11. On June 12, 2018, Bank received, on his residential telephone line, a telephone call (the “First Call”) whose Caller Identification (“Caller ID”) information included a telephone number (the “First Caller ID Number”).  12. The First Caller ID Number was not the actual number from which the First Call was placed.  13. The First Caller ID Number contained the same area code and the same three-digit prefix as the telephone number to which the First Call was placed.  14. The use, by telemarketers, of a fake Caller ID that makes a call appear to be from a nearby location is known as “neighborhood spoofing.” 2  15. The use of the First Caller ID Number constituted neighborhood spoofing.  16. Upon the answering of the First Call, a message was played by an artificial or pre- recorded voice (“a Pre-Recorded Message”) that stated that the call was from “the National Hearing Center.”  17. On June 20, 2018, Bank received, on his residential telephone line, a telephone call (the “Second Call”) whose Caller ID information included a telephone number (the “Second Caller ID Number”).  18. The Second Caller ID Number was not the actual number from which the Second Call was placed.  19. The Second Caller ID Number contained the same area code and the same three-digit prefix as the telephone number to which the Second Call was placed.  20. The use of the Second Caller ID Number constituted neighborhood spoofing.  21. Upon the answering of the Second Call, a Pre-Recorded Message stated that the call was from “the National Hearing Center.”  22. Sirlin has, at all relevant times, done business as the National Hearing Center.  23. Sirlin hired one or more third parties to place thousands of telephone calls that included, and that were materially similar in substance and methodology to, the First Call and the Second Call.  24. On June 22, 2018, Bank received, on his residential telephone line, a telephone call (the “Third Call”) whose Caller ID information included a telephone number (the “Third Caller ID Number”).  25. The Third Caller ID Number was not the actual number from which the Third Call was placed. 3  26. The Third Caller ID Number contained the same area code and the same three-digit prefix as the telephone number to which the Third Call was placed.  27. The use of the Third Caller ID Number constituted neighborhood spoofing.  28. Upon the answering of the Third Call, a Pre-Recorded Message was followed by the playing of a second Pre-Recorded Message that stated that the call was from “Medical Alarms.”  29. Sirlin has, at all relevant times, done business as “Medical Alarms.”  30. Sirlin hired one or more third parties to place thousands of telephone calls that included, and that were materially similar in substance and methodology to, the Third Call.  31. The First Call, the Second Call, the Third Call (“Bank’s Calls”), and the telephone that were materially similar in substance and methodology to Bank’s Calls (collectively, as the “Mass Telemarketing Calls”) were made with equipment that was capable of storing telephone numbers to be called and that was used, either alone or in conjunction with other equipment, to disseminate a pre-recorded message to the telephone numbers that were called without the use of an operator.  32. The Pre-Recorded Messages of the Mass Telemarketing Calls did not state, at their beginning, the full name of the person on whose behalf the calls were placed.  33.  The Pre-Recorded Messages of the Mass Telemarketing Calls did not state the address of the person on whose behalf the calls were placed.  34.  The Pre-Recorded Messages of the Mass Telemarketing Calls did not state the telephone number of the person on whose behalf the calls were placed.  35. The Mass Telemarketing Calls were made without the prior express written consent of any person who had the legal right to provide such consent. 4 40. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges, and incorporates herein, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “35” inclusive of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.  41.  The placement of the Mass Telemarketing Calls violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1).  42.  Bank and Members of the Federal Class are entitled to statutory damages of $500 per violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(B).  43. In the event that Defendant willfully or knowingly violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1), Bank and the other members of the Federal Class are entitled to up an additional $1,000 per violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Sections 227(b)(3)(C).  44.  Bank and the other Members of the Federal Class are entitled to an Order, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(A), enjoining Defendant from violating 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1). 45. Bank repeats and re-alleges, and incorporates herein, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “35” inclusive of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.  46.  The placement of the Mass Telemarketing Calls to New York Class Members violated GBL Section 399-p(3)(a).  47.  Bank and the other Members of the New York Class are entitled to statutory damages of $50 pursuant to GBL Section 399-p(9).  48. Bank and the other Members of the New York Class are entitled to an Order, pursuant to GBL Section 399-p(9), enjoining Defendant from violating GBL Section 399-p(3)(a)  49. Bank and the other Members of the New York Class are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to GBL Section 399-p(9). 6 50. Bank brings this action as a Class Action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all persons to whose residential or cellular telephone one or more Mass Telemarketing Calls were made during the Federal Class Period.  51. Bank brings this action as a Class Action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all persons to whose residential or cellular telephone one or more Mass Telemarketing Calls were made during the New York Class Period.  52.  Bank believes that there are thousands of individuals whose claims are similar to Bank’s claims, and, furthermore, that Bank’s claims are typical of the claims of absent Class Members. Members of each Class have sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s wrongful conduct in the same manner in which Bank has sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s unlawful conduct.  53.  Bank will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each Class. Bank has no interests that are antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the Members of the Classes. Indeed, Bank’s interests are, for purposes of this litigation, coincident with the interests of the other Class Members.  54.  A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Because each of the Classes are so numerous that joinder of all Members is impracticable, and because the damages suffered by most of the individual Members of the Classes are too small to render prosecution of the claims asserted herein economically feasible on an individual basis, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it impractical for Members of the Classes to adequately address the wrongs complained of herein. Bank knows of no impediments to the effective management of this action as a class action.  55.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that affect only individual Federal Class Members. Among those questions are: 7 (i) whether Sirlin hired one or more third parties to make telephone calls that violated Section 227(b)(1) of the TCPA; (ii) whether Defendant willfully or knowingly violated Section 227(b)(1) of the TCPA; (iii) whether the Members of the Federal Class are entitled to damages as a result of Defendant’s violations of Section 227(b)(1) of the TCPA, and, if so, how much; and (iv) whether the Members of the Federal Class are entitled to injunctive relief as a result of Defendant’s violations of Section 227(b)(1) of the TCPA.  96.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that affect only individual New York Class Members. Among those questions are:  (i) whether telephone calls were made to residential or cellular telephone lines by, on behalf of, at the direction of, with the approval of, or with the authorization of Defendant using equipment that was capable of storing telephone numbers to be called and that was used, either alone or in conjunction with other equipment, to disseminate a pre-recorded message to the telephone numbers that were called without the use of an operator, wherein the telephone number to which the such calls were made was a New York telephone number, that is, a telephone number having an area code of 212, 315, 347, 516, 518, 585, 607, 632, 656, 716, 718, 845, 914, 917, or 929 (ii) whether Defendant violated GBL Section 399-p(3)(a); (iii) whether the Members of the New York Class are entitled to damages as a result of Defendant’s violations of GBL Section 399-p(3)(a); (iv) whether the Members of the New York Class are entitled to injunctive relief as a result of Defendant’s violations of GBL Section 399-p(3)(a); and (v) whether the Members of the New York Class are entitled to reasonable legal fees as a result of Defendant’s violations of GBL Section 399-p(3)(a). [continued on next page] 8