Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : : : : : : : : : : :

Transcription

1 Case 217-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Amandra Hicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. Defendant. Civil Action No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT For her Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff, Amandra Hicks, by and through her undersigned counsel, pleading on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, states as follows INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff, Amandra Hicks ( Plaintiff ), brings this class action for damages resulting from the illegal actions of Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. ( Health Innovations or Defendant ). Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placed automated and prerecorded calls to Plaintiff s cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. (the TCPA ). 2. Health Innovations is a medical insurance sales corporation with a focus on shortterm and limited medical plans. Health Innovations operates a cloud based platform to facilitate the sale of, in addition to the billing and collection of, insurance plans and associated premiums. 3. As part of its collections operation, Health Innovations operates an aggressive contact schedule which bombards unsuspecting consumers, with whom it has no relationship, with robocalls and prerecorded messages.

2 Case 217-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 2 of 11 PageID 2 4. Plaintiff is such a consumer. She is not a Health Innovations customer yet has been bombarded with autodialed and pre-corded calls made without her consent and over her explicit objection. 5. Plaintiff seeks relief for herself and all others similarly situated for Health Innovations unlawful behavior. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C Mims v. Arrow Fin. Serv., LLC, 132 S.Ct. 740, (2012). 7. Jurisdiction in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2), as Plaintiff seeks up to $500 in damages for each violation of the TCPA, which when aggregated among a proposed class numbering more than a thousand members, exceeds the $5,000, threshold for federal court jurisdiction. Plaintiff also alleges a national class which will result in at least one class member residing in a different state. 8. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Health Innovations. Health Innovations regularly conducts business within the state of New Jersey. As set forth herein, the calls to the Plaintiff here (1) originated from a New Jersey telephone number (2) were made to a New Jersey telephone number and (3) Health Innovations expressly aimed its conduct at New Jersey. 9. Venue is proper in this District. Defendant regularly, and at all times relevant herein, conducted business in New Jersey and it expressly aimed its conduct at New Jersey. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an adult individual residing in Pensacola, Florida. 11. Health Innovations is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at N. Florida Avenue, # 201, Tampa, FL,

3 Case 217-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 3 of 11 PageID Plaintiff has never had a business relationship with Health Innovations and never consented to be contacted by Health Innovations on her cellular telephone. THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF The TCPA regulates, among other things, the use of automated telephone dialing systems U.S.C. 227(a)(1) defines an automatic telephone dialing system ( ATDS ) as equipment having the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers. 15. Specifically, 47 U.S.C. 227(1)(A)(iii) prohibits any call using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cellular phone without prior express consent by the person being called. ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS 16. Defendant has repeatedly placed automated calls using an ATDS and prerecorded voice s to Plaintiff s cellular telephone (856) XXX Plaintiff s number was and is assigned to a cellular telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The area code for Plaintiff s telephone number, 856, is the area code for south-western New Jersey. 18. Health Innovations calls Plaintiff from telephone number The area code for Defendant s telephone number, 201, is the area code for the very north-eastern section of New Jersey. 19. Health Innovations has inserted Plaintiff s telephone number in an automated calling campaign to further Health Innovation s efforts to contact a person named Ocie Cosby.

4 Case 217-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 4 of 11 PageID The Plaintiff does not have any relationship with this Ocie Cosby nor does she know who this person is. 21. Health Innovations has bombarded the Plaintiff with multiple daily automated calls including, but not limited to, on the following dates and times April 17, 2017 at 812 am April 17, 2017 at 653 pm April 18, 2017 at 1001 am April 18, 2017 at 104 pm April 19, 2017 at 144 pm April 19, 2017 at 747 pm April 20, 2017 at 805 am April 20, 2017 at 401 pm April 21, 2017 at 123 pm April 22, 2017 at 1018 am April 22, 2017 at 142 pm April 28, 2017 at 649 pm April 29, 2017 at 950 am May 2, 2017 at 725 pm May 9, 2017 at 723 pm May 10, 2017 at 833 am 22. Plaintiff has told Defendant on multiple occasions that she is not Ocie Cosby and that Defendant is to stop calling her.

