiction over Defendants AT&T and DirecTv pursuant to
`
`M.C.L. § 600.711 as a result of each of the defendants carrying on of a continuous and
`
`systematic part of its general business within the state.
`
`7. Alternatively, this Court has limited personal jurisdiction over Defendants AT&T and
`
`DirectTV pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.715 as a result of: the transaction of any business within the
`
`state; the doing or causing an act to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in
`
`2
`
`

`

`an action for tort; the ownership, use, or possession of real or tangible personal property situated
`
`within the state; entering into a contract for services to be rendered or for materials to be
`
`furnished in the state by the defendant.
`
`Venue
`
`8. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.1629(1)(b)(i), as the tortious
`
`or illegal telephone calls complained of herein were received in Washtenaw County, Michigan.
`
`General Allegations
`
`9. In response to widespread public outrage over intrusive telemarketing calls to homes
`
`and businesses, the United States Congress acted to prevent entities, like Defendants, from
`
`invading American citizen's privacy and to prevent abusive "robo-calls" by enacting the TCPA.
`
`10. According to the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), "Unwanted calls
`
`and texts are the number one complaint to the FCC. There are thousands of complaints to the
`
`FCC every month on both telemarketing and robocalls."
`
`11. Congress explicitly has found that robo-calling is an invasion of privacy.
`
`12. In regard to such telephone solicitations, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, the
`
`primary sponsor of the bill, explained, "computerized calls are the scourge of modern
`
`civilization. They wake us up in the morning; they interrupt our dinner at night; they force the
`
`sick and elderly out of bed; they hound us until we want to rip the telephone right out of the
`
`wall.., these computerized telephone calls threaten our personal safety... These machines are out
`
`of control, and their use is growing by 30 percent every year. It is telephone terrorism, and it has
`
`got to stop...." See In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone
`
`Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 17 FCC Rcd. 17459, 17474, fn. 90 (2002), quoting 137 Cong.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Rec. 30,821-30,822 (Nov. 7, 1991).
`
`13. Congress found that telemarketing fraud has become a problem of such magnitude
`
`that the resources of the Government alone are not sufficient to ensure adequate consumer
`
`protection from such fraud; consumers and others are estimated to lose in excess of $40 billion
`
`a year in telemarketing fraud; and consumers are victimized by other forms of telemarketing
`
`deception and abuse.
`
`14. During the first nine months of 2021 alone, over 38.6 billion robocalls were placed
`
`nationwide, equaling approximatcly 117.9 calls per man, woman, and child. [Source:
`
`www.robocallindex.com].
`
`15. In enacting the TCPA, Congress intentionally created a legally enforceable bounty
`
`system, not unlike qui tam statutes, to incentivize the assistance of aggrieved private citizens to
`
`act as "private attorneys general" in enforcing federal law.
`
`16. The TCPA, at 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), promulgates in relevant part as follows:
`
`"Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment
`
`(1) Prohibitions It shall be unlawful for any person within the
`United States, or any person outside the United States if the
`recipient is within the United States —. . .
`
`(B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone
`line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a
`message without the prior express consent of the called party,
`unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes, is made solely
`pursuant to the collection of a debt owed to or guaranteed by the
`United States, or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission
`under paragraph (2)(B);" . . . . [Emphasis added.]
`
`17. Pursuant to authority delegated by Congress to the FCC under the TCPA at 47 U.S.C.
`
`§ 227(b)(2), the FCC has adopted regulations to implement and carry out the TCPA.
`
`4
`
`

`

`18. The TCPA regulations, at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, promulgate in relevant part:
`
`"(a) No person or entity may: . . .
`
`(3) Initiate any telephone call to any residential line using an
`artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the
`prior express written consent of the called party, unless the call;
`
`(i) Is made for emergency purposes;
`
`(ii) Is not made for a commercial purpose;
`
`(iii) Is made for a commercial purpose but does not include or
`introduce an advertisement or constitute telemarketing;
`
`(iv) Is made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit
`organization; or
`
`(v) Delivers a "health care" message made by, or on behalf of, a
`"covered entity" or its "business associate," as those terms are
`defined in the HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 CFR 160.103. . .
`
`(b) All artificial or prerecorded voice telephone messages shall:
`
`(1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the
`business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating
`the call. If a business is responsible for initiating the call, the name
`under which the entity is registered to conduct business with the
`State Corporation Commission (or comparable regulatory
`authority) must be stated;
`
`(2) During or after the message, state clearly the telephone number
`(othcr than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player
`that placed the call) of such business, other entity, or individual.
`The telephone number provided may not be a 900 number or any
`other number for which charges exceed local or long distance
`transmission charges. For telemarketing messages to residential
`telephone subscribers, such telephone number must permit any
`individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business
`hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign; and
`
`(3) In every case where the artificial or prerecorded voice
`telephone message includes or introduces an advertisement or
`
`5
`
`

`

`constitutes telemarketing and is delivered to a residential telephone
`line or any of the lines or telephone numbers described in
`paragraphs (a)( 1)(i) through (iii), provide an automated, interactive
`voice- and/or key press-activated opt-out mechanism for the called
`person to make a do-not-call request, including brief explanatory
`instructions on how to use such mechanism, within two (2)
`seconds of providing the identification information required in
`paragraph (b)(1) of this section...
`
`(d) No person or entity shall initiate any call for telemarketing
`purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such
`person or entity has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of
`persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls made by or
`on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must
`meet the following minimum standards:
`
`(1) Written policy. Persons or entities making calls for
`telemarketing purposes must have a written policy, available upon
`demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list.
`
`(2) Training of personnel engaged in telemarketing. Personnel
`engaged in any aspect of telemarketing must be informed and
`trained in the existence and use of the do-not-call list.
`
`(3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or
`entity making a call for telemarketing purposes (or on whose
`behalf such a call is made) receives a request from a residential
`telephone subscriber not to receive calls from that person or entity,
`the person or entity must record the request and place the
`subscriber's name, if provided, and telephone number on the
`do-not-call list at the time the request is made. Persons or entities
`making calls for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf
`such calls are made) must honor a residential subscriber's
`do-not-call request within a reasonable time from the date such
`request is made. This period may not exceed thirty days from the
`date of such request. If such requests are recorded or maintained by
`a party other than the person or entity on whose behalf the
`telemarketing call is made, the person or entity on whose behalf
`the telemarketing call is made will be liable for any failures to
`honor the do-not-call request. A person or entity making a call for
`telemarketing purposes must obtain a consumer's prior express
`permission to share or forward the consumer's request not to be
`called to a party other than the person or entity on whose behalf a
`
`6
`
`

`

`telemarketing call is made or an affiliated entity.
`
`(4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or entity
`making a call for telemarketing purposes must provide the called
`party with the name of the individual caller, the name of the person
`or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone
`number or address at which the person or entity may be
`contacted..." [Emphasis added.]
`
`19. The TCPA regulations at, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601, additionally promulgate in relevant
`
`part:
`
`"(e) Any person or entity that engages in telemarketing, as defined
`in section 64.1200(f)(10) must transmit caller identification
`information.
`
`(1) For purposes of this paragraph, caller identification
`information must include either CPN or AM, and, when
`available by the telemarketer's carrier, the name of the
`telemarketer. It shall not be a violation of this paragraph to
`substitute (for the name and phone number used in, or billed for,
`making the call) the name of the seller on behalf of which the
`telemarketing call is placed and the seller's customer service
`telephone number. The telephone number so provided must
`permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during
`regular business hours.
`
`(2) Any person or entity that engages in telemarketing is prohibited
`from blocking the transmission of caller identification
`information." [Emphasis added.]
`
`20. The TCPA, at 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), provides for a private right of action, as
`
`follows:
`
`"PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. A person or entity may, if
`otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring
`in an appropriate court of that State —
`
`(A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the
`regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such
`violation,
`
`7
`
`

`

`(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a
`violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation,
`whichever is greater, or
`
`(C) both such actions.
`
`If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated
`this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection,
`the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award
`to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available
`under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph." [Emphasis added.]
`
`21. Pursuant to Congressional mandate set forth at 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1), the FCC
`
`adopted regulations establishing a national "do not call" database and prohibiting any person
`
`from making or transmitting a telephone solicitation to the telephone number of any subscriber
`
`included in such database, which regulations are set forth at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), and
`
`promulgate in relevant part:
`
`"No person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation to: .
`
`"(2) A residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or
`her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of
`persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is
`maintained by the Federal Government
`
`22. Additionally, the TCPA, at 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), as it relates to telephone numbers
`
`appearing of the do-not-call list, provides for a private right of action, as follows:
`
`"Private right of action. A person who has received more than one
`telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the
`same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this
`subsection may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court
`of a State bring in an appropriate court of that State—
`
`(A) an action based on a violation of the regulations prescribed
`under this subsection to enjoin such violation,
`
`8
`
`

