Preview
Filing # 176887128 E-Filed 07/07/2023 09:41:47 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Alan Grochowski, Sr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Case No. 2023 CA 000778
Plaintiff,
National Tax Advisory Services LLC,
Defendant.
NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES AND STATE COURT
OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441,
and 1446, a Notice of Removal of the above-entitled action was filed with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, on July 7, 2023, under federal case number 23-cv-14200.
A true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto.
DATED: July 7, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Evan D. Appell
Evan D. Appell (FBN: 58146)
evan@edalegal.com
EVAN D. APPELL, P.A.
1001 W. Yamato Road, Suite 401
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 337-5858
Fax: (561) 544-1014
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by e-Mail
through the Florida e-filing portal on July 7, 2023, to all counsel of record on the Service List
below.
By: /s/Evan D. Appell
SERVICE LIST
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq. (FBN: 1010101) Mohammad Reza Kazerouni (FBN: 1034549)
ryan@kazlg.com mike@kazlg.com
301 E Bethany Home Rd. 245 Fischer Ave.
Suite C195 Suite D1
Phoenix, AZ 85012-1266 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-4539
Telephone: (602) 900-1288 Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Counsel
for Plaintiff
and the Class Counsel for Plaintiff
and the Class
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.
Case No.
ALAN GROCHOWSKI, SR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
NATIONAL TAX ADVISORY SERVICES LLC,
Defendant.
/
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367,
1441 AND 1446 BY DEFENDANT NATIONAL TAX ADVISORY SERVICES LLC
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367, 1441, and 1446, Defendant National Tax
Advisory Services LLC (“Defendant”), hereby provides notice of removal of this action entitled
Alan Grochowski, Sr. v. National Tax Advisory Services LLC, currently pending in the Circuit
Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Indian River County, Florida, Case Number 2023 CA
000778, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In support of this
removal, Defendant further states:
1 This is a civil action filed on or about May 31, 2023, by Plaintiff Alan Grochowski,
Sr. (“Plaintiff”) in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Indian River County,
Florida, Case Number 2023 CA 000778, captioned Alan Grochowski, Sr. v. National Tax Advisory
Services LLC (the “State Court Action”).
2. Defendant was served with a copy of the Complaint and Summons on June 8, 2023.
3 Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq., and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 2 of 8
(“FTSA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.059.
4 The State Court Action may be removed to this Court because the Court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1441.
I. THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL HAVE _ BEEN
SATISFIED
1 Pleadings and process. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Defendant attaches to this
Notice of Removal a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders entered in the State Court Action.
See Exhibit A. No proceedings have occurred in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit in Indian River County, Florida (the “State Court”) as of the date of this Notice of Removal.
Defendant has not answered or moved in response to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff. Defendant
hereby reserves all rights to assert any and all defenses and/or objections to the Complaint.
2. Removal is timely. A notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after the
defendant is served with a copy of the initial pleading, motion, or other paper from which it may
be ascertained that the case is removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti
Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 354 (1999) (recognizing that the time for filing a notice of
removal does not begin to run until a party has been formally served with the summons and
complaint under applicable state law). As noted, Plaintiff commenced this action in the State Court
on or about May 31, 2023, and Defendant was served with a copy of the Complaint and Summons
on June 8, 2023. Therefore, this removal is timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and (c).
3 Removal to proper court. Venue for this action is proper in this Court under 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a) because the Southern District of Florida is the “district and division embracing
the place where such action is pending.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 89.
4 Notice to state court and adverse parties. Promptly following the filing of this
Notice of Removal, written notice of the removal of this action will be served to Plaintiffs counsel,
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 3 of 8
as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). A true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal will also
be promptly filed with the State Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
Il. REMOVAL IS__PROPER BECAUSE THIS COURT HAS _ ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION
5 Defendant is permitted to remove to this Court “any civil action brought in a State
court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
A. The Court Has Original Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
6 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Plaintiffs
Complaint purports to state civil claims arising under the laws of the United States, namely, the
TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq. As a result, this Court has Federal Question jurisdiction. See,
e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331; Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 377 (2012).
B. The Court Has Original Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 1332
7 This is also an action involving complete diversity amongst the parties and is a civil
action where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Therefore,
the Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and this is an action
that Defendant can properly remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
8 Defendant is now, and was at the time of the filing of this action, a California
limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with
each of its members a citizen of California, its principal place of business in the State of California,
and is therefore a citizen of the State of California for purposes of determining diversity. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A).
9. Based on information and belief, at all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff—a
natural person and resident of Florida—is and has been a citizen of the State of Florida, not the
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 4 of 8
State of California.
10. Additionally, Plaintiff has already plainly stated the number of putative class
members is in the thousands. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B); Compl. { 49 (“Defendant has placed
automated and/or prerecorded calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of
consumers .. .”).
ll. Defendant denies that Plaintiff's proposed class can meet the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. However, based on the relief Plaintiff seeks, the aggregate
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6)
(“In any class action, the claims of the individual class members shall be aggregated to determine
whether the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest
and costs.”). See Taylor v. Certified Legal Funding, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-27-EAK-MAP, 2018 WL
3860243, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 3, 2018) (CAFA’s “provisions should be read broadly, with a strong
preference that interstate class actions should be heard in a federal court if properly removed by
any defendant.”) (internal citations omitted); Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159, 1163
(11th Cir. 2006) (“CAFA’s language favors federal jurisdiction over class actions.”).
12. This amount can be ascertained by reference to the relief requested by the
representative Plaintiff and the statutory damages available under the FTSA and TCPA.
13. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages in the amount of $500.00 for each alleged
violation of the FTSA pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(b). Compl. 4 75. Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages in the amount of $500.00 for each alleged violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47
U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B). Compl. § 69. Plaintiff alleges several violations of the FTSA and the
TCPA caused by five unsolicited calls Defendant allegedly placed to him, along with one or two
text messages. Compl. fJ 30-41. Based on these calls, Plaintiff individually seeks at least $2,500
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 5 of 8
in statutory damages under the FTSA and TCPA.
14. Plaintiff states in his Complaint that “Defendant has placed automated and/or
prerecorded calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers . . .” Compl.
4 49. Multiplying the statutory damages by Plaintiffs alleged class size of “thousands of
consumers” easily yields statutory damages which would exceed the jurisdictional threshold of
$5,000,000 contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).
15. In addition, if the court finds that Defendant willfully or knowingly violated the
FTSA and TCPA, the court may treble the damages available under Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(a)
and 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B). See Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(b); 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(C). Trebling
the alleged statutory damages under the FTSA and TCPA per class member would easily exceed
the jurisdictional threshold contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).
