Bridge v. Credit One Financial

Filing 94

ORDER Granting 92 Stipulation Permitting Filing of First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 6/25/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 2

1

JOINTLY SUBMITTED

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

William Bridge, on behalf of himself and all :
others similarly situated,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
vs.
:
:
Credit One Financial, a Nevada Corporation :
:
d/b/a Credit One Bank, N.A.,
:
:
Defendant.
_______________________________________ :

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER PERMITTING FILING OF
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

The parties to the above-captioned action respectfully jointly submit the following
Stipulation and Proposed Order for the Court’s consideration and approval:

14

WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, Plaintiff William Bridge (“Plaintiff”) requested, pursuant to

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the consent of Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A.

16

(“Defendant”) to the filing of the First Amended Class Action Complaint, a copy of which is

17

attached hereto as Exhibit 1;

18
19
20
21

WHEREAS, on June 24, 2015, Defendant consented to Plaintiff’s filing of the First
Amended Class Action Complaint;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by their respective undersigned counsel, and subject to
this Court’s approval, agree and stipulate as follows:

22

1.

Plaintiff may file the First Amended Class Action Complaint;

23

2.

Defendant has 28 days from the date of the filing of the First Amended Class Action

24

Complaint to file any answer or other response to the First Amended Class Action Complaint.

25
26

DATED: June 25, 2015

27
28
1

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 2

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

2

SHOOK & STONE, CHTD.

GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.

3

/s/ Leonard H. Stone
LEONARD H. STONE (NV Bar No. 5791)
MICHAEL P. O’ROURKE (NV Bar No. 6764)
7109 S. Fourth Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101

/s/ Adam J. Levitt
ADAM J. LEVITT (admitted pro hac vice)
KYLE J. McGEE (admitted pro hac vice)
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60602

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Plaintiff

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

HOLLAND & HART LLP
/s/ Brian G. Anderson
PATRICK J. REILLY (NV Bar No. 6103)
BRIAN G. ANDERSON (NV Bar No. 10500)
9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Attorneys for Defendant

13
IT IS SO ORDERED:
14
15
16

NANCY J. KOPPE
Lloyd D. George
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sr. U.S. District Judge

17

DATED:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

June 2015

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 16

Exhibit 1

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Leonard H. Stone
Nevada Bar No. 5791
SHOOK & STONE, CHTD.
710 South Fourth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Tel: [phone]
Adam J. Levitt (pro hac vice)
Diane Zilka (pro hac vice)
Kyle J. McGee (pro hac vice)
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Tel: [phone]

9
10

Attorneys for Plaintiff
(additional counsel appear on signature block)

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

18

William Bridge, individually and on behalf of :
: Civil Action No.: 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK
all others similarly situated,
:
: Hon. Lloyd D. George
Plaintiff,
:
vs.
:
:
Credit One Bank, N.A.,
FIRST AMENDED
:
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
:
Defendant.
:

19

Plaintiff William Bridge (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly

20

situated (the “Class,” as defined below), by his undersigned counsel, complains and alleges as

21

follows based on personal knowledge as to himself and on information and belief as to all other

22

matters against Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A. (“Defendant” or “Credit One”):

13
14
15
16
17

INTRODUCTION

23
1.

24

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other members of the proposed Class,

25

brings this action against Credit One for Credit One’s negligent and/or knowing and willful

26

violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”), and

27

for Credit One’s violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. §

28

41.600.

-1-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 16

1

2.

As more fully alleged below, Credit One negligently or knowingly and willfully

2

placed a large volume of automated calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone – as well as to the

3

cellular telephones of the other Class members – in violation of the TCPA.

4

3.

Through the TCPA, Congress recognized that auto-dialed and pre-recorded

5

commercial telephone communications, including calls purportedly for the purpose of

6

collecting debts, encroach significantly on individual privacy and impose unwarranted costs on

7

individuals.

8
9
10
11
12
13

4.