`

`(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a
`violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for each such
`violation, whichever is greater, or
`
`(C) both such actions.
`
`It shall be an affirmative defense in any action brought under this
`paragraph that the defendant has established and implemented,
`with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively
`prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations
`prescribed under this subsection. If the court finds that the
`defendant willfully or knowingly violated the regulations
`prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion,
`increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more
`than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this
`paragraph."
`
`23. The MTCCCA, at M.C.L. § 484.125, promulgates in relevant part as follows:
`
`"A caller shall not use a telephone line to contact a subscriber at
`the subscriber's residence, business, or toll-free telephone number
`to do [] the following: ...
`
`(2) A caller shall not use a telephone line to contact a subscriber at
`the subscriber's residence, business, or toll-free telephone number
`to do either of the following:
`
`(a) Deliver a recorded message for the purpose of presenting
`commercial advertising to the subscriber, unless either of the
`following occurs:
`
`(i) The subscriber has knowingly and voluntarily requested,
`consented, permitted, or authorized the contact from the caller.
`
`(ii) The subscriber has knowingly and voluntarily provided his or
`her telephone number to the caller.
`
`(b) Deliver or attempt to deliver intrastate commercial advertising
`if the caller activates a feature to block the display of caller
`identification information that would otherwise be available to the
`subscriber...
`
`(5) A subscriber contacted by a caller in violation of this section
`
`9
`
`

`

`may bring an action to recover damages of $1,000.00, together
`with reasonable attorneys' fees...
`
`(9) A caller who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor,
`punishable by a fine of $1,000.00 or imprisonment for 10 days, or
`both."
`
`24. The MHSSA, at M.C.L. § 445.111a(5), promulgates:
`
`". . . A telephone solicitor shall not make a telephone solicitation
`to a residential telephone subscriber whose name and residential
`telephone number is on the then-current version of the federal [do-
`not-call] list."
`
`25. The MHSSA, at M.C.L. § 445.111b, promulgates in relevant part:
`
`"(1) At the beginning of a telephone solicitation, a person making
`a telephone solicitation to a residential telephone subscriber shall
`state his or her name and the full name of the organization or other
`person on whose behalf the call was initiated and provide a
`telephone number of the organization or other person on request.
`A natural person must be available to answer the telephone number
`at any time when telephone solicitations are being made..."
`
`26. The MHSSA, at M.C.L. § 445.111c, promulgates in relevant part as follows:
`
`"(1) It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of
`this act for a telephone solicitor to do any of the following:...
`
`(f) Fail to comply with the requirements of section la or lb.
`
`(2) ... [A] person who knowingly or intentionally violates this
`section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for
`not more than 6 months or a fine of not more than $500.00, or
`both.
`
`(3) A person who suffers loss as a result of violation of this section
`may bring an action to recover actual damages or $250.00,
`whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorney fees."
`
`27. The MCPA, at M.C.L. § 445.903, promulgates in relevant part as follows:
`
`(1) Unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or
`
`10
`
`

`

`practices in the conduct of trade or commerce are unlawful and are
`defined as follows: ...
`
`(b) Using deceptive representations or deceptive designations of
`geographic origin in connection with goods or services...
`
`(i) Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the
`reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions...
`
`(w) Representing that a consumer will receive a rebate, discount,
`or other benefit as an inducement for entering into a transaction, if
`the benefit is contingent on an event to occur subsequent to the
`consummation of the transaction...."
`
`28. The MCPA, at M.C.L. § 445.911, provides for a private right of action, as follows:
`
`"(1) Whether or not a person seeks damages or has an adequate
`remedy at law, a person may bring an action to do either or both of
`the following:
`
`(a) Obtain a declaratory judgment that a method, act, or practice is
`unlawful under section 3.
`
`(b) Enjoin in accordance with the principles of equity a person who
`is engaging or is about to engage in a method, act, or practice that
`is unlawful under section 3.
`
`(2) Except in a class action or as otherwise provided in subsection
`(3), a person who suffers loss as a result of a violation of this act
`may bring an action to recover actual damages or $250.00,
`whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorney fees...."
`
`29. Plaintiffs residential telephone number (734-)00C-2424) is listed on the National
`
`Do Not Call Registry maintained by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission pursuant to 16 C.F.R.
`
`Part 310 and has been so listed continuously since at least June 29, 2003 and at all times relevant
`
`hereto.
`
`30. By listing his cellular telephone number on the National Do Not Call Registry,
`
`Plaintiff has given constructive notice to the world, including Defendants, that Plaintiff does not
`
`1 1
`
`

`

`wish to receive telephone solicitations or robocalls at his cellular telephone number.
`
`31. Additionally, Plaint