Transcription
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMB Document 1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 10UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIARobert Ward, on behalf of himself and allothers similarly situated,Plaintiff,v.Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC,Defendant.::: Civil Action No.::::CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT:::::For his Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff, Robert Ward, by and through his undersignedcounsel, pleading on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, states asfollows:INTRODUCTION1.Plaintiff, Robert Ward (“Plaintiff”), brings this class action for damages resultingfrom the illegal actions of Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC (“Flagship” or “Defendant”).Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placed automated and prerecorded calls toPlaintiff’s cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.§ 227, et seq. (the “TCPA”).2.Flagship is an automobile loan financer which specializes in the acquisition,issuance and servicing of prime to subprime automotive retail installment contracts.3.As part of its acquisition and servicing of automotive retail installment contracts,it uses robo-dialing systems to bombard unsuspecting consumers who have no relationship withit with robocalls and prerecorded messages.4.Plaintiff is such a consumer. He is not a Flagship customer yet has beenbombarded with autodialed and pre-corded calls made without his consent and over his
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMB Document 1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 10objection.5.Plaintiff seeks relief for himself and all others similarly situated for Flagship’sunlawful behavior.JURISDICTION AND VENUE6.This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.Mims v. Arrow Fin. Serv., LLC, 132 S.Ct. 740, 751-53 (2012).7.Jurisdiction in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), asPlaintiff seeks up to 500 in damages for each violation of the TCPA, which when aggregatedamong a proposed class numbering more than a thousand members, exceeds the 5,000,000.00threshold for federal court jurisdiction. Plaintiff also alleges a national class which will result inat least one class member residing in a different state.8.Venue is proper in this District. Defendant is a foreign limited liability companyheadquartered in Chadds Ford Pennsylvania. Defendant regularly, and at all times relevantherein, conducted business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in Delaware County.PARTIES9.Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an adult individual residing inCollege Park, Georgia.10.Flagship is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place ofbusiness located at 3 Christy Drive, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, 19317.11.Plaintiff has never had a business relationship with Flagship and never consentedto be contacted by Flagship on his cellular telephone.THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 199112.systems.The TCPA regulates, among other things, the use of automated telephone dialing
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMB Document 1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 3 of 1013.47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) defines an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) asequipment having the capacity –(A)to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using arandom or sequential number generator; and(B)14.to dial such numbers.Specifically, 47 U.S.C. § 227(1)(A)(iii) prohibits any call using an ATDS or anartificial or prerecorded voice to a cellular phone without prior express consent by the personbeing called, unless the call is for emergency purposes.ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS15.Defendant has repeatedly placed automated calls using an ATDS to Plaintiff’scellular telephone (954) XXX-6926.16.The telephone number that Defendant used to contact Plaintiff was and is assignedto a cellular telephone service provided by AT&T wireless as specified in 47 U.S.C.§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).17.Flagship calls Plaintiff suing a variety of outbound caller identifications, including972-893-6001, 469-398-4035, 469-398-4031 and 888-696-5899, all of which are Flagship phonenumbers.18.For each call, the Defendant is looking for a person named “Charles Walker.”19.Plaintiff is not Charles Walker. Plaintiff does not know a Charles Walker.20.Flagship uses a series automatic telephone dialing systems and hardware whencalling Plaintiff.21.At all times mentioned herein, Flagship called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone usingan “automatic telephone dialing system” (“autodialer”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMB Document 1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 4 of 1022.When Plaintiff answered the calls from Flagship, he heard an extended period ofsilence before the calls would be routed to a live agent. This is indicative of Flagship’s use of a“predictive dialer,” an autodialer under the TCPA.23.The Federal Communications Commission has defined ATDS’s, under the TCPA,to include “predictive dialers.” See In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing theTelephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 23 F.C.C.R. 559, at ¶ 12, 2008 WL 65485 (F.C.C.)(2008).24.On other occasions, when Plaintiff answered the Flagship call the autodialerplayed a pre-recorded and/or artificial message which said “Please wait for the next availableagent.” After a period of time, the call was then routed to a live agent. This too is indicative of apredictive dialer which is waiting for a live agent to become available to whom the call can berouted.25.And on other occasions, Flagship would leave a blended pre-recorded andartificial message on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone voicemail. The messages set forth:This message is from Flagship Credit Acceptance. It is very importantthat you return this call as soon as possible. Please call 800-327-8543.Again, that number is 800-327-8543. Thank you.26.The autodialer used to call Plaintiff has the capacity to store or produce telephonenumbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, or from a database ofnumbers, and to call thousands of such numbers without human intervention.27.When Plaintiff did speak with a live Flagship agent, by waiting on the line aftertransfer to the agent, he advised the agent that he was not Charles Walker and did not know CharlesWalker and asked that Flagship stop calling Plaintiff’s number.28.On multiple occasions the agent advised Plaintiff that no further calls would occur.
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMB Document 1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 5 of 1029.However, automated calls, calls playing prerecorded messages and calls leavingprerecorded messages to Plaintiff did not cease and continued over Plaintiff’s objection.30.Defendant did not have Plaintiff’s prior express consent to place automated calls toPlaintiff on his cellular telephone.31.Defendant did not have Plaintiff’s prior express consent to call Plaintiff using anartificial or prerecorded voice.32.Defendant’s calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone were not for “emergencypurposes.”CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONSA. The Class33.Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalfof himself and all others similarly situated.34.Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the following class: of two classes:Class AAll persons within the United States to whom Flagship or its agent/s and/oremployee/s called said person’s cellular telephone through the use of anyautomatic telephone dialing system within the four years prior to the filing ofthe Complaint.Class BAll persons within the United States to whom Flagship or its agent/s and/oremployee/s called said person’s cellular telephone with an artificial orprerecorded voice within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint.35.Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff doesnot know the number of members in the Classes, but believes the Class members number in theseveral thousands, if not more. Thus, this matter should be certified as a Class action to assist inthe expeditious litigation of this matter.
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMB Document 1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 6 of 10B. Numerosity36.Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed automated and/or prerecordedmessage calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers throughout theUnited States without their prior express consent. The members of the Class, therefore, arebelieved to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.37.The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this timeand can only be ascertained through discovery. Identification of the Class members is a mattercapable of ministerial determination from Defendant’s call records.C. Common Questions of Law and Fact38.There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate overany questions affecting only individual Class members. These questions include:a. Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Classmembers’ cellular telephones using an ATDS;b. Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Classmembers’ cellular telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice;c. Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior expressconsent 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;andf. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.39.The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. IfPlaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely places automated calls to telephone numbers assigned
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMB Document 1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 7 of 10to cellular telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identicalclaims capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.D. Typicality40.Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are allbased on the same factual and legal theories.E. Protecting the Interests of the Class Members41.Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and hasretained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful businesspractices. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interests which might cause them not tovigorously pursue this action.F. Proceeding Via Class Action is Superior and Advisable42.A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of thiscontroversy. The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecutions ofseparate claims against Flagship is small because it is not economically feasible for Classmembers to bring individual actions.43.Management of this class action is unlikely to present any difficulties. Severalcourts 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 2224892 (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 1932283 (S.D.Cal., May 29, 2012).COUNT INegligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.44.Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMB Document 1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 8 of 10incorporates them herein by reference.45.Defendant negligently placed multiple automated and prerecorded calls to cellularnumbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes without their prior expressconsent.46.Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a negligent violation ofthe TCPA.47.Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to an award of 500.00 in statutory damagesfor each message sent in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).48.Additionally, Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to and seek injunctive reliefprohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.49.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; andc. Defendant placed text messages to the Plaintiff and the Classes without priorexpress written consent.COUNT IIKnowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.50.Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint andincorporates them herein by reference.51.Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed multiple automated calls to cellularnumbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class without their prior expressconsent.52.Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing and/orwillful violation of the TCPA.