By subjecting Plaintiff and the other Class members to unauthorized, auto-dialed

calls over a sustained period of time, Defendant has abused Plaintiff’s and the other Class
members’ privacy rights and has violated the TCPA.
5.

Credit One is a national bank, chartered by the Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, and specializes in the issuance of credit cards and the servicing of credit accounts.
6.

As part of its credit card business, Credit One uses automated dialing systems to

14

contact unsuspecting consumers – including Plaintiff and the other Class members – who have

15

no relationship with Credit One, with automated calls.

16

7.

Plaintiff believes that certain of Credit One’s uniform practices and policies

17

with respect to its automated dialing practice are responsible for tens of thousands, or more,

18

violations of the TCPA by Credit One. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff, individually and

19

on behalf of the other Class members, seeks to hold Credit One accountable for its rampant

20

TCPA violations and seeks relief for himself and the other Class members for Credit One’s

21

TCPA violations caused by its wrongful conduct alleged below.

22

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23

8.

The Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

24

1331. All claims asserted herein arise under the provisions of the Telephone Consumer

25

Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”). See Mims v. Arrow Fin. Serv., LLC, 132

26

S.Ct. 740, 751-53 (2012).

27
28

9.

Jurisdiction in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), because

at least one member of the Class is of diverse citizenship with respect to Defendant, there are

-2-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 4 of 16

1

more than 100 members of the Class nationwide, and the aggregate amount in controversy

2

exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of costs and interest.

3

10.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because many of

4

the acts and omissions alleged herein occurred within this District. Defendant has its principal

5

place of business in this District.

6
7

PARTIES
Plaintiff

8
9

11.

William Bridge is a natural person and a resident of Webster, New York. Mr.

Bridge is an individual person within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).

10

12.

Mr. Bridge has never had a business relationship with Credit One and never

11

consented to be contacted by Credit One on his cellular telephone or by any other means.

12

Defendant

13

13.

Credit One is, and, at all times relevant to this action, was, a nationally chartered

14

bank headquartered at 585 Pilot Road in Las Vegas, Nevada. Credit One is a subsidiary of

15

Credit One Financial, a Nevada Domestic Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of

16

Sherman Financial Group, LLC. Defendant services millions of cardholders across the United

17

States.

18

THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1991 (“TCPA”)

19

14.

Automatic telephone dialing systems, or auto-dialers (or “ATDS”), are

20

responsible for countless annoying, intrusive, and sometimes costly telephone calls transmitted

21

each day to consumers who have never conducted business with the caller, no longer conduct

22

business with the caller, or have not agreed to receive calls to particular telephone lines,

23

including cellular telephone lines, from the caller. Depending on the frequency with which a

24

consumer receives them, these calls can be minor inconveniences or substantial irritations,

25

approaching harassment.

26
27

15.

In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA in response to a growing number of

consumer complaints regarding certain telemarketing practices.

28

-3-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 5 of 16

1

16.

By enacting the TCPA, Congress recognized the violation of consumer privacy

2

interests that occurs each time a caller uses an auto-dialer to contact a consumer with whom it

3

has no existing business relationship, or from whom the caller has not secured adequate consent

4

to transmit calls. Periodically since 1991, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”),

5

which is charged with developing regulations implementing the TCPA, has issued rules

6

expanding the scope of consumer protections offered by the statute in order to reflect and

7

counteract the increasing aggressiveness and persistence with which marketers, scam artists,

8

collection agencies, and others have employed auto-dialing technologies.

9

17.

The TCPA makes it unlawful “to make any call (other than a call made for

10

emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an

11

automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice … to any telephone

12

number assigned to a … cellular telephone service.” See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The

13

TCPA provides a private cause of action to persons who receive calls in violation of 47 U.S.C.

14

§ 227(b)(1)(A). See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

15

18.

As of October 16, 2013, the TCPA requires callers using auto-dialers or artificial

16

or prerecorded voice messages to obtain prior express written consent for commercial calls to

17

cellular telephone lines, including SMS or text messaging calls. Prior express written consent

18

is also required, as of October 16, 2013, for calls made to residential telephone lines using an

19

artificial or prerecorded voice message.