16. In sum, if the proposed class were to prevail on all claims and recover all remedies
sought in the Complaint and the Prayer for Relief, then, pursuant to the allegations of the
Complaint, the relief awarded in the aggregate would exceed the jurisdictional threshold of
$5,000,000 contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).
17. “TA] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Gonzalez v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No.
18-CV-23738, 2019 WL 7943609, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2019) (citations omitted). When the
amount in controversy is not clearly specified in the complaint, the court may consider facts in the
complaint as well as in the removal petition. See Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058,
1063 (11th Cir. 2010) (stating that the Court “found no case in any other circuit that purports to
prohibit a district court from employing its judicial experience or common sense in discerning
whether the allegations in a complaint facially establish the jurisdictionally required amount in
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 6 of 8
controversy.”); accord Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997).
18. Based on the foregoing, the State Court Action may also be removed to this Court
in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441 er. seg. because (1) this is a
putative class action within the jurisdiction of this Court; (2) this action is between citizens of
different states; (3) the matter involves “thousands” of putative class members; and (4) the amount
in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
Til. THE COURT HAS SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S
STATE LAW CLAIM
19. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs sole state law claim for
alleged violations of the FTSA.
20. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), “in any civil action of which the district courts
have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other
claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form
part of the same case or controversy.” Here, the same underlying acts form the basis of Plaintiff's
claims under both state and federal law.
21. A district court may only decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if:
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the
district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining
jurisdiction
Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 743 (11th Cir. 2006). None of those factors
are present in this instance, and supplemental jurisdiction must be exercised over Plaintiff's state
law claim under the FTSA.
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 7 of 8
WHEREFORE, Defendant hereby respectfully removes this action entitled Alan
Grochowski, Sr. v. National Tax Advisory Services LLC, currently pending in the Circuit Court of
the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Indian River County, Florida, Case Number 2023 CA 000778,
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
DATED: July 7, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Evan D. Appell
Evan D. Appell (FBN: 58146)
evan@edalegal.com
EVAN D. APPELL, P.A.
1001 W. Yamato Road, Suite 401
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 337-5858
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by e-Mail
on July 7, 2023, to all counsel of record on the Service List below and via CM/ECF.
By: /s/Evan D. Appell
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 8 of 8
SERVICE LIST
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq. (FBN: 1010101) Mohammad Reza Kazerouni (FBN: 1034549)
ryan@kazlg.com mike@kazlg.com
301 E Bethany Home Rd. 245 Fischer Ave.
Suite C195 Suite D1
Phoenix, AZ 85012-1266 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-4539
Telephone: (602) 900-1288 Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Counsel
for Plaintiff
and the Class Counsel for Plaintiff
and the Class
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 1 of 43
EXHIBIT A
“Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2028 Page 2 of 43
Filing #1743 10843 E-Filed 05/31/2023 03:16:27 PM
HN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH. JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: 312023CA000778XXXXXX_
Alaa Grochowskl Sr, individually and Division:
of behalfof others similarly situated
Plaintiff,
and
National Tax Advisory Services, LLC
Defendant.
SUMMONS: PERSONAL SERVICE ON AN INDIVIDUAL
ORDEN. DE COMPARECENCIA: SERVICIO PERSONAL EN UN INDIVIDUO
CITATION: L’ASSIGNATION PERSONAL SUR UN INDIVIDUEL
National Tax Advisory Services, LLC
TO/PARA/A: {enter other party's full legal name) _¢’o the Law Offices of Keith F, Elder
{address (including city and-stete)Aocation for service} 27550 Oxnatd St, Suite 630, Woodland Hills, CA’
IMPORTANT
A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is servad on you to
file a written response to the attached: complaint/petition with the clerk of this circuit court, Jocated at:
{street address} 2000 16th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960
A phone call will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number given above and the
nantes of the parties, must be-filed if you want the Court to hear your side of the case.
if you do not file your written response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money, and
property may be taken thereafter without further warning from the Court. There are other legal
requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you:do not know an attorney, you may call
an attorney referral service or a legal aid office (listed.in the phone book).
Ifyou choose to file 2 written response yourself, at the same time you file your written response to the
Court, you must also serve a copy of your written response on the party serving this summons at:
{Ndine and address of party serving summons} . Ryan L.. McBride, Esq. Kazerouni Law Group, APC
301 E, Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195, Phoenix, AZ.85012
{€ the party serving summons has designated ‘email address(es) for service or is represented by an
attorney, you may designate email address(es) for service by or of you. Service must be in accordance
with Florida Rute of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516,
Capies of all court documents in this case, including orders, are avaitable. at the Clerk of the Circult
Cour’s office. You may review these documents, upon request.
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 3 of 43
You must keep the Clerk of the Circuit Court's office notified of your current address. (You may file
Designation of Current Malling and Email Address, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form
42.925.) Future papers in this lawsuit will be mailed to the address on record at the clerk's office,
WARNING; Rule 12.285, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, requires certain automatic disclosure
of documents and information. Failure to comply can result in sanctions, including dismissal or striking
of pleadings.
IMPORTANTE
Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene- veinte (20) dias, contados a partir del recibo de esta
notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentaria ante este tribunal. Localizado
en: ; Una llamada telefonica no lo protegera. Si usted desea
que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe presentarsu respuesta por escrito, incluyendo el numero del
caso y los nombres de jas:partes interesadas.. Si usted no contesta la demanda a Uempo, pudiese perder
el caso y podria ser despojada dé sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus derechos, sin previo aviso
del tribunal, Existen otras requisitos legales. Silo desea, usted puede consultar a un abogado
inmediatamente. Sino conoce a un abogado, puede lamar a una de las oficinas de asistencia legal que
aparecen en la guia telefonica.
Si desea responder a la demanda per su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presente su respuesta ante ‘el
tribunal, usted debe enviar por.correo o entregar una copia de su'respuesta a la persona denominada
abajo.
Si usted elige presentar personalmente una respuesta por escrita, en el mismo momento que usted
presente su respuesta por escrito al Tribunal, usted debe enviar por correo o llevar una copia de su
respuesta por escrito a la parte entregarido esta orden de camparencencia a?
