(AS TO BOTH DEFENDANTS)   1.  Deceptive Sales Practices of Home Improvement Contractor  a.  General   1.  The jurisdiction of this court is established pursuant to Federal Truth in Finding  Act, 15 U.S.C. §1640 (“TILA”) and for state law claims pursuant to the pendent jurisdiction of  the Court.  10.  Several days later, on or about July 28, 2016, an employee and/or agent of Fluid  Air who identified herself as “Michelle” arrived at the Locicero Residence for the purpose of  “inspecting” the air conditioner unit and discussing the so-called “FPL Program.”     11.  After “inspecting” the air conditioner unit at the Locicero Residence, “Michelle”  falsely represented to Ms. Locicero that the “FPL Program” provided financial assistance to  homeowners such as Ms. Locicero to change out old air conditioner units for energy efficiency  when no such “FPL Program” existed.     12.  “Michelle” falsely represented to Ms. Locicero that the “FPL Program” would  allow Ms. Locicero to change-out the air conditioner replacement at the Locicero Residence  without Ms. Locicero paying any money out of pocket when in fact it was the intent of Fluid Air  to create a loan in the name of Ms. Locicero to finance the purchase of the air conditioner  replacement without her permission or consent.   13.  In the belief that an “FPL Program” existed which would assist Ms. Locicero in  changing out her air conditioner unit, Ms. Locicero signed a document entitled “Agreement for  Change Out in Service” (“A/C Change Out Agreement”).    14.  A true and correct copy of the A/C Change Out Agreement is attached hereto and  incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “A.”   16.  As more particularly described above, the sale of the A/C Unit constituted a  “home solicitation sale” as said term is defined under Florida Statute §501.021(1).   17.  Pursuant to Florida Statute §501.031(2), every home solicitation sale should be  evidenced by a writing which contains a statement (“Right to Cancel”) under a conspicuous  caption, “BUYER’S RIGHT TO CANCEL”:  “This is a home solicitation sale, and if you do not want the goods  or services, you may cancel this agreement by providing written  notice to the seller in person, by telegram, or by mail.  This notice  must indicate that you do not want the goods or services and must  be delivered or postmarked before midnight of the third business  day after you sign this agreement.  If you cancel this agreement,  the seller may not keep all or part of any cash down payment.”   18.  The A/Change Out Agreement did not have the statutorily mandated  disclosures with respect to both form and content of the Right to Cancel in contravention  of Florida Statute §501.031.   ii.  As to the Federal Cooling-Off Rule   19.  As more particularly described above, the sale of the A/C Unit was a “door-to- door sale” as said term is defined under 16 C.F.R. §429.0(a).    20.  As more particularly described above, the A/C Unit constituted a “consumer  good” as said term is defined under 16 C.F.R. §429.0(b).   3.  At all times material hereto, Defendant, INTRUST Bank (“INTRUST”), is a  banking corporation organized in the State of Kansas.    4.  At all times material hereto, INTRUST was in the business of extending credit to  consumers for personal and household purposes.    5.  At all times material hereto, GreenSky, LLC (“GreenSky”) was a Georgia limited  liability company doing business in the State of Florida.  54.  Ms. Locicero brings this action on her own behalf and as representative of all  those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with respect  to equitable relief sought herein, and Rule 23(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with  respect to the damages sought herein.   56.  Although the precise number of class members is presently unknown and can only  be determined by discovery, the proposed class size satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1),  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as, upon information and belief, INTRUST has extended credit  to more than one hundred (100) customers who executed all similar finance agreements.   57.  The members of the class referred to above who are similarly situated with Ms.  Locicero, or readily ascertainable are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.   There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved, affecting  the parties to be represented in that each party has been injured by, or has an interest in litigating  the legality of the practice of the Defendant alleged herein.  Proof of a common or single state of  fact or set of facts will establish the right of each member of the class to recover.   58.  Plaintiff is a member of the class because Plaintiff entered into the Locicero Loan  Agreement that was obtained by GreenSky for which INTRUST failed to provide adequate  disclosures under TILA and Regulation Z in the same manner as all other members of the class.   6.  At all times material hereto, Ms. Locicero was the legal title owner of a single- family home located at 1050 N.W. 53rd Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 (“Locicero  Residence”), where Ms. Locicero maintained her place of residence.   60.  Common questions of law or fact include whether Defendants provided an  extension of credit in the form of the Locicero Loan Agreement in violation of TILA and  Regulation Z which extension of credit was arranged by GreenSky in violation of the CSOA.   61.  The requirement of Rule 23(a)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is met  because the claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of class members.  Plaintiff and class  members executed a finance agreement in the same or substantially similar form as the Locicero  Loan Agreement which credit was obtained by GreenSky during the relevant class period and are  entitled to statutory and actual damages as a result of the failure to disclose and provide the  required material information under TILA and the CSOA.   62.  