5 Case 217-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 5 of 11 PageID On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff called Defendant at the telephone number and spoke with a representative. She specifically told Defendant s representative that (1) she was calling in regards to calls to her at her telephone number, (2) she was not Ocie Cosby, and (3) Defendant was to stop further calls to the number. 24. Defendant s representatives advised that Plaintiff would be put on an internal donot-call list and she would not be called again. 25. Nevertheless, the calls to Plaintiff at the number have persisted and continued. 26. At all times mentioned herein, Health Innovations called Plaintiff s cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system ( autodialer ) as defined by 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(1). 27. When Plaintiff answered calls from Health Innovations, she heard an extended period of silence, a pop or clicking noise, before the calls would be routed to a live agent. This is indicative of Health Innovations use of a predictive dialer. 28. The Federal Communications Commission has defined ATDS under the TCPA to include predictive dialers. See In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 23 F.C.C.R. 559, at 12, 2008 WL (F.C.C.) (2008). 29. In addition, upon information and belief the hardware and software combination utilized by Health Innovations has the capacity to store and dial sequentially generated numbers, randomly generated numbers or numbers from a database of numbers.

6 Case 217-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 6 of 11 PageID Defendant uses prerecorded and artificial messages when it calls the Plaintiff. On May 1, 2017, Defendant left the following message, which was played by a blended artificial and prerecorded voice Hi. I m Susan in customer service with Health Insurance Innovations calling Ocie Cosby regarding a monthly payment on principal advantage. We need to update your account so your monthly payment will process. Please, call me toll free at during weekdays during 830 am to 730 pm eastern standard time. Just ask for Susan. Please don t delay. Keep your benefits active. Thank you. 31. The highlighted Ocie Cosby in the message is played by a computerized text-tospeech program. 32. The same message has been used by the Defendant on multiple occasions including on May 8, Defendant did not have Plaintiff s prior express consent to place automated calls to Plaintiff on her cellular telephone. 34. Defendant did not have Plaintiff s prior express consent to call Plaintiff using an artificial or prerecorded voice. A. The Class CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 35. Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. 36. Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the following class of two classes Class A All persons within the United States to whom Health Innovations or its agent/s and/or employee/s called said person s cellular telephone through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint.

7 Case 217-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 7 of 11 PageID 7 Class B All persons within the United States to whom Health Innovations or its agent/s and/or employee/s called said person s cellular telephone with an artificial or prerecorded voice within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint. 37. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Classes, but believes the Class members number in the several thousands, if not more. Thus, this matter should be certified as a Class action to assist in the expeditious litigation of this matter. B. Numerosity 38. Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed automated and/or prerecorded message calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers, after being informed it was calling the wrong party, throughout the United States. The members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 39. The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time and can only be ascertained through discovery. Identification of the Class members is a matter capable of ministerial determination from Defendant s call records. C. Common Questions of Law and Fact 40. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members. These questions include a. Whether Defendant made calls to Plaintiff and Class members cellular telephones using an ATDS; b. Whether Defendant made calls to Plaintiff and Class members cellular telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice; c. Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior express

8 Case 217-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 8 of 11 PageID 8 consent to make each call; d. Whether Defendant s conduct was knowing willful, and/or negligent; e. Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and f. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future. 41. The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff s claim that Defendant routinely places automated calls to telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case. D. Typicality 42. Plaintiff s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all based on the same factual and legal theories. E. Protecting the Interests of the Class Members 43. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business practices. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel has any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action. F. Proceeding Via Class Action is Superior and Advisable 44. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecutions of separate claims against Health Innovations is small because it is not economically feasible for Class members to bring individual actions. 45. Management of this class action is unlikely to present any difficulties. Several

9 Case 217-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 9 of 11 PageID 9 courts have certified classes in TCPA actions. These cases include, but are not limited to Mitchem v. Ill. Collection Serv., 271 F.R.D. 617 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Sadowski v. Med1 Online, LLC, 2008 WL (N.D. Ill., May 27, 2008); CE Design Ltd. V. Cy s Crabhouse North, Inc., 259 F.R.D. 135 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC, 2012 WL (S.D. Cal., May 29, 2012). COUNT I Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. 46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 47. Defendant negligently placed multiple automated and prerecorded calls to cellular numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes without their prior express consent. the TCPA. 48. Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a negligent violation of 49. Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to an award of $ in statutory damages for each message sent in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(B). 50. Additionally, Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future. 51. Plaintiff and the Classes are also entitled to and do seek a declaration that a. Defendant violated the TCPA; b. Defendant placed telemarketing text messages; and c. Defendant placed text messages to the Plaintiff and the Classes without prior express written consent.

10 Case 217-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 10 of 11 PageID 10 COUNT II Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. 52. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 53. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed multiple automated calls to cellular numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class without their prior express consent. 54. Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing and/or willful violation of the TCPA. 55. As a result of Defendant s knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of treble damages up to $1, for each call in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(C). 56. Additionally, Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future. 57. Plaintiff and the Classes are also entitled to and do seek a declaration that a. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA; b. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff and the Classes; c. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully obtained the telephone numbers of noncustomers; d. Defendant willfully placed telemarketing text messages to non-customers such as Plaintiff and the Classes, knowing it did not have prior express written consent to do so; and e. It is Defendant s practice and history to place telemarketing text messages to

11 Case 217-cv Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 11 of 11 PageID 11 non-customers without their prior express consent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant Plaintiff and the Class the following relief against Defendant Dated May 11, Injunctive relief prohibiting such violations of the TCPA by Defendant in the future; 2. Declaratory relief as requested; 3. Statutory damages of $ for each and every call in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(B); 4. Treble damages of up to $1, for each and every call in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(C); 5. An award of attorneys fees and costs to counsel for Plaintiff; and 6. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS Respectfully submitted, By /s/ Sofia Balile Sofia Balile, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C. 43 Danbury Road, 3 rd Floor Wilton, CT Telephone (917) Facsimile (888) Attorneys for Plaintiff

12 Case 217-cv Document 1-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID 12 AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action Amandra Hicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of v. ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. Defendant ) ) ) SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To (Defendant s name and address) Health Insurance Innovations, Inc N. Florida Ave, #201 Tampa, FL A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff s attorney, whose name and address are If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court. CLERK OF COURT Date Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

13 AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2) Civil Action No. Case 217-cv Document 1-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID 13 PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l)) This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) was received by me on (date). I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) on (date) ; or I left the summons at the individual s residence or usual place of abode with (name), a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, on (date), and mailed a copy to the individual s last known address; or I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) on (date) I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or, who is ; or Other (specify). My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date Server s signature Printed name and title Server s address Additional information regarding attempted service, etc

14 JS 44 (Rev. 0 /16) Case 217-cv Document 1-2 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID 14 CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Amandra Hicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff State of Florida (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. County of Residence of First Listed Defendant County of Camden (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State 2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC (a)) 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment 150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV 160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/ 190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act 210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/disabilities Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes Employment Other 462 Naturalization Application 446 Amer. w/disabilities Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration Other 550 Civil Rights Actions 448 Education 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only) 1 Original 2 Removed from Proceeding State Court VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity) Brief description of cause 6 Multidistrict Litigation - Transfer 8 Multidistrict Litigation - Direct File VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY DATE 05/11/2017 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. (See instructions) JUDGE DEMAND $ 20,000, SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint JURY DEMAND Yes No DOCKET NUMBER RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

15 ClassAction.org This complaint is part of ClassAction.org's searchable class action lawsuit database and can be found in this post Lawsuit Insurance Company 'Bombards' Consumers with Robocalls