20

19.

Furthermore, as of October 16, 2013, the TCPA no longer exempts calls made to

21

residential telephone lines belonging to consumers with an established business relationship

22

with the caller. The TCPA has never exempted such calls to cellular telephone lines.

23

20.

On June 18, 2015, the FCC voted in favor of expanding consumers’ rights under

24

the TCPA. As of the date of this filing, the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling and Order had not yet

25

been published, but news releases indicate that that Order clarifies consumers’ right to revoke

26

any consent to receive auto-dialed calls they may have provided to persons using ATDS in the

27

past using any reasonable means (i.e., revocation of consent does not necessarily require a

28

written submission from the call recipient), clarifies callers’ obligation to stop placing calls to

-4-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 6 of 16

1

wrong numbers “after one call,” regardless of whether the caller made contact with any person

2

on that one call, and clarifies that an ATDS is any technology with the capacity to dial random

3

or sequential numbers, regardless of whether that capacity has been implemented.

4

21.

Through the TCPA, Congress and the FCC have imposed a simple requirement

5

upon persons making commercial telephone communications: call the telephone number

6

without auto-dialing equipment and without an artificial or prerecorded voice messages,

7

unless and until the consent of the call recipient to receive auto-dialed or artificial and

8

prerecorded voice calls is secured.

9
10
11
12

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
22.

In or around January 2014, Credit One began placing calls to Plaintiff’s cellular

telephone number, 607-xxx-2345.
23.

When answering Credit One’s calls, Plaintiff heard either a period of silence

13

before a live representative came on the line, or a prerecorded message asking him to “please

14

hold to be connected.”

15
16
17
18
19

24.

Credit One initiated more than 100 such calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone

number between January 2014 and March 2014. Plaintiff answered a portion of these calls.
25.

On at least one call from Credit One, an automatic or prerecorded voice message

informed Plaintiff that the call was an “attempt to collect a debt.”
26.

On at least two such calls, Plaintiff instructed Credit One to stop calling his

20

cellular telephone. On information and belief, and to the best of Plaintiff’s recollection,

21

Plaintiff instructed the Credit One representative that he had no relationship with Credit One,

22

and instructed Credit One to stop calling his cellular telephone on or around March 18, 2014.

23

27.

Based upon discovery to date, Plaintiff alleges that Credit One obtained

24

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number through its use of ANI, or Automatic Number

25

Identification, technology. This technology permits an inbound call center receiving calls from

26

consumers, or companies utilizing IVR (interactive voice response) technology, to obtain the

27

number from which a call is received, and update its records to add that number to a particular

28

account.

-5-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 7 of 16

1
2
3

28.

On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Credit One was attempting to

reach his mother, who has or at the time of the calls had a credit card account with Credit One.
29.

Plaintiff’s mother has never used Plaintiff’s cellular telephone to place any call

4

to Credit One or any affiliate of Credit One. Instead, Plaintiff’s mother underwent heart

5

surgery in January 2014, and Plaintiff, on his own initiative and for no purpose other than his

6

own emotional well-being and peace of mind, contacted certain of his mother’s creditors.

7

Plaintiff’s mother, who was hospitalized at the time, was not aware that Plaintiff did so, and

8

provided Plaintiff with no instruction or consent to contact any third parties regarding her

9

financial obligations.

10

30.

Plaintiff contacted Credit One by telephone on or around January 18, 2014. On

11

that call, Plaintiff advised Credit One’s representative that he was placing the call in relation to

12

his mother’s account, and not any account held by him. Plaintiff did not, on that call or in any

13

subsequent communication with Credit One, authorize Credit One to associate his cellular

14

telephone number with his mother’s account, or agree in any way to receive calls on his cellular

15

telephone number regarding his mother’s account. Indeed, Credit One’s records reflect that it

16

had at least two other telephone numbers at which it could reach Plaintiff’s mother.

17

31.