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMB Document 1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 9 of 1053.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 1,500.00 for each call inviolation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).54.Additionally, Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to and seek injunctive reliefprohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.55.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 toPlaintiff 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 suchas Plaintiff and the Classes, knowing it did not have prior express writtenconsent to do so; ande. It is Defendant’s practice and history to place telemarketing text messages tonon-customers without their prior express consent.PRAYER FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant Plaintiff and the Class the followingrelief against Defendant:1. Injunctive relief prohibiting such violations of the TCPA by Defendant in the future;2. Declaratory relief as requested;3. Statutory damages of 500.00 for each and every call in violation of the TCPApursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B);
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMB Document 1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 10 of 10
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMB Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/17CIVIL COVER SHEET7/16)Page1 of 1Iii JS 44 civil cover slwet and the inloirnation contained herein neither tepIace nor supplement the filing and Say Ict: (1l. pleadings oi Mei panels as iequired try law,,:xeeptdie use oldie Cleik of Court I-or thepiovided hv local rules of court. -Ibis l'oim approved by the Judicial Conference oldie United States in 'September 1074. is requiredput ow or initiating the vii docket sheet, (51:II INSM11(7IONS ON NEXT 14(11,i 00 LIM MAO(a) PLAINTIFFSI.Robert Ward,(110 CountyDEFENDANTSbehalf of himself and all others similarly situated,onasState ofoiResidenee or First Listed Plaintiff(EATFlagship Credit Acceptance LLC,GeorgiaCountyResidence ol Lb st Limed DeModantCounty uu ICASES)717 IN 11.S.(IN 11 S., l/N1/1.(1.1,17, 1SoN/IN LAND CONDEMNA I ION CASES, GM, 1111'.1 OCAKari];ofDauphinION OFniE isAcT OF LAND INVO1 VED(c) Attorneys 0-MtrtA,, tort(Lemberg Law, LLC.43 Danbury RoadWilton, Connecticut 06897 (203) 653-2250II, BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Placear,Auori, ey,;HI. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES"X" lir One Box Onlvl(For 1 liPcrsto,OILi S Governmenn3Fedeial(11S,'use,Questionl'a, (r)Orma.nor, cia NwPlaim(1Oudy)Ci6zen ori his Snale1111, 1P'ITDEE11n1kir 1.10111, 1111111One RttyPITIncaiwinicilIPrincipalDEEPlaceCl 4!Irk SLOW1 2Divensity0 4S Ciovemmen1DerendannCitizen or Anothet Statel'hkficutieLatret5J;e1p r,./l'alqiCSii, herrnat,"X"in1il 310 Aii120 MinnieO1400 315Neuonable Insunmeni0 320Reroveiy a Wei payment& Furoreemem ol ImIgineld0 3301 151 [vIedieme ASIO 152 Recovery or DefaultedSllilklii LA/51150 3450 345(Eseludes Vele, ants)0 15. ilccoveiy or Ove, pyllIella0I50tnr Vete, nin's ItenelosO1611 Stockholdeis1 Sulk196hiniehisi:,1111 225 roieelosnie7 20LjectinsiiiRum 1.ctist.: &n 2.-Iu i ons to LandO 215 Itiii ckier0 385anril 2niVoting0 463 Alien DenoineeEmployment1-10nsing/ri 510 MotionsAtxonmodminris0 530 Geneial(1,,,Hay5El 517617to00001 423. Wilithawal0 701Penally1376 Qin ram [11 1 115011atilt Stole57291, 0111Banking-130 [Stinks ;Ind0 835 Pateni0 450 CommeieeLI 840 limit:mad,1146011470 littictaatrer I nfluenced and0480 consume! ClairDcponlohonCullum Oiganizations1Lung Et22-i, 7InIJIW('INI \55/i-105tp.t)0 862 Black.150 CaMeiSat INn 563550 ionbw1llat5.5: Pc/660mAInftvulut' SetAndy A;:i,Roappoiliibmitaii11,115 AntilimaCopyi iglik1 865 11/S1Railway Labor ActFamily and MedicalVacateOther:540 Mandamus & Other550 Civil Rights555 Pi ison Condition500 Civil DetaineeCondilions orColifillelllelli110 864 SSID 1 nk XVISelllellce0 535 DeathOHO:USIA! IFIESX 895 Oilio Si:moony Atammis0 S91 Agi icullin al Aos0 513 F11111011111cIllill Millis.I,'1 595 FieL dain 01 hiloinialitmFEDERAL TAX sunsAciI (-II ;IN55111 5 1, Uniiiim 1 erentlanil0 871 IRS115511'mi\2C., I IS( 76997 875806Arkin/Mon1 899 Adminisnalive Prucedult,Aullt, vicis or APP,Agoicy Dunision0, t55 t.mmodunionolity 51IMAM RATIONsiunn.tiknitties0 462 NantualizationApplicammImmigration0 465 OnhmAei ions13Remanded 11-oillCourtCI 4 ReinstatedAppellateorCI 5iihal/NE:lied ERmiAnothei DisttictReopenedr.r,1 1/Muludisn letI inuatmnhail:ilk:Im.,Multidisu icttitillationDirect FileCite the U.S. Civil Statute under which youVII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:VIII. RELATEDare filing (lk nw rile jurisdictional slalutes 1111k1oS diverAilp.227, et seq.Brief dcsci iption ()remise:Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act77 U.S.C.CA CI !ECKIF TI IIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F R CY PCHECK N'T.S onlv ildemanded in cmnplamtDEMAND S20, 000, 000 00nun' DEAIAND:CASE(S)(.VCCIF ANV111,1t11,11011.0DOCKE IJUDGEDA 1 FNUMMI:SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEV 11111 RECORD05/04/2017FOR OFFICE USE ONIA.RliCLIP I a.n.;., /GUN I1,1OW)')Removed fromState Cour(VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONit0 375 Fills,. Claims AO28 11SC 158Leave Aci1 790 0111,?1 labouCorpus:0 4410 445 Anion 101)iSithililic5"1—0 7450 751PRISONER PETITIONS71 4420 448 EducationOriginalProceedingDamagePtopenty DamagePioduet LiabilityIlabeasAppealSCI('I Al. SECURITYn 561 I IIA (1395INLABOR0 710 l'int Labor Standatd,RelabonsPi openlyOnlien1Liability0 380 Other PeisonalImmyBA Nit RUP"FCY1 '122PROPIACEA RIGHTSPERSONAL PROPERTY0 370 Met FiaudAci0 371 Titinh ill LendingI1 720 Labia AianagemeniLiabiliny0 416 Amer w/DisabilitiesV. ()RIGIN (l'iucct.1tont5m1 820!Moly PlonilleiLiability,M;IlineMai ine ProductEmMoymennX0Place28 US(' 1570 368 Asbesnos Peisonal4411 Other Civil Rigid;n -I 130 290 All Oilici RIcal0 695 OilneiFedei alN kllieal Mill llacinceCIVIL RICIITS210 I mid C'ondennitmonPlatiLiel LialiiIi5;0 367 Health Cane!PhaimaccuticalPeisonal !MintyInanyREAL PRO vvicrytir,tDrug Relaind Seim eor Plopeity 21 USG 8810 625Slandei0 362 Pei sonalSithie.oPERSONAL INJURY11 365 Pcisonal InjunyAssault, Libel &Pioduen LiabilinyEl 360 Oilier Peisonal7 195 Connaen hoduct 1 lability-IplaneAinplane hoduciLialrilny0 355 Montt Vehicle0 155 Moto, Vehiclei I 90 011ie( Conti antillFORFEITURE/PENA I.TYPOUTSPERSONAL INJURYO 130 Miller Actlika”pnowdord l'ancipal2One Bol Olohl(1/N11 RA(' E-1 I III lo, iirmcc0ni Itosines, In Another StoneCintenI V. NATURE OF SUIT0 2Ill)APPLYING IN'JUDO bMAGIUDGIXYesCI No
Case 2:17-cv-02069-mmFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIAto appropriate calendar.DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel1 of 1PageUNITEDWRIRMA1cFilleg/1O5/17to indicate thecategory of thecaseassignment2591 Charlestown Drive3Addiess of Defendant-College Park,GA 30337Christy Drive, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania,Transactioo:County of DauphinPlace of Accident, Incidentfor the purpose of19317.ot(Use Reverse Side For Additional Spa, a)Does this civil action involve(AttachDoes thiscopiestwo01 theanongovernmental comorate partyinvolve multidistrictcasewith any parentand anycorporationpubliclyheld10%corpolation owningDisclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(a))or 11111reId its stock?Yes0litigation possibilities?NoMYcsORELATED CASE. IF A NY:Case Number:CivilDate Terminated-decined 'elated when yes is answeied to any of thecases ateIs thisIJudgeelated to property included incase Ifollowing questions:earlier numbered suitanpendingorwithinoneyearpreviouslytelminuted action ill thiti COWL)YeS02. Does thisinvolve thecasesameissue of factorgrow out of thesametransactionas aaction in this court?prior suit pending orwithinoneyeas pipending orwithilsNoeviously terminatedNoNYes03. Does thisinvolve thecasevalidityorinfringement of a patent already insuitorany earlier numberedcaseterminated action in this court?4. Is thisease asecond(Aoneyearsuccessive habeas corpus, socialsecurity appeal,orprosecivillightscasefiledby thesameindividual?NoXyes0CIVIL: (PlaceFederalAV inQuestionpreviouslyNAYes DONE CATEGORY ONLY)Cases:13.I.0Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts2,ciFELA3,0JoneS l8.0Habeas9.,0Securities Ael(s) CasesIt)0SocialI.XAll other ityDiversity Jurisdiction Cases:0Insurance Conti act and Other Contracts2.0Airplane3.ciAssault, Dcraniation4.ciMarine Personal InjuryS.0Motor Vehicle Pcisonal6.0Other PersonalPersonalInjuryHwyInjuly (Please specify)7.0Products Liability8.0Products9.0All othei Diversity CasesReview Cases(PleaseLiabilityAsbestosspecify)Question CasesComsumer Credit(Please specify)ARBITRATION CERTIFICATIONSergei LembergOPinsuantLocal Civil Rule 53 2, Section 3(0(2), Mat to thetoS150, 000 00 exclusive orinterestRel jet' odici Mon monetaryO(Check Appropriate Cotasan:0hereby certify:best of my knowledge and belief, the damagescounsel of record dorecoveiable itt his eivil sk.li011damagesisBar No: 317359Anoincy DAtNOTE: A trialIcertify that,exceptasDATE:(AV,I, 0k)tomyknowledge,exceed thesought.05/04/2017DATE:caseand costs;the withincase19v0 will biLeis not related to anyiow jurycase nowonlyif there has beenpendingorwithinonecomplianceyearwith F R.C.P.previouslyterminated aclion in this courtnoted above.Bar No: 31735905/04/2017/7)., 1117-tiey-at-Low5:201.21AHomey1.L;0ll11111of
Case 2:17-cv-02069-MMBDocument 1-3Filed 05/05/17Page1 of 1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIACASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORMCIVIL ACTIONRobert Ward, on behalf of himself andall others similarly situated,v.FlagshipCreditAcceptance LLC,NO.In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel forplaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time offiling the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See 1:03 of the plan set forth On the reverseside of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding saiddesignation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve onthe plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the trackto which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:(a) Habeas CorpusCasesbroughtunder 28 U.S.C.2241through2255.(b)Social Security Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretaryand Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.(c)Arbitration(d) AsbestosexposuretoCasesrequiredtobedesignatedCases involving claims forasbestos.Healthfor arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2.personal injuryorproperty damage from(e) Special Management Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that arecommonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense mannement bythe court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of specialmanagement cases.)(I)StandardManagementCases that do not fall into anyoneof the other ephone(Ch. (60) 10/02(203)6 3-3424FAX Number„d0000L —PlaintiffAttorneyforslemberg lemberglaw.comE-Mail Address
ClassAction.orgThis complaint is part of ClassAction.org's searchable class action lawsuit database and can be found in thispost: Flagship Credit Acceptance Sued Over Prerecorded Calls
17. Flagship calls Plaintiff suing a variety of outbound caller identifications, including 972-893-6001, 469-398-4035, 469-398-4031 and 888-696-5899, all of which are Flagship phone numbers. 18. For each call, the Defendant is looking for a person named "Charles Walker." 19. Plaintiff is not Charles Walker. Plaintiff does not know a Charles .