The requirement of Rule 23(a)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is met  because Plaintiff will fairly and accurately protect the interests of the class.  No antagonism  exists between the interest of the Plaintiff and the interest of other class members. Counsel for  Plaintiff is experienced in class action litigation and is well qualified to conduct this litigation.   63.  This action is appropriate for class treatment pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure, because Defendant has acted or has refused to act on grounds generally  applicable to the entire class, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive or corresponding to  declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.   65.  This is an action for violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601  (“TILA”), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, seeking damages, interest, costs and  attorney’s fees.   66.  Ms. Locicero realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1  through 64 above as if set forth hereat in full.   68.  By reason of the aforesaid violations of the TILA and Regulation Z, INTRUST is  liable to Plaintiff and the members of the class for statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  §1640(a).   69.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1640, Plaintiff and the members of the class are entitled to  recover reasonable attorney’s fees to be determined by the Court.   7.  On or about July 24, 2016, Ms. Locicero received an unsolicited telephone call on  her cell phone from whom Ms. Locicero believes was a salesperson at “Fluid Air Concepts”  (“Fluid Air” or “A/C Contractor”) concerning a “sales program” to help low income persons  save on energy costs.   70.  Plaintiff has retained the undersigned law firm to represent his interest herein and  is obligated to pay said law office a reasonable fee for its services.  71.  This claim for declaratory relief is brought under the Florida Declaratory  Judgment Act, Fla. Stat. §86.021, to settle and obtain relief from uncertainty and insecurity with  respect to the rights, status and legal relations of Ms. Locicero and members of the class and the  consumer protections embodied in the CSOA.   72.  Ms. Locicero realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1  through 64 above as if set forth hereat in full.   74.  Based on information and belief, there is an actual, judicable controversy  between the parties relating to the construction of the credit services contract of Ms. Locicero  and members of the Class and the application of Florida’s Credit Service Organization Act to  those contracts.   75.  The public interest is best served by granting the requested injunctions, as the  public has a compelling interest in preventing GreenSky from violating the statutory and  common law of the State of Florida.   76.  Ms. Locicero and other members of the Class are likely to succeed on  the merits of this action, as the CSOA explicitly requires that GreenSky provide specific  disclosures to consumers for whom it provided services for.  77.  Ms. Lociero realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in  Paragraphs 1 through 64 above as if set forth hereat in full.   78.  By paying or agreeing to pay money for credit services, Ms. Locicero and  members of the Class conferred a benefit of illegally collected charges upon GreenSky and  8.  In the ensuing telephone call, the salesperson informed Ms. Locicero that Ms.  Locicero could save a substantial amount of money by upgrading the air conditioning system at  the Locicero Residence using a Florida Power and Light (“FPL”) Program “that would pay for  itself.”     82.       This is an action for violation of the Florida Credit Service Organizations Act,  Florida Statute §817.7001, et seq.  (“Florida CSOA”), brought herein pursuant to the doctrine of  pendent jurisdiction.   83.  Ms. Locicero realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1  through 64 above as if set forth hereat in full.   84.  At all times material hereto, Ms. Locicero was a “buyer” as said term is defined  under Florida Statute §817.7001(1).   85.  At all times material hereto, GreenSky was a “credit service organization” as said  term is defined under Florida Statute §817.7001(2)(a).   86.  At all times material hereto, the monies owed to INTRUST under the Locicero  Loan Agreement constituted an “extension of credit” as said term is defined under Florida  Statute §817.7001(3).   88.       Pursuant to Florida Statute §817.706, Ms. Locicero and the members of the Class  are entitled to recover actual damages, but in no case less than the amount paid by Ms. Locicero  and the Class Members to GreenSky, plus reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and punitive  damages.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francisca D. Locicero, an individual, on behalf of herself and  all others similarly situated, prays:  A.  For an order certifying the instant matter as a class action;   B.  For equitable relief establishing that GreenSky may not continue operating as a  credit service business without complying with the requirements of Florida law and that all  extensions of credit arranged by GreenSky are void by operation of law;  C.  For statutory damages, costs, and attorney’s fees against INTRUST pursuant to 15  A.  Details of In-home Solicitation   CREDIT SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS ACT (“CSOA”)  (AS TO BOTH DEFENDANTS)   I.  JURISDICTION   TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, 15 U.S.C. §1601, ET SEQUI  (AS TO INTRUST)   UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 86  (AS TO BOTH DEFENDANTS)  