At no time did Plaintiff ever willingly provide his cellular telephone number to

18

Credit One. Instead, Credit One obtained Plaintiff’s telephone number using ANI technology,

19

as alleged above, without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.

20

32.

At no time did Plaintiff ever enter into a business relationship with Credit One.

21

33.

At no time did Plaintiff provide Credit One with consent, much less prior

22
23
24
25

express written (or verbal) consent allowing Credit One to call his cellular telephone.
34.

Credit One made calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone from the following

telephone numbers, among others: [phone]; [phone]; and [phone].
35.

In placing unlawful auto-dialed calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, Credit One

26

acted on its own behalf or through an outbound calling agent. At least one such call was

27

transmitted by NCO Financial Systems, Inc., which contracts with Credit One to place auto-

28

-6-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 8 of 16

1

dialed calls on Credit One’s behalf. The calls Credit One or its agents placed to Plaintiff’s

2

cellular telephone were made using an ATDS.

3

36.

Credit One and its agents employ ATDS technologies that meet the definition

4

set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), and used their ATDS systems to make each of the

5

aforementioned calls to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone.

6

37.

The FCC has defined ATDS, under the TCPA, to include “predictive dialers.”

7

See In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection

8

Act of 1991, 23 F.C.C.R. 559, at ¶ 12, 2008 WL 65485 (F.C.C.) (2008).

9

forthcoming Declaratory Ruling and Order, approved and adopted on June 18, 2015, further

10

clarifies that an ATDS is any technology that has the capacity to dial random or sequential

11

numbers, regardless of whether that capacity has been implemented.

12

38.

The FCC’s

Credit One’s (and its agents’) telephone systems used to contact Plaintiff have

13

all the earmarks of a predictive dialer. When Credit One called Plaintiff, there was a period of

14

silence and/or a prerecorded message before Credit One’s telephone system would connect

15

Plaintiff to a live representative.

16

39.

Credit One’s calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone were not for “emergency

17

purposes”; rather, they were debt collection calls concerning Plaintiff’s mother’s credit card

18

account.

19

40.

On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Credit One is knowledgeable

20

concerning the TCPA’s restrictions on auto-dialing and use of automated or prerecorded voice

21

messages in calls made to cellular telephone lines.

22

41.

In addition to the fact that the TCPA’s restrictions are generally known to

23

persons in Credit One’s industry, Credit One has been sued for violations of the TCPA in the

24

past.

25

42.

Plaintiff alleges that Credit One called him as part of a debt collection practice

26

concerning accounts unrelated to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges further that Credit One knew that

27

the policies, procedures, and practices through which that debt collection practice was

28

-7-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 9 of 16

1

conducted included the transmission of auto-dialed calls or calls using automated or

2

prerecorded voice messages.

3
4
5

43.

Plaintiff alleges that Credit One knew that its practices and/or calling campaigns

included the transmission of such calls to cellular telephone lines.
44.

Plaintiff further alleges that Credit One maintains records reflecting all calls

6

placed using its ATDS technology and all calls placed on its behalf by its outbound calling

7

vendors, including records reflecting the disposition of each such call. Among the dispositions

8

Credit One’s records capture are “wrong number” (i.e., the call led to contact with a third party

9

or person other than the accountholder) and “do not call” (i.e., the call led to contact with a

10

person that asked Credit One to stop calling). Credit One has the capacity to identify calls

11

dispositioned as, inter alia, “wrong number” or “do not call.”

12
13

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
45.

Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to the provisions of Rule

14

23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, individually and on behalf of

15

the proposed Class, defined as follows:

16

All persons and entities

17

(a)

within the United States,

18

(b)

to whom, at any time in the period that begins four years before this lawsuit was

19

filed (September 17, 2014), to the date of trial, Defendant or its agent(s)

20

transmitted at least two non-emergency telephone calls, including without

21

limitation voice calls and short message service (SMS) calls,

22

(c)

23

from any device capable of automated or predictive dialing or which used
artificial or prerecorded voice messages,

24

(d)

to his/her cellular telephone,

25

(e)

where Defendant’s records indicate at least one such call was a “wrong number”

26
27

call, whether dispositioned as “wrong number” or as “do not call,”
(f)

and the call recipient was not a current Credit One accountholder.