Nombre y direccion de la parte que entrega la orden de comparencencia:
Copias de todos los documentos judiciales de este caso, incluyendo las ordenes, estan disponibles en la
oficina del Secretario de Juzgado del Circuito [Clerk of the Circuit Court’s office]. Estos documentos,
fueden Ser revisados a'su solicitud:
Usted debe de manener informada a la-oficina del Secretario de juzgado de} Circuito de su direccion
actual. (Usted puede presentar el Forimulario: Ley de Familia de ta Florida 12.915, Florida Supreme
Court Approved Family Law. Form 12.915, [Desigdation of Current Mailing. and Email Address].) Los
papelos que se presenten anel future en esta dernanda judicial seran env ados por-correo a la direccion
que este registrada en ta oficina del Secretario.
ADVERTENCIA: Regla 12,285 (Rule 12.285}, de las Reglas de Proredimiento de Ley de Familia de la
Florida (Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure], recjuiere clerta revelacion automatica de docurentos
2 informacion. Et incumplimient, puede resultar.en sanciones, incluyendo la desestimacion o anulacion
de los alegatos.
IMPORTANT
Des poursuites judiciaries ont ete entreprises contre vous. Vous avez 20 jours consecutifs a partir de la
date de !’assignation de cette citation pour deposer une reponse ecrite a la plainte ci-jointe aupres de ce
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 4 of 43
tribunal. Qui se trouve a: (L’Adresse} Un. simple coup de. telephone est
insuffisant pour vous proteger; vous etes obliges de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du
numero de dossier ci-dessus-et du nom des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le tribunal entende
votre cause. Si vos ne deposez pas votre reponse ectite dans le delai requis, vous risquez de perdre la
cause ainst que votre salaire, votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre saisis par ta suite, sans aucun preavis
ulterieur du tribunal. ty d'autres ebligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services immediats
dun avacat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d’avocat, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de reference
d’avocats ou a un bureau d’assistance juridique (figurant a (‘annuaire de telephones).
Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une reponse ecrite, il vaus faudra egalament, en meme temps
que cette. formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie au carbone ou une photocopie de votre reponse
ecrite a Ja partie qui vous depose cette citation.
Nom et adresse de la partie qui d@pose cette citation:
Les photocopies de tous les documents tribunals de cette cause, y compris des arrets, sont disponible
au bureau du greffier. Vous pouvez revue ces documents, sur demande.
it faut. aviser ie greffier de votre adresse actuelle, (Vous pouvez deposer Flarida Supreme Court
Approved Family Law Form 12.915, Designation of Current Mailing and Emall Address.) Les documents
de l'avenir de ce proces seront envoyer al’adresse que vous donnez au bureau du greffier.
ATTENTION: La regle 12.285, des regles de procedure du droit de la famille dela Floride exige que V’on
temette certains renseignements et certains. dacuments a {a partie adverse. Tout refus de les fournir
pourra donner fieu a des. sarictions, y compris le.rejet ou.la suppression d'un ou de plusieurs actes de
procedure,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: You are commanded to serve this summons and a copy of the complaint
in this lawsuit on the above-named person.
DATED:
Jeffrey R Smith
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
(SEAL)
wid 06/02/2023
jerk
‘Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 5 of 43
Filing # 174310843 E-Filed 05/31/2023 03:16:27 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA
Case No.:
Alan Grochowski Sr.,
individuali and on. behalf of CLASS ACTION
others similarly situated,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, FOR:
v
1) VIOLATIONS OF THE
TELEPHONE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, 47
National Tax Advisory U.S.C. § 227(B);
Services, LLC,
Defendant. 2) VIOLATIONS OF THE
TELEPHONE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, 47
U.S.C. § 227(€); AND
3y THE FLORIDA
TELEPHONE
SOLICITATION ACT,
FLA. STAT. § 501.059
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
INTRODUCTION
I. Plaintiff Alan Grochowski Sr. (“Plaintiff”), brings this action against
Defendant National Tax Advisory Services, LLC (“Defendant”), to
secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(STCPA”), 47 USC, § 227(b) and Florida Statute §:501.059.
2. This is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., (the “TCPA”) and Fla, Stat. §
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 6 of 43
501.059.
Defendant National Tax Advisory Services, LLC, provides services in
IRS tax debt relief and tax preparation solutions. To promote ils services,
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of
consumers in the process,
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself
and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies.
Plaintiff makes these allegations on information and belief, with the
exception of those allegations that pertain to Plaintiff, or to Plaintiffs
counsel, which Plaintiff alleges on persona! knowledge.
While many violations are deseribed below with specificity, this
Complaint alleges violations of the statutes-cited in its entirety.
Unless otherwise stated, ali:the conduct engaged in by Defendant took
place in this jurisdiction.
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 7 of 43
8. Any violations by Defendant were knowing, willful, and intentional, and
Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any
such violation.
9. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendant’s names in this
Complaint includes all agents, employees, officers, members, directors,
heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees,
representatives, and insurers of Defendant’s named.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff resides in this
jurisdiction, which is where Plaintiff received the calls at issue from the
Defendant.
IL. Venue is proper in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Indian River, Florida a pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b) and (c) because Defendant is deemed to reside in any judicial
district in which it is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, and
because Defendant provides and markets its services within this
district thereby establishing sufficient contacts to subject it to
personal jurisdiction. Further, Defendant's tortious conduct against
Plaintiff occurred within the State of Florida and, on information and
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 8 of 43
belief, Defendant has made the same phone calls complained of by
Plaintiffto other individuals within this judicial district, such that
some of Defendant's acts in making such calls have occurred within
this district, subjecting Defendant to jurisdiction in the State of
Florida,
PARTIES
12. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in the City of Sebastian, State
of Florida.
13. Defendant is a company based in Encino, California, conducting
business in the tax market.
THE TCPA
i4.The TCPA prohibits: (1} any person from calling a cellular telephone
number; (2) using an ‘automatic telephone dialing system or a
prerecorded voice; (3) without the recipient’s prior express consent. 47
U.S.C. § 227(b)(1 (A).
{S.In an action under the TCPA, a plaintiff must only show that the
defendant “called a number assigned to a cellular telephone service
using an automatic cialing system or prerecorded voice.” Breslow v.
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 9 of 43
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 857 F, Supp. 2d 1316, 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2012),
aff'd, 755 F.3d 1265 (1 (th Cir. 2014).
16.The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is empowered to
issue rules and regulations implementing the TCPA. According to the
FCC’s findings, calls in violation of the TCPA 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. The FCC also recognized
that wireless customers are charged for incoming calls whether they pay
in advance or after the minutes are used. Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG
Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 FCC Red 14014 (2003).
17.In. 2012, ‘the FCC issued an order tightening the restrictions for
automated telemarketing calls, requiring “prior express written
consent” for such calls to wireless numbers. See'In the Matter of Rules
& Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 27
F.C.C.R. 1830, 1838 7.20 (Feb. 15, 2012) (emphasis supplied).
18.To obtain express written consent for telemarketing calls, a defendant
must establish that it secured the plaintiffs signature in a form that
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 10 of 43
gives the plaintiff a ‘“‘clear and conspicuous disclosure’ of the
consequences of providing the requested consent....and having
received this information, agrees unambiguously to receive such calls
at a telephone number the [plaintiff] designates.” In re Rules &
Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 27
F.C.C.R. 1830, 1837 { 18, 1838 § 20, 1844 { 33, 1857 { 66, 1858 4 71
(F.C.C, Feb. 15, 2012),
19, The TCPA regulations promulgated by the FCC define “telemarketing”
as “thé initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of
encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investrnent in, property,
goods, or services.” 47 C.ELR. § 64,!200(f)(12), In determining
whether a communication constitutes telemarketing, a court must
evaluate the ultimate purpose of the communication. See Golan vy.
Veritas Entia't, LLC, 788 F.3d 814, 820 (8th Cir, 2015).
20. ‘Telemarketing’ occurs. when the context of a call indicates that it was
initiated and transmitted to a person for the purpose of promoting
property, goods, or services.” Golan, 788 F.3d at 820 (citing 47 C.F.R.
§ 64.1200(a)(2\Gii); 47 CAR. § 64,1200(1)(12); In re Rules and
a
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 11 of 43
Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, 18 F.C.C, Red at 14098 f 141, 2003 WL 21517853, at *49),
21.The FCC has explained that calls motivated in part by the intent to sell
property, goods, or services are considered telemarketing under the
TCPA, See In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Red. 14014, ff] 139-142
(2003). This is true whether call recipients are encouraged to purchase,
rent, or invest in property, goods, or services during the call or in the
future. Id.
22.{n other words, offers “that are part of an overall marketing campaign
to sell property, goods, or services constitute” telemarketing under the
TCPA. See In-re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Red. 14014, J] 136 (2003).
23.1f a call is not deemed telemarketing, a defendant must nevertheless
demonstrate that it obtained the plaintiffs. prior express consent. See
In the Matter of Rules and Regulaions Implementing the Tel. Consumer
Prot, Act of 1991, 30 FCC Red, 7961, 7991-92 (2015) (requiring
express consent “for non-telemarketing and non-advertising calls.”)
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 12 of 43
24.As recently held by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit: “Unsolicited telemarketing phone calls or text messages, by
their nature, invade the privacy and disturb the solitude of their
recipients. A plaintiff alleging a violation under the TCPA ‘need not
allege any additional harm beyond the one. Congress has identified.”
Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., No. 14-55980, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 1591, at *12 (9th Cir. May 4, 2016) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 136 S, Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) (emphasis original)).
FLA. STAT, § $01,059
25.1t is a violation of the FTSA to “make or knowingly allow a telephonic
sales call to be made if such call involves ... the playing of a recorded
message when a connection is completed to a number without the prior
express written consent of the called party.” Fla. Stat § 501.059(8){A).
26.The statute. defines “telephonic sales call” as a “telephone call, text
message, or voicemail transmission to a consumer for the purpose of
soliciting a sale of any consumer goods or services, soliciting an
extension of credit for consumer goods. services, or obtaining
information that will or may be used for the direct solicitation of a sale
B
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 13 of 43
of consumer goods or services or an extension of credit for such
putposes.” Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)().
27. A person will be defined as a “called party” if they are a “person who
is the regular user of the telephone number that receives a telephonic
sales call,” under Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1}(a).
28.An “unsolicited telephonic sales call” is one that is made other than in
direct response to the express request of the person who is called, under
Fla, Stat. § 501.059(4)(x).
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
29.At all times relevant, Plaintiff was an individual residing within the
State of Florida.
30, At all times relevant, Defendants conducted business in the State of
Florida.
31. Plaintiff has been on the National Do Not Call Registty since
approximately July 1, 2003.
32. Defendant is required to check. the National Do Not Call Registry
before attempting to call. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(3(F).
33. On or around August 10, 2022, Plaintiff received an autodialed call
from caller {D 628-433-9878. Upon information and belief, this number
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 14 of 43
belongs to Defendant and/or Defendant's agent. Plaintiff answered and
an avatar stated if Plaintiff owed more than ten thousand to the IRS to
ptess a number. From there Plaintiff talked to an agent of Defendant,
David Hudson, who gave him the website ntastax.com.
34, On the same day, Plaintiff received a live call from caller ID 818-935-
5479 which connects back to Defendant. Upon information aud belief,
this number belongs to Defendant and/or Defendant's agent.
35, On or around August 11, 2022, Plaintiff texted the number Defendant
had called him on and stated that he is not interested and to “not call.”
Even if Defendant had established a business relationship with Plaintiff,
Plaintiff clearly revoked: any relationship with this text message. An
agent of Defendant responded stating that it has “no idea why [he]
wouldn’t be interested.” The text further went on to state “You need help
even if it’s not from me, 87,000 new IRS agents coming your way
”
36. On or around August 16, 2022, Plaintiff received two calls from caller
1D 818-391-1147. Upon information and belief, this number belongs to
Defendant and/or Defendant’s agent. Plaintiff rejected the first call, but
on the second call a voicemail was left by Defendant's agent, Lisa Maria.
Aa
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 15 of 43
37. On or around August 17, 2022, Plaintiff received two calls from caller
ID 818-479-7967, as well as a text message. Upon information and
belief, this number belongs to Defendant and/or Defendant’s agent.
Plaintiff rejected the first call, but the second call a voicemail was left by
Defendant’s agent, Eric Grant. The text stated that Defendant’s agent
knew Plaintiff was “dealing with a tax issue with the IRS,” and to “please
give [him] a call so [they] can figure out how [they] can help [him] get
this resolved.”
38. On or around September 19, 2022, Plaintiff received a text message
from caller ID 818-237-4693. Upon information and belief, this number
belongs to Defendant and/or Defendant’s agent. The text was from
Defendant’s agent, Danny Lyle. The text once again inquired about
Plaintiff needing help with his taxes.
39, Defendant’s phone calls constitute telephone solicitation because it
encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or
services under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4), ie, attempting to sell Plaintiff
services regarding tax debt.
40. Plaintiff received the phone calls within this judicial district and,
therefore, Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this
di
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 16 of 43
distriét, Upon information and belief, Defendant made other phone calls
to individuals residing within this judicial district and throughout the
United States,
41, At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express
written consent to be contacted. This is in violation of 47 U.S.C. §
227(ay(5).
42. Defendant's unsolicited. phone calls caused Plaintiff actual harm,
including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion.
43. Defendant’s phone calls also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused
disruption to his daily life.
44, Defendant’s unsolicited phone calls caused Plaintiff actual harm,
Specifically, Plaintiff estimates that he spent numerous hours
investigating the unwanted phone calls including how they obtained his
number and who the Defendant was.
45. Furthermore, Defendant’s phone calls took up memory on Plaintiffs
cellular phone. The cumulative effect of unsolicited phone calls and
voicemails like Defendant’s poses a real risk of ultimately rendering the
Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 17 of 43
phone unusable for other purposes as a result of the phone’s memory
being taken up.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
PROPOSED CLASS
46. Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.
47.Plaintiff brings this case on behalfof three Classes defined as follows:
The Federal TCPA DNC Class
All persons within the United States who received two phone calls
within a 12 month period from Defendants to said. person’s telephone,
and such person had previously included their name on the National Do
Not Call Registry at least 31 days prior to receiving Defendants first
call, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.
‘The Federal TCPA Prerecorded Voice Class
All persons within the United States who received any
Preview
Filing # 176887128 E-Filed 07/07/2023 09:41:47 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Alan Grochowski, Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 2023 CA 000778 Plaintiff, National Tax Advisory Services LLC, Defendant. NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, a Notice of Removal of the above-entitled action was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on July 7, 2023, under federal case number 23-cv-14200. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto. DATED: July 7, 2023 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Evan D. Appell Evan D. Appell (FBN: 58146) evan@edalegal.com EVAN D. APPELL, P.A. 1001 W. Yamato Road, Suite 401 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 337-5858 Fax: (561) 544-1014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by e-Mail through the Florida e-filing portal on July 7, 2023, to all counsel of record on the Service List below. By: /s/Evan D. Appell SERVICE LIST KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. (FBN: 1010101) Mohammad Reza Kazerouni (FBN: 1034549) ryan@kazlg.com mike@kazlg.com 301 E Bethany Home Rd. 245 Fischer Ave. Suite C195 Suite D1 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1266 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-4539 Telephone: (602) 900-1288 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No. ALAN GROCHOWSKI, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Vv. NATIONAL TAX ADVISORY SERVICES LLC, Defendant. / NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367, 1441 AND 1446 BY DEFENDANT NATIONAL TAX ADVISORY SERVICES LLC Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367, 1441, and 1446, Defendant National Tax Advisory Services LLC (“Defendant”), hereby provides notice of removal of this action entitled Alan Grochowski, Sr. v. National Tax Advisory Services LLC, currently pending in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Indian River County, Florida, Case Number 2023 CA 000778, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In support of this removal, Defendant further states: 1 This is a civil action filed on or about May 31, 2023, by Plaintiff Alan Grochowski, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Indian River County, Florida, Case Number 2023 CA 000778, captioned Alan Grochowski, Sr. v. National Tax Advisory Services LLC (the “State Court Action”). 2. Defendant was served with a copy of the Complaint and Summons on June 8, 2023. 3 Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq., and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 2 of 8 (“FTSA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.059. 4 The State Court Action may be removed to this Court because the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1441. I. THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL HAVE _ BEEN SATISFIED 1 Pleadings and process. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Defendant attaches to this Notice of Removal a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders entered in the State Court Action. See Exhibit A. No proceedings have occurred in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Indian River County, Florida (the “State Court”) as of the date of this Notice of Removal. Defendant has not answered or moved in response to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff. Defendant hereby reserves all rights to assert any and all defenses and/or objections to the Complaint. 2. Removal is timely. A notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after the defendant is served with a copy of the initial pleading, motion, or other paper from which it may be ascertained that the case is removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 354 (1999) (recognizing that the time for filing a notice of removal does not begin to run until a party has been formally served with the summons and complaint under applicable state law). As noted, Plaintiff commenced this action in the State Court on or about May 31, 2023, and Defendant was served with a copy of the Complaint and Summons on June 8, 2023. Therefore, this removal is timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and (c). 3 Removal to proper court. Venue for this action is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because the Southern District of Florida is the “district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 89. 4 Notice to state court and adverse parties. Promptly following the filing of this Notice of Removal, written notice of the removal of this action will be served to Plaintiffs counsel, Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 3 of 8 as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). A true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal will also be promptly filed with the State Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). Il. REMOVAL IS__PROPER BECAUSE THIS COURT HAS _ ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 5 Defendant is permitted to remove to this Court “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. A. The Court Has Original Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 6 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Plaintiffs Complaint purports to state civil claims arising under the laws of the United States, namely, the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq. As a result, this Court has Federal Question jurisdiction. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331; Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 377 (2012). B. The Court Has Original Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 1332 7 This is also an action involving complete diversity amongst the parties and is a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Therefore, the Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and this is an action that Defendant can properly remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 8 Defendant is now, and was at the time of the filing of this action, a California limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with each of its members a citizen of California, its principal place of business in the State of California, and is therefore a citizen of the State of California for purposes of determining diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). 9. Based on information and belief, at all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff—a natural person and resident of Florida—is and has been a citizen of the State of Florida, not the Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 4 of 8 State of California. 10. Additionally, Plaintiff has already plainly stated the number of putative class members is in the thousands. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B); Compl. { 49 (“Defendant has placed automated and/or prerecorded calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers .. .”). ll. Defendant denies that Plaintiff's proposed class can meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. However, based on the relief Plaintiff seeks, the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6) (“In any class action, the claims of the individual class members shall be aggregated to determine whether the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”). See Taylor v. Certified Legal Funding, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-27-EAK-MAP, 2018 WL 3860243, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 3, 2018) (CAFA’s “provisions should be read broadly, with a strong preference that interstate class actions should be heard in a federal court if properly removed by any defendant.”) (internal citations omitted); Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159, 1163 (11th Cir. 2006) (“CAFA’s language favors federal jurisdiction over class actions.”). 12. This amount can be ascertained by reference to the relief requested by the representative Plaintiff and the statutory damages available under the FTSA and TCPA. 13. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages in the amount of $500.00 for each alleged violation of the FTSA pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(b). Compl. 4 75. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages in the amount of $500.00 for each alleged violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B). Compl. § 69. Plaintiff alleges several violations of the FTSA and the TCPA caused by five unsolicited calls Defendant allegedly placed to him, along with one or two text messages. Compl. fJ 30-41. Based on these calls, Plaintiff individually seeks at least $2,500 Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 5 of 8 in statutory damages under the FTSA and TCPA. 14. Plaintiff states in his Complaint that “Defendant has placed automated and/or prerecorded calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers . . .” Compl. 4 49. Multiplying the statutory damages by Plaintiffs alleged class size of “thousands of consumers” easily yields statutory damages which would exceed the jurisdictional threshold of $5,000,000 contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6). 15. In addition, if the court finds that Defendant willfully or knowingly violated the FTSA and TCPA, the court may treble the damages available under Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(a) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B). See Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(b); 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(C). Trebling the alleged statutory damages under the FTSA and TCPA per class member would easily exceed the jurisdictional threshold contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6). 16. In sum, if the proposed class were to prevail on all claims and recover all remedies sought in the Complaint and the Prayer for Relief, then, pursuant to the allegations of the Complaint, the relief awarded in the aggregate would exceed the jurisdictional threshold of $5,000,000 contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6). 17. “TA] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Gonzalez v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 18-CV-23738, 2019 WL 7943609, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2019) (citations omitted). When the amount in controversy is not clearly specified in the complaint, the court may consider facts in the complaint as well as in the removal petition. See Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1063 (11th Cir. 2010) (stating that the Court “found no case in any other circuit that purports to prohibit a district court from employing its judicial experience or common sense in discerning whether the allegations in a complaint facially establish the jurisdictionally required amount in Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 6 of 8 controversy.”); accord Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). 18. Based on the foregoing, the State Court Action may also be removed to this Court in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441 er. seg. because (1) this is a putative class action within the jurisdiction of this Court; (2) this action is between citizens of different states; (3) the matter involves “thousands” of putative class members; and (4) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Til. THE COURT HAS SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIM 19. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs sole state law claim for alleged violations of the FTSA. 20. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” Here, the same underlying acts form the basis of Plaintiff's claims under both state and federal law. 21. A district court may only decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 743 (11th Cir. 2006). None of those factors are present in this instance, and supplemental jurisdiction must be exercised over Plaintiff's state law claim under the FTSA. Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 7 of 8 WHEREFORE, Defendant hereby respectfully removes this action entitled Alan Grochowski, Sr. v. National Tax Advisory Services LLC, currently pending in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Indian River County, Florida, Case Number 2023 CA 000778, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. DATED: July 7, 2023 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Evan D. Appell Evan D. Appell (FBN: 58146) evan@edalegal.com EVAN D. APPELL, P.A. 1001 W. Yamato Road, Suite 401 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 337-5858 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by e-Mail on July 7, 2023, to all counsel of record on the Service List below and via CM/ECF. By: /s/Evan D. Appell Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 8 of 8 SERVICE LIST KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. (FBN: 1010101) Mohammad Reza Kazerouni (FBN: 1034549) ryan@kazlg.com mike@kazlg.com 301 E Bethany Home Rd. 245 Fischer Ave. Suite C195 Suite D1 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1266 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-4539 Telephone: (602) 900-1288 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 1 of 43 EXHIBIT A “Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2028 Page 2 of 43 Filing #1743 10843 E-Filed 05/31/2023 03:16:27 PM HN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH. JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: 312023CA000778XXXXXX_ Alaa Grochowskl Sr, individually and Division: of behalfof others similarly situated Plaintiff, and National Tax Advisory Services, LLC Defendant. SUMMONS: PERSONAL SERVICE ON AN INDIVIDUAL ORDEN. DE COMPARECENCIA: SERVICIO PERSONAL EN UN INDIVIDUO CITATION: L’ASSIGNATION PERSONAL SUR UN INDIVIDUEL National Tax Advisory Services, LLC TO/PARA/A: {enter other party's full legal name) _¢’o the Law Offices of Keith F, Elder {address (including city and-stete)Aocation for service} 27550 Oxnatd St, Suite 630, Woodland Hills, CA’ IMPORTANT A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is servad on you to file a written response to the attached: complaint/petition with the clerk of this circuit court, Jocated at: {street address} 2000 16th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960 A phone call will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number given above and the nantes of the parties, must be-filed if you want the Court to hear your side of the case. if you do not file your written response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money, and property may be taken thereafter without further warning from the Court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you:do not know an attorney, you may call an attorney referral service or a legal aid office (listed.in the phone book). Ifyou choose to file 2 written response yourself, at the same time you file your written response to the Court, you must also serve a copy of your written response on the party serving this summons at: {Ndine and address of party serving summons} . Ryan L.. McBride, Esq. Kazerouni Law Group, APC 301 E, Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195, Phoenix, AZ.85012 {€ the party serving summons has designated ‘email address(es) for service or is represented by an attorney, you may designate email address(es) for service by or of you. Service must be in accordance with Florida Rute of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516, Capies of all court documents in this case, including orders, are avaitable. at the Clerk of the Circult Cour’s office. You may review these documents, upon request. Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 3 of 43 You must keep the Clerk of the Circuit Court's office notified of your current address. (You may file Designation of Current Malling and Email Address, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 42.925.) Future papers in this lawsuit will be mailed to the address on record at the clerk's office, WARNING; Rule 12.285, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, requires certain automatic disclosure of documents and information. Failure to comply can result in sanctions, including dismissal or striking of pleadings. IMPORTANTE Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene- veinte (20) dias, contados a partir del recibo de esta notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentaria ante este tribunal. Localizado en: ; Una llamada telefonica no lo protegera. Si usted desea que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe presentarsu respuesta por escrito, incluyendo el numero del caso y los nombres de jas:partes interesadas.. Si usted no contesta la demanda a Uempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria ser despojada dé sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal, Existen otras requisitos legales. Silo desea, usted puede consultar a un abogado inmediatamente. Sino conoce a un abogado, puede lamar a una de las oficinas de asistencia legal que aparecen en la guia telefonica. Si desea responder a la demanda per su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presente su respuesta ante ‘el tribunal, usted debe enviar por.correo o entregar una copia de su'respuesta a la persona denominada abajo. Si usted elige presentar personalmente una respuesta por escrita, en el mismo momento que usted presente su respuesta por escrito al Tribunal, usted debe enviar por correo o llevar una copia de su respuesta por escrito a la parte entregarido esta orden de camparencencia a? Nombre y direccion de la parte que entrega la orden de comparencencia: Copias de todos los documentos judiciales de este caso, incluyendo las ordenes, estan disponibles en la oficina del Secretario de Juzgado del Circuito [Clerk of the Circuit Court’s office]. Estos documentos, fueden Ser revisados a'su solicitud: Usted debe de manener informada a la-oficina del Secretario de juzgado de} Circuito de su direccion actual. (Usted puede presentar el Forimulario: Ley de Familia de ta Florida 12.915, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law. Form 12.915, [Desigdation of Current Mailing. and Email Address].) Los papelos que se presenten anel future en esta dernanda judicial seran env ados por-correo a la direccion que este registrada en ta oficina del Secretario. ADVERTENCIA: Regla 12,285 (Rule 12.285}, de las Reglas de Proredimiento de Ley de Familia de la Florida (Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure], recjuiere clerta revelacion automatica de docurentos 2 informacion. Et incumplimient, puede resultar.en sanciones, incluyendo la desestimacion o anulacion de los alegatos. IMPORTANT Des poursuites judiciaries ont ete entreprises contre vous. Vous avez 20 jours consecutifs a partir de la date de !’assignation de cette citation pour deposer une reponse ecrite a la plainte ci-jointe aupres de ce Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 4 of 43 tribunal. Qui se trouve a: (L’Adresse} Un. simple coup de. telephone est insuffisant pour vous proteger; vous etes obliges de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de dossier ci-dessus-et du nom des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le tribunal entende votre cause. Si vos ne deposez pas votre reponse ectite dans le delai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainst que votre salaire, votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre saisis par ta suite, sans aucun preavis ulterieur du tribunal. ty d'autres ebligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services immediats dun avacat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d’avocat, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de reference d’avocats ou a un bureau d’assistance juridique (figurant a (‘annuaire de telephones). Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une reponse ecrite, il vaus faudra egalament, en meme temps que cette. formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie au carbone ou une photocopie de votre reponse ecrite a Ja partie qui vous depose cette citation. Nom et adresse de la partie qui d@pose cette citation: Les photocopies de tous les documents tribunals de cette cause, y compris des arrets, sont disponible au bureau du greffier. Vous pouvez revue ces documents, sur demande. it faut. aviser ie greffier de votre adresse actuelle, (Vous pouvez deposer Flarida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.915, Designation of Current Mailing and Emall Address.) Les documents de l'avenir de ce proces seront envoyer al’adresse que vous donnez au bureau du greffier. ATTENTION: La regle 12.285, des regles de procedure du droit de la famille dela Floride exige que V’on temette certains renseignements et certains. dacuments a {a partie adverse. Tout refus de les fournir pourra donner fieu a des. sarictions, y compris le.rejet ou.la suppression d'un ou de plusieurs actes de procedure, THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: You are commanded to serve this summons and a copy of the complaint in this lawsuit on the above-named person. DATED: Jeffrey R Smith CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT (SEAL) wid 06/02/2023 jerk ‘Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 5 of 43 Filing # 174310843 E-Filed 05/31/2023 03:16:27 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA Case No.: Alan Grochowski Sr., individuali and on. behalf of CLASS ACTION others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff, FOR: v 1) VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 National Tax Advisory U.S.C. § 227(B); Services, LLC, Defendant. 2) VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227(€); AND 3y THE FLORIDA TELEPHONE SOLICITATION ACT, FLA. STAT. § 501.059 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INTRODUCTION I. Plaintiff Alan Grochowski Sr. (“Plaintiff”), brings this action against Defendant National Tax Advisory Services, LLC (“Defendant”), to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (STCPA”), 47 USC, § 227(b) and Florida Statute §:501.059. 2. This is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., (the “TCPA”) and Fla, Stat. § Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 6 of 43 501.059. Defendant National Tax Advisory Services, LLC, provides services in IRS tax debt relief and tax preparation solutions. To promote ils services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff makes these allegations on information and belief, with the exception of those allegations that pertain to Plaintiff, or to Plaintiffs counsel, which Plaintiff alleges on persona! knowledge. While many violations are deseribed below with specificity, this Complaint alleges violations of the statutes-cited in its entirety. Unless otherwise stated, ali:the conduct engaged in by Defendant took place in this jurisdiction. Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 7 of 43 8. Any violations by Defendant were knowing, willful, and intentional, and Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation. 9. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendant’s names in this Complaint includes all agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers of Defendant’s named. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff resides in this jurisdiction, which is where Plaintiff received the calls at issue from the Defendant. IL. Venue is proper in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Indian River, Florida a pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because Defendant is deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, and because Defendant provides and markets its services within this district thereby establishing sufficient contacts to subject it to personal jurisdiction. Further, Defendant's tortious conduct against Plaintiff occurred within the State of Florida and, on information and Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 8 of 43 belief, Defendant has made the same phone calls complained of by Plaintiffto other individuals within this judicial district, such that some of Defendant's acts in making such calls have occurred within this district, subjecting Defendant to jurisdiction in the State of Florida, PARTIES 12. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in the City of Sebastian, State of Florida. 13. Defendant is a company based in Encino, California, conducting business in the tax market. THE TCPA i4.The TCPA prohibits: (1} any person from calling a cellular telephone number; (2) using an ‘automatic telephone dialing system or a prerecorded voice; (3) without the recipient’s prior express consent. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1 (A). {S.In an action under the TCPA, a plaintiff must only show that the defendant “called a number assigned to a cellular telephone service using an automatic cialing system or prerecorded voice.” Breslow v. Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 9 of 43 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 857 F, Supp. 2d 1316, 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2012), aff'd, 755 F.3d 1265 (1 (th Cir. 2014). 16.The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is empowered to issue rules and regulations implementing the TCPA. According to the FCC’s findings, calls in violation of the TCPA 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. The FCC also recognized that wireless customers are charged for incoming calls whether they pay in advance or after the minutes are used. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 FCC Red 14014 (2003). 17.In. 2012, ‘the FCC issued an order tightening the restrictions for automated telemarketing calls, requiring “prior express written consent” for such calls to wireless numbers. See'In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 27 F.C.C.R. 1830, 1838 7.20 (Feb. 15, 2012) (emphasis supplied). 18.To obtain express written consent for telemarketing calls, a defendant must establish that it secured the plaintiffs signature in a form that Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 10 of 43 gives the plaintiff a ‘“‘clear and conspicuous disclosure’ of the consequences of providing the requested consent....and having received this information, agrees unambiguously to receive such calls at a telephone number the [plaintiff] designates.” In re Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 27 F.C.C.R. 1830, 1837 { 18, 1838 § 20, 1844 { 33, 1857 { 66, 1858 4 71 (F.C.C, Feb. 15, 2012), 19, The TCPA regulations promulgated by the FCC define “telemarketing” as “thé initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investrnent in, property, goods, or services.” 47 C.ELR. § 64,!200(f)(12), In determining whether a communication constitutes telemarketing, a court must evaluate the ultimate purpose of the communication. See Golan vy. Veritas Entia't, LLC, 788 F.3d 814, 820 (8th Cir, 2015). 20. ‘Telemarketing’ occurs. when the context of a call indicates that it was initiated and transmitted to a person for the purpose of promoting property, goods, or services.” Golan, 788 F.3d at 820 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2\Gii); 47 CAR. § 64,1200(1)(12); In re Rules and a Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 11 of 43 Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 F.C.C, Red at 14098 f 141, 2003 WL 21517853, at *49), 21.The FCC has explained that calls motivated in part by the intent to sell property, goods, or services are considered telemarketing under the TCPA, See In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Red. 14014, ff] 139-142 (2003). This is true whether call recipients are encouraged to purchase, rent, or invest in property, goods, or services during the call or in the future. Id. 22.{n other words, offers “that are part of an overall marketing campaign to sell property, goods, or services constitute” telemarketing under the TCPA. See In-re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Red. 14014, J] 136 (2003). 23.1f a call is not deemed telemarketing, a defendant must nevertheless demonstrate that it obtained the plaintiffs. prior express consent. See In the Matter of Rules and Regulaions Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot, Act of 1991, 30 FCC Red, 7961, 7991-92 (2015) (requiring express consent “for non-telemarketing and non-advertising calls.”) Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 12 of 43 24.As recently held by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: “Unsolicited telemarketing phone calls or text messages, by their nature, invade the privacy and disturb the solitude of their recipients. A plaintiff alleging a violation under the TCPA ‘need not allege any additional harm beyond the one. Congress has identified.” Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., No. 14-55980, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1591, at *12 (9th Cir. May 4, 2016) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S, Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) (emphasis original)). FLA. STAT, § $01,059 25.1t is a violation of the FTSA to “make or knowingly allow a telephonic sales call to be made if such call involves ... the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number without the prior express written consent of the called party.” Fla. Stat § 501.059(8){A). 26.The statute. defines “telephonic sales call” as a “telephone call, text message, or voicemail transmission to a consumer for the purpose of soliciting a sale of any consumer goods or services, soliciting an extension of credit for consumer goods. services, or obtaining information that will or may be used for the direct solicitation of a sale B Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 13 of 43 of consumer goods or services or an extension of credit for such putposes.” Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(). 27. A person will be defined as a “called party” if they are a “person who is the regular user of the telephone number that receives a telephonic sales call,” under Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1}(a). 28.An “unsolicited telephonic sales call” is one that is made other than in direct response to the express request of the person who is called, under Fla, Stat. § 501.059(4)(x). GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 29.At all times relevant, Plaintiff was an individual residing within the State of Florida. 30, At all times relevant, Defendants conducted business in the State of Florida. 31. Plaintiff has been on the National Do Not Call Registty since approximately July 1, 2003. 32. Defendant is required to check. the National Do Not Call Registry before attempting to call. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(3(F). 33. On or around August 10, 2022, Plaintiff received an autodialed call from caller {D 628-433-9878. Upon information and belief, this number Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 14 of 43 belongs to Defendant and/or Defendant's agent. Plaintiff answered and an avatar stated if Plaintiff owed more than ten thousand to the IRS to ptess a number. From there Plaintiff talked to an agent of Defendant, David Hudson, who gave him the website ntastax.com. 34, On the same day, Plaintiff received a live call from caller ID 818-935- 5479 which connects back to Defendant. Upon information aud belief, this number belongs to Defendant and/or Defendant's agent. 35, On or around August 11, 2022, Plaintiff texted the number Defendant had called him on and stated that he is not interested and to “not call.” Even if Defendant had established a business relationship with Plaintiff, Plaintiff clearly revoked: any relationship with this text message. An agent of Defendant responded stating that it has “no idea why [he] wouldn’t be interested.” The text further went on to state “You need help even if it’s not from me, 87,000 new IRS agents coming your way ” 36. On or around August 16, 2022, Plaintiff received two calls from caller 1D 818-391-1147. Upon information and belief, this number belongs to Defendant and/or Defendant’s agent. Plaintiff rejected the first call, but on the second call a voicemail was left by Defendant's agent, Lisa Maria. Aa Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 15 of 43 37. On or around August 17, 2022, Plaintiff received two calls from caller ID 818-479-7967, as well as a text message. Upon information and belief, this number belongs to Defendant and/or Defendant’s agent. Plaintiff rejected the first call, but the second call a voicemail was left by Defendant’s agent, Eric Grant. The text stated that Defendant’s agent knew Plaintiff was “dealing with a tax issue with the IRS,” and to “please give [him] a call so [they] can figure out how [they] can help [him] get this resolved.” 38. On or around September 19, 2022, Plaintiff received a text message from caller ID 818-237-4693. Upon information and belief, this number belongs to Defendant and/or Defendant’s agent. The text was from Defendant’s agent, Danny Lyle. The text once again inquired about Plaintiff needing help with his taxes. 39, Defendant’s phone calls constitute telephone solicitation because it encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4), ie, attempting to sell Plaintiff services regarding tax debt. 40. Plaintiff received the phone calls within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this di Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 16 of 43 distriét, Upon information and belief, Defendant made other phone calls to individuals residing within this judicial district and throughout the United States, 41, At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted. This is in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(ay(5). 42. Defendant's unsolicited. phone calls caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. 43. Defendant’s phone calls also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life. 44, Defendant’s unsolicited phone calls caused Plaintiff actual harm, Specifically, Plaintiff estimates that he spent numerous hours investigating the unwanted phone calls including how they obtained his number and who the Defendant was. 45. Furthermore, Defendant’s phone calls took up memory on Plaintiffs cellular phone. The cumulative effect of unsolicited phone calls and voicemails like Defendant’s poses a real risk of ultimately rendering the Case 2:23-cv-14200-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 17 of 43 phone unusable for other purposes as a result of the phone’s memory being taken up. CLASS ALLEGATIONS PROPOSED CLASS 46. Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. 47.Plaintiff brings this case on behalfof three Classes defined as follows: The Federal TCPA DNC Class All persons within the United States who received two phone calls within a 12 month period from Defendants to said. person’s telephone, and such person had previously included their name on the National Do Not Call Registry at least 31 days prior to receiving Defendants first call, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint. ‘The Federal TCPA Prerecorded Voice Class All persons within the United States who received any