throbber
Case: 5:21-cv-00997-JRA Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/13/21 1 of 6. PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`))
`
`FAMILY HEALTH PHYSICAL
`MEDICINE, LLC, individually and as the
`representative of a class of similarly-situated
`persons,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Pursuant to Rules 7 and 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Family Health
`
`Physical Medicine, LLC (“Family Health”) alleges the following against Defendant Brookdale
`
`Senior Living, Inc. (“Brookdale Senior Living”).
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Family Health
`
`is
`
`an Ohio
`
`corporation
`
`that operates
`
`a physical
`
`medicine/chiropractic clinic in Alliance, Ohio.
`
`2.
`
`Brookdale Senior Living is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Tennessee.
`
`3.
`
`Brookdale Senior Living is a for-profit corporation that derives revenue from the
`
`operation of assisted living facilities in Ohio.
`
`4.
`
`Brookdale Senior Living owns and/or operates the assisted living facility located
`
`at 1277 South Sawburg Ave. in Alliance, Ohio 44601.
`
`FACTS
`
`5.
`
`On July 12, 2019, Family Health received a document on its fax machine (“the
`
`

`

`Case: 5:21-cv-00997-JRA Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/13/21 2 of 6. PageID #: 2
`
`Brookdale Fax”) touting the facility located at 1277 South Sawburg Ave. in Alliance, Ohio
`
`44601 (“the Brookdale Alliance facility”).
`
`6.
`
`The Brookdale Fax invited recipients to tour the facility “to meet our staff”, “learn
`
`more about how we will serve your clients,” and offered “a complimentary pizza to-go” to entice
`
`the recipients to accept the invitation.
`
`7.
`
`The Brookdale Fax, which was not addressed to anyone, was targeted at medical
`
`providers such as Family Health to generate referrals or other interest in the Brookdale Alliance
`
`facility.
`
`8.
`
`The Brookdale Fax was transmitted to Family Health’s fax number and received
`
`by Family Health’s fax machine. Upon receiving this transmission, Family Health’s fax machine
`
`printed the Brookdale fax onto paper using ink and toner.
`
`CLAIM FOR RELIEF – VIOLATION OF THE TCPA
`
`9.
`
`47 U.S.C. § 227 is a federal law that is commonly known as the Telephone
`
`Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) or Junk Fax Prevention Act (“JFPA”).
`
`10.
`
`The TCPA generally prohibits the sending of unsolicited advertisements via
`
`facsimile. Specifically, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) states, in part, as follows:
`
`It shall be unlawful for any person . . . to use any telephone
`facsimile machine, computer or other device to send, to a
`telephone
`facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement
`unless— (i) the unsolicited advertisement is from a sender with an
`established business relationship with the sender . . . and (iii) the
`unsolicited advertisement contains a notice meeting
`the
`requirements under paragraph (2)(D).
`
`11.
`
`47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5) of the TCPA defines the term “unsolicited advertisement”
`
`as follows:
`
`‘unsolicited advertisement’ means any material
`term
`The
`advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 5:21-cv-00997-JRA Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/13/21 3 of 6. PageID #: 3
`
`goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that
`person’s prior express invitation or permission, in writing or
`otherwise.
`
`12.
`
`Paragraph (b)(2)(D) of the TCPA sets forth the requirements for an opt-out notice
`
`on fax advertisements. These requirements include, among others, that “the notice is clear and
`
`conspicuous and on the first page of the unsolicited advertisement” and that “the notice states
`
`that the recipient may make a request to the sender of the unsolicited advertisement not to send
`
`any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine and that failure to
`
`comply, within the shortest reasonable time, . . . is unlawful.”
`
`13.
`
`The Brookdale Fax advertised the commercial availability and/or quality of the
`
`services of Brookdale Senior Living in regard to the Brookdale Alliance facility.
`
`14. Brookdale Senior Living did not obtain express permission from Family Health
`
`before transmitting the Brookdale Fax to the fax number/fax machine of Family Health.
`
`15.
`
`The Brookdale Fax did not contain a notice that met the requirements of
`
`Paragraph (b)(2)(D) of the TCPA.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`16.
`
`Family Health brings this action on behalf of the following persons: “All persons
`
`who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action; (2) were sent the Brookdale Fax or
`
`similar material; (3) via facsimile; (4) and for whom Brookdale Senior Living has no documents
`
`purporting
`
`to show
`
`the
`
`intended recipient’s express permission
`
`to receive facsimile
`
`advertisements from Brookdale Senior Living. The persons who meet these criteria are the
`
`“putative class members”.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 5:21-cv-00997-JRA Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/13/21 4 of 6. PageID #: 4
`
`17.
`
`Numerosity: Based on information, belief, and the appearance of the Brookdale
`
`Fax, Brookdale Senior Living sent the Brookdale Fax to numerous persons via their fax
`
`numbers/fax machines.
`
`18.
`
`Commonality: Common questions of law and fact apply to the claims of the
`
`putative class members. These include the following:
`
`“unsolicited
`an
`is
`the Brookdale Fax
`(a) Whether
`advertisement” within the meaning of the TCPA;
`
`(b) Whether Brookdale Senior Living is the “sender” of the
`Brookdale Fax within the meaning of the TCPA;
`
`(c) Whether Brookdale Senior Living obtained “express
`invitation or permission” within the meaning of the TCPA
`from
`the recipients of
`the Brookdale Fax prior
`to
`transmitting it to them via their fax numbers/fax machines;
`
`(d) Whether the Brookdale Fax contained an opt-out notice that
`complied with the requirements of the TCPA; and
`
`(e) Whether Brookdale Senior Living sent the Brookdale Fax
`intentionally, was aware of the TCPA at the time, and/or
`violated the TCPA knowingly.
`
`20.
`
`Typicality: Family Health has the same claim under the same federal statute as the
`
`other putative class members for their receipt of the Brookdale Fax (and any similar facsimiles).
`
`Family Health also has the same damages as the other putative class members for the alleged
`
`violation(s) of the TCPA by Brookdale Senior Living.
`
`21.
`
`Adequacy: Family Health has no interests in conflict with the putative class
`
`members, has the resources and inclination to prosecute this action to completion, and has
`
`retained experienced and competent counsel to assist it in doing so.
`
`22.
`
`Predominance: The questions of law and fact common to the putative class
`
`members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members because:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 5:21-cv-00997-JRA Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/13/21 5 of 6. PageID #: 5
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`Family Health’s claim depends on the same factual and
`legal issues as the claims of the other putative class
`members;
`
`the evidence supporting Brookdale Senior Living’s likely
`defenses will come solely from Brookdale Senior Living’s
`own records and will not require any information or
`inquiries from individual class members;
`
`the damages for the alleged violation(s) of the TCPA by
`Brookdale Senior Living are set by statute and, therefore,
`will be the same for each and every member of the putative
`class; and
`
`the identity of the putative class members can be readily
`ascertained from Brookdale Senior Living’s computer,
`phone, or other business records.
`
`23.
`
`Superiority: A class action would be superior to individual actions by the putative
`
`class members for the following reasons:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`the damages suffered by any one class member are too low
`to justify a stand-alone, individual lawsuit;
`
`the TCPA contains no provision for awarding attorney fees.
`As such, individual claimants would, as a practical matter,
`have to proceed pro se against a large, sophisticated
`defendant;
`
`(c) many of the putative class members are, like Family
`Health, non-natural entities that would not be permitted to
`proceed in court pro se; and
`
`(d)
`
`the putative class
`the evidence concerning each of
`member’s claims is so similar that the adjudication of each
`on an individual basis would be repetitive, inefficient, and
`wasteful.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Family Health Physical Medicine, LLC demands judgment in its
`
`favor and against Defendant Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. as follows:
`
`(1)
`
`that the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be maintained
`as a class action, appoint Family Health as the representative of the class,
`and appoint counsel for Family Health as counsel for the class;
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 5:21-cv-00997-JRA Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/13/21 6 of 6. PageID #: 6
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`that the Court award the statutory damages provided by the TCPA to
`Family Health and the other members of the class for each violation of the
`TCPA by Brookdale Senior Living; and
`
`that the Court award Family Health an incentive award, pre-judgment
`interest, post-judgment interest, attorney fees, treble damages, costs, and
`such other relief as may be just and proper.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Matthew E. Stubbs
`GEORGE D. JONSON
`MATTHEW W. STUBBS
`MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP
`600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`Telephone:
`(513) 241-4722
`Facsimile:
`(513) 768-9227
`Email:
`gjonson@mojolaw.com
`mstubbs@mojolaw.com
`
`6
`
`

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