28

-8-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 10 of 16

1

Excluded from the Class are Credit One, its parent company, subsidiaries, affiliates, and agents;

2

all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; all claims for wrongful

3

death, survivorship, and/or personal injury by Class members; governmental entities; and the

4

judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate family are excluded from the Class.

5

Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the Class definition based on information learned through

6

discovery.

7

46.

Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because

8

Plaintiff can prove the elements of his claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as

9

would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claim.

10

47.

Numerosity – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). The members of the

11

Class are so numerous that individual joinders of all the members are impracticable. On

12

information and belief, there are not less than tens of thousands of consumers who have been

13

damaged by Credit One’s wrongful conduct as alleged herein. The precise number of Class

14

members and their addresses is presently unknown to Plaintiff, but may be ascertained from

15

Credit One’s books and records. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action

16

by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. mail,

17

electronic mail, internet postings, and/or published notice.

18

48.

Commonality and Predominance – Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

19

23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3). Numerous common questions of law and fact exist as to Plaintiff and

20

the other Class members. Such questions common to the Class include, but are not limited to:

21

a. Whether Credit One or its agent(s) made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff

22

and other Class members’ cellular telephones using an ATDS and/or an

23

automated or prerecorded voice message;

24
25
26
27

b. Whether Credit One can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior
express consent to make each call;
c. Whether Credit One’s conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes violations of
the TCPA;

28

-9-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 11 of 16

1

d. Whether Credit One’s conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes violations of

2

the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act;

3

e. Whether Credit One is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages;

4

and

5

f. Whether Credit One should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.

6

49.

Typicality – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Plaintiff’s claims are

7

typical of the claims of the other Class members because, among other things, all members of

8

the Class were comparably injured through the uniform misconduct described above.

9

50.

Adequacy of Representation – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).

10

Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative because his interests do not conflict with the

11

interests of the other members of the Class he seeks to represent; Plaintiff has retained counsel

12

competent and experienced in complex commercial and class action litigation; and Plaintiff

13

intends to prosecute this action vigorously.

14

adequately protected by Plaintiff and his counsel.

15

51.

Class members’ interests will be fairly and

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16

23(b)(2). Credit One has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff

17

and the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief, as described

18

below.

19

52.

Predominance – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Credit One has

20

engaged in a common course of conduct toward Plaintiff and the other Class members. The

21

common issues arising from this conduct that affect Plaintiff and the other Class members

22

predominate over any individual issues. Adjudication of these common issues in a single

23

action has important and desirable advantages of judicial economy.

24

53.

Superiority – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). A class action is

25

superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy,

26

and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this action as a

27

class action. The damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiff and each of the

28

other Class members are relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be

-10-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 12 of 16

1

required to individually litigate their claims against Credit One, so it would be impracticable

2

for Class members to individually seek redress for Credit One’s wrongful conduct. Even if

3

Class members could afford individual litigation, the court system could not. Individualized

4

litigation creates a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and increases the

5

delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the class action device

6

presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication,

7

economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

8

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

9

COUNT I
NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

54.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-53 of this Complaint and

incorporates them herein by reference.
55.

Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of all other Class

members.
56.

Credit One negligently placed automated calls and/or calls employing automated

17

or prerecorded voice messages to telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephones belonging

18

to Plaintiff and each of the other Class members without their prior express consent.

19

57.

Each of the aforementioned calls by Credit One constitutes a negligent violation

20

of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), which prohibits persons within the United States from making

21

any call using any automated telephone dialing system or any automated or prerecorded voice

22

message to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone without the prior express

23

consent of the call recipient.

24

58.

As a result of Credit One’s negligent violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff and each

25

of the other Class members is entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages for each call

26

made to them in violation of the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

27
28

59.

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of each of the other Class members, also

seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

-11-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 13 of 16

1
2

60.

seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct by Credit One in the future.

3

COUNT II
KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Additionally, Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the other Class members

61.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-53 of this Complaint and

incorporates them herein by reference.
62.

Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of all other Class

members.
63.

Credit One knowingly and/or willfully placed the automated calls and/or calls

11

employing automated or prerecorded voice messages described herein, which resulted in Credit

12

One contacting cellular telephones belonging to Plaintiff and the other Class members without

13

their prior express consent.

14

64.

Each of the aforementioned calls by Credit One constitutes a knowing and/or

15

willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), which prohibits persons within the United

16

States from making any call using any automated telephone dialing system or any automated or

17

prerecorded voice message to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone without

18

the prior express consent of the call recipient.

19

65.

As a result of Credit One’s knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA,

20

Plaintiff and each of the other Class members is entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory

21

damages for each call made to them in violation of the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §

22

227(b)(3).

23

66.

24
25
26

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of each of the other Class members, also

seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.
67.

Additionally, Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the other Class members

seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct by Credit One in the future.

27
28

-12-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 14 of 16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

COUNT III
VIOLATIONS OF THE NEVADA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
NEV. REV. STAT. § 41.600
68.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-67 of this Complaint and

incorporates them herein by reference.
69.

Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of all other Class

members.
70.

Nevada law provides that, “A person engages in a ‘deceptive trade practice’

8

when in the course of his or her business or occupation he or she knowingly … [v]iolates a

9

state or federal statute or regulation relating to the sale or lease of goods or services.” Nev.

10
11

Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(3).
71.

The TCPA is a federal statute relating to the sale or lease of goods or services.

12

As alleged herein, Defendant’s violations of the TCPA were made in the course of its business

13

or occupation.

14

72.

Pursuant to the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600,

15

violations of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 constitute “consumer fraud.” Nev. Rev. Stat. §

16

41.600(2)(e).

17

73.

As set forth above, by negligently, knowingly and/or willfully placing the

18

automated calls and/or calls employing automated or prerecorded voice messages described

19

herein, resulting in Credit One contacting cellular telephones belonging to Plaintiff and the

20

other Class members without their prior express consent, Credit One violated the TCPA.

21
22
23
24

74.

Trade Practices Act.
75.

27
28

As a result, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are entitled to, and do,

seek equitable relief and costs and attorneys’ fees.

25
26

Each such violation is a separate and distinct violation of the Nevada Deceptive

REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiff and the
Class the following relief against Defendant:
A.

Certification of the proposed Class;

-13-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 15 of 16

1

B.

Appointment of Plaintiff Bridge as Class Representative;

2

C.

Appointment of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as Class Counsel;

3

D.

A declaration that Defendant violated the TCPA;

4

E.

A declaration that Defendant violated the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act;

5

F.

Injunctive relief prohibiting violations of the TCPA and Nevada Deceptive Trade

6
7

Practices Act by Defendant in the future;
G.

8
9

Statutory damages of $500.00 for each and every negligent violation of the TCPA
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B);

H.

10

Statutory damages of $1,500.00 for each and every knowing and/or willful
violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B);

11

I.

Pre- and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, as permitted by law;

12

J.

Leave to amend this Complaint to conform to evidence presented at trial;

13

K.

An award of attorneys’ fees and costs of suit to counsel for Plaintiff and the Class;

14
15
16
17

and
L.

Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS

Dated: June 25, 2015

18

Respectfully submitted,

19

By /s/ Leonard Stone
SHOOK & STONE, CHTD.
Leonard Stone, Esq.
710 South Fourth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Adam J. Levitt (pro hac vice)
Diane Zilka (pro hac vice)
Kyle J. McGee (pro hac vice)
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
-14-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 92-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 16 of 16

1
2
3
4
5
6

Stephen Taylor (pro hac vice)
LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES
1100 Summer Street, Third Floor
Stamford, Connecticut 06905
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiff William Bridge and the
Proposed Class

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-15-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT