Family First Life Lawsuit Do Not Call Lawsuit For $694,000

Case 2:22-cv-12039-DPH-JJCG ECF No. 93, PageID.
882 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 91
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK W. DOBRONSKI, Case No. 2:22-cv-12039-DPH-JJCG
Plaintiff, Honorable Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge
v.
Honorable Jonathan J.C. Grey
FAMILY FIRST LIFE, LLC, et al. United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants.
____________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, MARK W. DOBRONSKI, appearing in propria
persona, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), moves this court for an order
granting leave to file his First Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached
hereto as EXHIBIT A.
WHEREFORE, and as further explained in the ancillary brief, Plaintiff
respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter its order granting leave to Plaintiff
to amend its complaint and allowing the filing of Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint.
1
Case 2:22-cv-12039-DPH-JJCG ECF No. 93, PageID.883 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 91
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 2, 2023 _______________________________

Mark W. Dobronski
Post Office Box 85547
Westland, Michigan 48185-0547
(734) 330-9671
[email protected]
Plaintiff In Propria Persona
2

SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK W. DOBRONSKI, Case No. 2:22-cv-12039-DPH-JJCG
Plaintiff, Honorable Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge
v.
Honorable Jonathan J.C. Grey
FAMILY FIRST LIFE, LLC, et al. United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants.
____________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Plaintiff seeks leave, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 15(a)(2), to file his proposed
First Amended Complaint, attached at EXHIBIT A.
In accordance with E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(a), Plaintiff certifies that there was a
conference between Plaintiff and attorneys for each of the parties or unrepresented
parties entitled to be heard on the motion in which Plaintiff explained the nature of
th emotion or request and its legal basis and requested concurrence, with the
following results:
• Counsel for Family First Life, LLC refused to provide
concurrence or non-concurrence, expressly stating that it
was inappropriate for Plaintiff to contact counsel inasmuch
1
as Family First Life, LLC is not a party to this action and
has never been served.
• Counsel for United Omaha Life Insurance Company
graciously indicated concurrence in the motion.
• Counsel for Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance
Company expressed non-concurrence.
• Counsel for Great Western Insurance Company graciously
indicated concurrence in the motion, but reserving the right
to file an appropriate dispositive motion as to the amended
complaint.
• Counsel for Khnosavan Vongdara, Shannon Adams, Donte
C. Grant, Vanina E. Bonanno, Vanessa Isabel Powell,
Emmauel Chibuzor Igweh, and Dario Joseph Wickham has
been contacted and requested time to confer with her
clients, but has failed to respond back to Plaintiff as to the
issue of concurrence or non-concurrence.
• Pro Se Defendant Lewis Jan Friedman graciously indicated
concurrence in the motion.
The proposed First Amended Complaint seeks to name additional defendants
2
who were involved in the illegal telephone solicitation scheme, provides additional
details as to the scheme, and adds allegations as to additional calls initiated by
Defendants or Defendants’ agents in violation of TCPA regulations. Indeed, Plaintiff
has been hampered in his ability to finalize the proposed First Amended Complaint,
as Defendants or Defendants’ agents have continued to initiate illegal telemarketing
calls to Plaintiff – as recently as yesterday -- thus requiring further revisions to the
draft complaint.
The United States Supreme Court has decreed:
“Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely

given when justice so requires'; this mandate is to be
heeded... If the underlying facts or circumstances relied
upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he
ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the
merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared
reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive
on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of
the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave
sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’”
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182; 83 S. Ct. 227, 230; 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962).
Here there has been no undue delay, as this case is in its early stages, discovery
has yet to commence, and the purpose of amendment is to permit judicial economy
by having all defendants involved from the early stages as opposed to seeking to add
additional defendants after close of discovery. Plaintiff has not previously sought
3
leave to amend his complaint. There is no bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of
the Plaintiff in seeking this amendment. There is no undue prejudice to the
Defendants. And, lastly, the amendment is not futile.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter its
order granting leave to Plaintiff to amend its complaint and allowing the filing of
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
Dated: February 2, 2023 _______________________________

Mark W. Dobronski
(734) 330-9671
[email protected]
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mark W. Dobronski, certify that on February 2, 2023, I caused a copy of the

foregoing Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to be served upon all
parties of record by sending same in a sealed envelope, with first-class postage fully
prepaid thereupon, and deposited in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:
D. Peter Valiotis, Esq. Lewis Jan Friedman

Clark Hill 921 Ormsby Street
500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500 Vista, California 92084-1436
Detroit, Michigan 48226-3435
John T. Mihelick, Esq.

Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP
900 Wilshire Drive, Suite 300
Troy, Michigan 48084-1600
Jennifer W. Weller, Esq.

Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP
151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500
Chicago, Illinois 60606-1915
Matthew J. Lund, Esq.

Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
4000 Town Center, Suite 1800
Southfield, Michigan 48075-1505
Alvin Lee, Esq.

King & Spalding, LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor
New York, New York 10036-2603
_______________________________
Mark W. Dobronski
5

SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK W. DOBRONSKI, Case No.

an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
FAMILY FIRST LIFE, LLC,

a Connecticut limited liability company,
UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Nebraska corporation,
AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE AND

ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Texas corporation,
GREAT WESTERN INSURANCE

COMPANY, an Iowa corporation,
YOUR SENIOR CARE INC.,

a California corporation,
KHONSAVAN VONGDARA,
an individual,
LEWIS JAN FRIEDMAN,

a/k/a LUKE FRIEDMAN,
an individual,
1
SHANNON ADAMS
a/k/a CLAUDIA SHANNON ADAMS,
an individual,
DONTE C. GRANT,
an individual,
OLIVIA PEREZ,
an individual,
VANINA E. BONANNO,
an individual,
VANESSA ISABEL POWELL,

an individual,
EMMANUEL CHIBUZOR IGWEH,

an individual,
DARIO JOSEPH WICKHAM,

an individual,
BLAKE HUNTER SCHEIFELE,

an individual,
PAUL RYAN CHRISTLE,

an individual, and
GRETCHEN LOUISE DROUHARD,

an individual,
Defendants.
____________________________________________________________________
[PROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, MARK W. DOBRONSKI, appearing in propria
2
persona, and for his complaint against Defendants alleges:
1. This matter arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., the Michigan Telephone Companies as Common
Carriers Act (“MTCCCA”), M.C.L. § 484.101, et seq., and the Michigan Home
Solicitation Sales Act (“MHSSA”), M.C.L. § 445.101, et seq., and the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act, M.C.L. § 445.901, et seq.
Parties
2. Plaintiff is an individual, of the age of majority, a citizen of the United
States of America, has a place of business and residence in Lima Township,
Washtenaw County, Michigan, and has a place of business in the City of Westland,
Wayne County, Michigan.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant FAMILY FIRST LIFE, LLC
(“FFL”), is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Connecticut, with a principal office being located at 80 Norwich-New
London Turnpike, Uncasville, Connecticut 06382.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY (“United”) is a life and health insurer organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Nebraska, that is qualified to do business and
does business in the state of Michigan as an insurance company, and has a resident
3
agent in the state of Michigan with a registered office located at 2900 West Road,
Suite 500, East Lansing, Michigan 48823.
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE
AND ANNITY INSURANCE COMPANY (“Americo”) is a life and health insurer
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas, that is qualified to do
business and does business in the state of Michigan as an insurance company, and has
a resident agent in the state of Michigan with a registered office located at 40600 Ann
Arbor Road, East, Suite 201, Plymouth, Michigan 48170.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant GREAT WESTERN INSURANCE
COMPANY (“Western”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Iowa, that is qualified to do business and does business in the state of
Michigan as an insurance company, and has a resident agent in the state of Michigan
with a registered office located at 2900 West Road, Suite 500, East Lansing,
Michigan 48823.
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant YOUR SENIOR CARE INC.,
(“YSC”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
California, and has a principal office located at 921 Ormsby Street, Vista, California
92084.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant KHONSAVAN VONGDARA
4
(“Vongdara”) is an individual, of the age of majority, is mentally competent, is not
in the military service, resides at 339 Summer Springs Court, Jacksonville, Florida
32225, holds himself out as being a manager for Defendant FFL, and holds himself
out as being an agent for Defendants Omaha, Americo, and Western.
9. Upon information and belief, Defendant LEWIS JAN FRIEDMAN
(“Friedman”) is also known as “Luke” Friedman, is an individual, of the age of
majority, is mentally competent, is not in the military service, resides at 609 Hunter
Street, Oceanside, California 92058-1606, holds himself out as the owner of
Defendant YSC, and holds himself as being an agent for Defendants Americo and
Western.
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant SHANNON ADAMS (“Adams”),
is also known as Claudia Shannon Adams, is an individual, of the age of majority, is
mentally competent, is not in the military service, resides at 2 Blake Drive, Fairfield,
Connecticut 06824, and holds herself out as being employed by Defendant FFL and
as being an agent for Defendant Americo.
11. Upon information and belief, Defendant DONTE C. GRANT (“Grant”) is
an individual, of the age of majority, is mentally competent, is not in the military
service, resides at 66 Myrtle Avenue, North Plainfield, New Jersey 07060, and holds
himself out as an employee of Defendant FFL and an agent for Defendants United
5
and Americo.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant OLIVIA PEREZ (“Perez”) is an
individual, of the age of majority, is mentally competent, is not in the military service,
residents at 801 Felix Avenue North, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971, and holds herself
out as an employee of Defendant FFL and an agent for Defendants United and
Americo.
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant VANINA E. BONANNO
(“Bonanno”) is an individual, of the age of majority, is mentally competent, is not in
the military service, resides at 60 Shale Hill Road, Sussex, New Jersey 07461, and
holds herself out as an employee of Defendant FFL and an agent for Defendant
United.
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant VANESSA ISABEL POWELL
(“Powell”) is an individual, of the age of majority, is mentally competent, is not in the
military service, resides at 9051 East Winchcomb Drive, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260-
7006, and holds herself out as an employee of Defendant FFL and an agent for
Defendant United.
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant EMMANUEL CHIBUZOR
IGWEH (“Igweh”) is an individual, of the age of majority, is mentally competent, is
not in the military service, resides at 10619 Northwest 43rd Street, Sunrise, Florida
6
33351-8337, and holds himself out as an employee of Defendant FFL and an agent
for Defendants Americo and United.
16. Upon information and belief, Defendant DARIO JOSEPH WICKHAM
(“Wickham”) is an individual, of the age of majority, is mentally competent, is not in
the military service, resides at 517 Ralph Avenue, #2, Brooklyn, New York 11233-
4999, and holds himself out as an agent of Defendant Americo.
17. Upon information and belief, Defendant BLAKE HUNTER SCHEIFELE
(“Scheifele”) is an individual, of the age of majority, is mentally competent, is not in
the military service resides at 227 Sweet Bay Circle, Jupiter, Florida 33458-2819,
himself out as a manager at Defendant FFL, and holds himself out as an agent of,
inter alia, Defendant Western.
18. Upon information and belief, Defendant PAUL RYAN CHRISTLE
(“Christle”) is an individual, of the age of majority, is mentally competent, is not in
the military service resides at 7843 154th Court North, West Palm Beach, Florida
33418-7364, holds himself out as an employee or agent of Defendant FFL, and holds
himself out as an agent of, inter alia, Defendants Western and Omaha.
19. Upon information and belief, Defendant GRETCHEN LOUISE
DROUHARD (“Drouhard”) is an individual, of the age of majority, is mentally
competent, is not in the military service resides at 1300 East Meadowlark Boulevard,
7
Apartment 32-203 Derby, Kansas 67037-9508, holds herself out as an employee or
agent of Defendant FFL, and holds herself out as an agent of Defendant Omaha.
Jurisdiction
20. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
21. This Court has limited personal jurisdiction over Defendants FFL, United,
Americo, Western, and YSC pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.715, as a result of the
defendant transacting any business within the state; and/or doing or causing any act
to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort; and/or
contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time
of contracting.
22. In addition, Defendants United, Americo, and Western are each licensed,
pursuant to M.C.L. § 500.402, et seq., by the Michigan Department of Insurance and
Financial Services (“MDIFS”) to act as insurers and to transact insurance in the state
of Michigan.
23. This Court has limited personal jurisdiction over Defendants Vongdara,
Friedman, Adams, Grant, Perez, Bonanno, Powell, Igweh, Wickham, Schiefele,
Christle, and Drouhard pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.705, as a result of the defendant
transacting any business within the state; and/or doing or causing any act to be done,
8
or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort; and/or
contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time
of contracting.
24. In addition, Defendants Vongdara, Friedman, Adams, Grant, Bonanno,
Powell, Igweh, Wickham, Scheifele, Christle, and Drouhard each are licensed,
pursuant to M.C.L. § 500.1201a, et seq., by the MDIFS to act as insurance producers
to sell, solicit, and negotiate insurance in the state of Michigan.
Venue
25. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as the
tortious or illegal telephone calls complained of herein were received in this judicial
district.
The Telemarketing Laws
26. In response to widespread public outrage over intrusive telemarketing calls
to homes and businesses, the United States Congress acted to prevent entities, like
Defendant, from invading American citizen’s privacy and to prevent abusive “robo-
calls” by enacting the TCPA.
27. According to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”),
“Unwanted calls and texts are the number one complaint to the FCC. There are
thousands of complaints to the FCC every month on both telemarketing and
9
robocalls.”
28. Congress explicitly found that robo-calling is an invasion of privacy.
29. In regard to such telephone solicitations, Senator Hollings of South
Carolina, the primary sponsor of the bill, explained, “computerized calls are the
scourge of modern civilization. They wake us up in the morning; they interrupt our
dinner at night; they force the sick and elderly out of bed; they hound us until we
want to rip the telephone right out of the wall... these computerized telephone calls
threaten our personal safety... These machines are out of control, and their use is
growing by 30 percent every year. It is telephone terrorism, and it has got to stop....”
See In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, 17 FCC Rcd. 17459, 17474, fn. 90 (2002), quoting 137 Cong.
Rec. 30,821-30,822 (Nov. 7, 1991).
30. According to YourMail, Inc., a company which tracks robocall activity and
publishes the YouMail Robocall Index, during calendar year 2021 alone, American
consumers were bombarded with over 50.5 billion robocalls; an average of over 150
robocalls to each man, woman, and child. [Source: www.robocallindex.com ].
31. In 2021, nearly 1 in 3 Americans say they have fallen victim to a phone
scam in the past year, with reported losses to phone scams exceeding $29.8 Billion.
[Source: www.cndb.com/2021/06/29/americans-list-billions-of-dollars-to-phone-
10
scams-over-the-past-year.html ].
32. Congress has found that interstate telemarketing fraud has become a
problem of such magnitude that the resources of the Government are not sufficient
to ensure adequate consumer protection from such fraud.
33. As a result, in enacting the TCPA, Congress intentionally created a legally
enforceable bounty system, not unlike qui tam statutes, to incentivize the assistance
of aggrieved private citizens to act as “private attorneys general” in enforcing federal
law.
34. The TCPA, at 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), promulgates in relevant part as follows:
“Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment
(1) Prohibitions It shall be unlawful for any person within

the United States, or any person outside the United States
if the recipient is within the United States—
(A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency
purposes or made with the prior express consent of the
called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system
or an artificial or prerecorded voice— ...
(iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service,

cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service,
or other radio common carrier service, or any service for
which the called party is charged for the call, unless such
call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed
by the United States;
(B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential

telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to
11
deliver a message without the prior express consent of the

called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency
purposes, is made solely pursuant to the collection of a
debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States, or is
exempted by rule or order by the Commission under
paragraph (2)(B)....”
35. Pursuant to authority delegated by Congress to the FCC under the TCPA
at 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2), the FCC has adopted regulations to implement and carry out
the TCPA.
36. The TCPA implementing regulations, at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, promulgate
in relevant part:
“(a) No person or entity may:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section,

initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for
emergency purposes or is made with the prior express
consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; ...
(iii) To any telephone number assigned to a paging service,

cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service,
or other radio common carrier service, or any service for
which the called party is charged for the call...
(2) Initiate, or cause to be initiated, any telephone call that

includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes
telemarketing, using an automatic telephone dialing system
or an artificial or prerecorded voice, to any of the lines or
telephone numbers described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this section, other than a call made with the
prior express written consent of the called party or the prior
express consent of the called party when the call is made
12
by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization, or

a call that delivers a “health care” message made by, or on
behalf of, a “covered entity” or its “business associate,” as
those terms are defined in the HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45
CFR 160.103.
(3) Initiate any telephone call to any residential line using

an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message
without the prior express written consent of the called
party, unless the call;
(i) Is made for emergency purposes;
(ii) Is not made for a commercial purpose;
(iii) Is made for a commercial purpose but does not include

or introduce an advertisement or constitute telemarketing;
(iv) Is made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit

organization; or
(v) Delivers a “health care” message made by, or on behalf

of, a “covered entity” or its “business associate,” as those
terms are defined in the HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 CFR
160.103...
(d) No person or entity shall initiate any call for

telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone
subscriber unless such person or entity has instituted
procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request
not to receive telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of
that person or entity. The procedures instituted must meet
the following minimum standards:
(1) Written policy. Persons or entities making calls for

telemarketing purposes must have a written policy,
available upon demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list.
13
(2) Training of personnel engaged in telemarketing.

Personnel engaged in any aspect of telemarketing must be
informed and trained in the existence and use of the
do-not-call list.
(3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a

person or entity making a call for telemarketing purposes
(or on whose behalf such a call is made) receives a request
from a residential telephone subscriber not to receive calls
from that person or entity, the person or entity must record
the request and place the subscriber's name, if provided,
and telephone number on the do-not-call list at the time the
request is made. Persons or entities making calls for
telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such calls are
made) must honor a residential subscriber's do-not-call
request within a reasonable time from the date such request
is made. This period may not exceed thirty days from the
date of such request. If such requests are recorded or
maintained by a party other than the person or entity on
whose behalf the telemarketing call is made, the person or
entity on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made will
be liable for any failures to honor the do-not-call request.
A person or entity making a call for telemarketing purposes
must obtain a consumer's prior express permission to share
or forward the consumer's request not to be called to a
party other than the person or entity on whose behalf a
telemarketing call is made or an affiliated entity.
(4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or

entity making a call for telemarketing purposes must
provide the called party with the name of the individual
caller, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the
call is being made, and a telephone number or address at
which the person or entity may be contacted. The telephone
number provided may not be a 900 number or any other
number for which charges exceed local or long distance
transmission charges. . .
14
(6) Maintenance of do-not-call lists. A person or entity

making calls for telemarketing purposes must maintain a
record of a consumer's request not to receive further
telemarketing calls. A do-not-call request must be honored
for 5 years from the time the request is made. . . .”
37. The TCPA implementing regulations at, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601, additionally
promulgate in relevant part:
“(e) Any person or entity that engages in telemarketing, as

defined in section 64.1200(f)(10) must transmit caller
identification information.
(1) For purposes of this paragraph, caller identification

information must include either CPN or ANI, and,
when available by the telemarketer's carrier, the name
of the telemarketer. It shall not be a violation of this
paragraph to substitute (for the name and phone number
used in, or billed for, making the call) the name of the
seller on behalf of which the telemarketing call is placed
and the seller's customer service telephone number. The
telephone number so provided must permit any
individual to make a do-not-call request during regular
business hours.
(2) Any person or entity that engages in telemarketing is

prohibited from blocking the transmission of caller
identification information.” [Emphasis added.]
38. The TCPA, at 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), provides for a private right of action,
as follows:
“PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. A person or entity

may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of
a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State –
15
(A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the

regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin
such violation,
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such

a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such
violation, whichever is greater, or
(C) both such actions.
If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly

violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under
this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the
amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than
3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of
this paragraph.” [Emphasis added.]
39. Pursuant to Congressional mandate set forth at 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1), the
FCC adopted regulations establishing a national “do not call” database and
prohibiting any person from making or transmitting a telephone solicitation to the
telephone number of any subscriber included in such database, which regulations are
set forth at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), and promulgate in relevant part:
“No person or entity shall initiate any telephone

solicitation to:...
“(2) A residential telephone subscriber who has registered

his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call
registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone
solicitations that is maintained by the Federal
Government....”
40. Additionally, the TCPA, at 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), provides for a private
16
right of action, as follows:
“Private right of action. A person who has received more

than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or
on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations
prescribed under this subsection may, if otherwise
permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State bring in an
appropriate court of that State—
(A) an action based on a violation of the regulations

prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such

a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for each
such violation, whichever is greater, or
(C) both such actions.
It shall be an affirmative defense in any action brought

under this paragraph that the defendant has established and
implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and
procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in
violation of the regulations prescribed under this
subsection. If the court finds that the defendant willfully or
knowingly violated the regulations prescribed under this
subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the
amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than
3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of
this paragraph.”
41. The “do not call” proscriptions also are applicable to cellular or wireless
telephone numbers, as set forth at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), which states:
“The rules set forth in paragraph (c) and (d) in this section
are applicable to any person or entity making telephone
solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone
numbers....”
17
42. The FCC has declared that telephone subscribers who have listed their
wireless telephone number on the national do-not-call list are deemed to be
“residential subscribers”. See In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, 14039, ¶ 36
(2003).
43. The MTCCCA, at M.C.L. § 484.125, promulgates in relevant part as
follows:
“(2) A caller shall not use a telephone line to contact a

subscriber at the subscriber’s residence, business, or toll-
free telephone number to do either of the following: ...
(a) Deliver a recorded message for the purpose of

presenting commercial advertising to the subscriber, unless
either of the following occurs:
(i) The subscriber has knowingly and voluntarily requested,

consented, permitted, or authorized the contact from the
caller.
(ii) The subscriber has knowingly and voluntarily provided

his or her telephone number to the caller.
(b) Deliver or attempt to deliver intrastate commercial

advertising if the caller activates a feature to block the
display of caller identification information that would
otherwise be available to the subscriber...
(5) A subscriber contacted by a caller in violation of this

section may bring an action to recover damages of
$1,000.00, together with reasonable attorneys' fees...
18
(9) A caller who violates this section is guilty of a

misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $1,000.00 or
imprisonment for 10 days, or both.”
44. The MHSSA, at M.C.L. § 445.111a(5), promulgates:
“. . . A telephone solicitor shall not make a telephone

solicitation to a residential telephone subscriber whose
name and residential telephone number is on the
then-current version of the federal [do-not-call] list.”
45. The MHSSA, at M.C.L. § 445.111b, promulgates in relevant part:
“(1) At the beginning of a telephone solicitation, a person

making a telephone solicitation to a residential telephone
subscriber shall state his or her name and the full name of
the organization or other person on whose behalf the call
was initiated and provide a telephone number of the
organization or other person on request. A natural person
must be available to answer the telephone number at any
time when telephone solicitations are being made....”
46. The MHSSA, at M.C.L. § 445.111c, promulgates in relevant part as
follows:
“(1) It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a

violation of this act for a telephone solicitor to do any of
the following:...
(f) Fail to comply with the requirements of section 1a or

1b.
(2) ... [A] person who knowingly or intentionally violates

this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment for not more than 6 months or a fine of not
more than $500.00, or both.
19
(3) A person who suffers loss as a result of violation of this

section may bring an action to recover actual damages or
$250.00, whichever is greater, together with reasonable
attorney fees.”
47. Plaintiff’s residential and cellular telephone lines have been besieged with
telemarketing calls hawking such things as alarm systems, Google listings,
automobile warranties, health insurance, life insurance, credit cards, and even
financial miracles from God. Some calls are blatant scams, including calls
purportedly from the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration, and other government agencies, claiming that arrest warrants have
been issued against Plaintiff for alleged drug trafficking and money laundering
activities.
48. Plaintiff’s residential telephone numbers are ***-***-0222, ***-***-1000,
***-***-1212 and ***-***-2424.
49. Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number is ***-***-9671.
50. Plaintiff utilizes his cellular telephone primarily for personal, family, and
household use.
51. Plaintiff’s residential telephone numbers ***-***-1212 and ***-***-2424,
and Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ***-***-9671, are each listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry maintained by the United States Federal Trade
Commission pursuant to 16 C.F.R. Part 310 and have been so listed continuously
20
since at least December 9. 2004 and at all times subsequent thereto.
52. Plaintiff’s residential telephone number ***-***-0222 is listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry maintained by the United States Federal Trade
Commission pursuant to 16 C.F.R. Part 310 and have been so listed continuously
since at least August 24, 2022 and at all times subsequent thereto.
53. By listing his residential and cellular telephone numbers on the National
Do Not Call Registry, Plaintiff has given constructive notice to the world, including
each and every one of the Defendants, that Plaintiff does not wish to receive
telephone solicitations or robocalls at his residential and/or cellular telephone
numbers.
54. The FCC has issued a declaratory ruling defining “called party” as “the
subscriber, i.e., the consumer assigned the telephone number dialed and billed for the
call, or the non-subscriber customary user of a telephone number included in a
family or business calling plan.” In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing
the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02–278, WC Docket No.
07–135, FCC 15–72, 2015 WL 4387780, at *26 ¶ 73 (FCC July 10, 2015) [Emphasis
added].
55. Plaintiff is a customary user of the called telephone lines, is the one that
was the actual recipient of the telephone calls at issue in this complaint, and suffered
21
the nuisance and invasion of privacy of same. Thus, Plaintiff has standing to bring
this action for alleged violations of TCPA’s robocall provisions. See Leyse v. Bank
of America Nat. Ass'n, 804 F.3d 316, 324 (C.A.3, 2015).
56. At no time relevant hereto has Plaintiff or any other authorized person
requested, consented, permitted, or authorized the contact from the Defendant.
57. At no time has Plaintiff provided permission to the Defendant to engage
in telephone solicitation with the Plaintiff via telephone.
58. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 217, the act, omission, or failure of any officer,
agent, or other person acting for or employed by an common carrier or user, acting
within the scope of his employment, shall in every case also be deemed to be the act,
omission, or failure of such carrier or user as well as that of the person.
59. Courts are legally bound to give great deference to the FCC’s
interpretations of the TCPA and its own regulations.
60. The FCC has clarified that sellers may be held vicariously liable for
violations of the TCPA by third-party telemarketers that initiate calls to market the
seller’s products or services, declaring as follows:
“[A] company on whose behalf a telephone solicitation is

made bears the responsibility for any violation of our
telemarketing rules and calls placed by a third party on
behalf of that company are treated as if the company itself
placed the call.”
22
In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991, Declaratory Ruling, 20 FCC Rcd 13664, 13667, ¶ 7 (2005).
61. When considering individual corporate officer liability, other Courts have
agreed that a corporate officer involved in the telemarketing at issue may be
personally liable under the TCPA. See, e.g., Jackson Five Star Catering, Inc. v.
Beason, No. 10-10010, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155985, *10 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8,
2013) (“[M]any courts have held that corporate actors can be individually liable for
violating the TCPA where they had direct, personal participating in or personally
authorized the conduct found to have violated the statute.”) (internal citation
omitted); Maryland v. Universal Elections, 787 F. Supp. 2d 408, 415-16 (D.MD.
2011) (“If an individual acting on behalf of a corporation could avoid individual
liability, the TCPA would lose much of its force.”).
62. It is well settled under Michigan law that corporate employees and officials
are personally liable for all tortious and criminal acts in which they participate,
regardless of whether they are acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a
corporation. A corporate officer or director is, in general, personally liable for all
torts which he authorizes or directs or in which he participates, notwithstanding that
he acted as an agent for the corporation and not on his own behalf.
63. For each and every call alleged herein initiated to Plaintiff’s telephone line,
23
Plaintiff suffered the injury of invasion of privacy and intrusion on Plaintiff’s right
of seclusion.
Plaintiff suffered the injury of the occupation of the telephone line by unwelcome
calls, making the phone unavailable for legitimate callers or outgoing calls, including
emergency calls, when the telephone line was seized by Defendant’s calls.
Defendants caused an injury in the form of a nuisance and annoyance to the Plaintiff.
For calls that were answered, Plaintiff had to go to the unnecessary trouble of
answering them. Even for unanswered calls, Plaintiff had to deal with missed call
notifications and call logs that reflected the unwanted calls. This also impaired the
usefulness of these features on Plaintiff’s telephone, which features are designed to
inform the user of important missed communications.
66. Each and every call placed without consent by Defendants alleged herein
to Plaintiff’s telephone lines resulted in the injury of a trespass to Plaintiff’s chattel,
namely Plaintiff’s telephone line and its telephone services.
67. For purposes of the TCPA, the FCC has defined “willfully or knowingly”
to mean that the violator knew that he was doing the act in question, in this case,
initiating a telephone solicitation, irrespective of any intent to violate the law. A
24
violator need not know that his action or inaction constitutes a violation; ignorance
of the law is not a defense or mitigating circumstance.
Allegations Specific to this Complaint
68. Defendant FFL is in the business of distributing life insurance.
69. FFL uses a multi-level marketing scheme termed an “Insurance Marketing
Organization” (“IMO”) that is well-established within the life insurance industry.
70. Under this model, IMOs contract directly with insurance carriers who then
provide life insurance products that are sold through the IMO.
71. The IMO then employs independent contractors, commonly known as
“agents” to who market and distribute the carrier’s insurance products to consumers.
The IMO then assists by facilitating the entry of a contract between the IMO’s several
insurance carriers and the agent so that t agent may market the carrier’s insurance
products.
72. As in a typical multi-level marketing scheme, agents can recruit other
agents to become part of their selling organization at the IMO. The selling
organization above or beneath a particular agent is commonly referred to,
respectively, as that agent’s “upline” or “downline.”
73. An enrolled agent is eligible to earn commission’s through the IMO’s
compensation plan for any insurance product that the agent sells, after the IMO first
25
deducts its commission from the sale of the carrier’s products.
74. The enrolled agent also earns commissions on insurance products sold by
the enrolled agent’s “downline” agents.
75. As part of its marketing program, FFL sells telemarketing “leads” to its
agents of consumers.
76. FFL represents to its agents that FFL is a superior IMO over others
because it has access to “exclusive,” “fresh” leads that are “newly generated” and
have “never been used.” Leads, according to FFL, are potential clients who are
seeking insurance products.
77. FFL sells these leads to its agents at a premium price. Agents will spend
hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars purchasing the leads, believing them to be
people in dire need of insurance who have yet to be contacted. Upon information and
belief, FFL earns millions of dollars per week selling leads to its agents.
78. In addition to telemarketing leads, FFL also provides its agents with access
to automated telephone dialing platforms and services to facilitate telephoning
consumers en masse to market the IMO’s insurance carriers’ products. These
automated telephone dialing platforms use a random number or sequential number
generator and have the capacity to call persons at random with no human
involvement.
26
79. FFL promotes telemarketing to its agents as being essential if the agents
want to be successful in marketing FFL’s IMO’s insurance carriers’ products, and that
the “high quality” leads supplied by FFL will facilitate the agent being successful.
80. Defendant FFL is well aware that the automated telephone dialing
platforms and telemarketing activities which it directs its agents to utilize are illegal
and violate the TCPA, as Defendant FFL has been haled into various federal district
courts by plaintiffs relative to said tortious activity.
81. Additionally, is well aware of its involvement in illegal telemarketing as
FFL has been the subject of numerous complaints to the Better Business Bureau and
other consumer oriented agencies regarding the illegal telemarketing engaged in by
FFL and its agents. Examples of such complaints appearing on the BBB web site
include:
27
82. Defendant FFL is well aware that the “high quality leads” which FFL foists
upon its agents for money are of dubious quality and, certainly, not supported by any
form of prior express written consent from any of the consumers, as FFL has been
previously haled into various federal district courts relative to FFL’s fraudulent lead
practices.
83. Defendant FFL resells the same “exclusive”, “high quality” leads to
multiple agents, knowingly allowing multiple agents to contact the same consumers
to attempt to sell multiple insurance policies.
84. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has issued a cease and desist
demand to FFL after determining that FFL has engaged in making unlawful
misrepresentations to its prospective agents regarding the FFL business opportunity.
See EXHIBIT 1.
85. Defendants United, Americo, and Western (collectively the “Insurance
Companues”) are insurance companies engaged in providing insurance products to
consumers across the United States, and relevant hereto, in particular to consumers
in the state of Michigan.
86. The Insurance Companies are insurance carriers who contract with FFL as
part of this multi-level scheme.
28
87. The Insurance Companies are each well aware that FFL and its agents
engage in illegal telemarketing to sell their respective insurance products, but said
defendants engage in willful blindness and disregard evidence of said illegal
telemarketing as said defendants make substantial income resultant from the aforesaid
illegal telemarketing activities.
88. Indeed, each of the Insurance Companies lend support to the illegal
telemarketing activities by giving the agents access to their respective computer
systems for purposes of pricing data and entering prospective insureds’ application
information, as well as the authority to use the company’s trademark and service
market – all hallmarks of actual authority; and said defendants ratify the illegal
telemarketing activities by accepting and processing the applications for insurance
so received.
89. Defendants Vongdara, Adams, Grant, Perez, Bonanno, Powell, Igweh, and
Wickham (hereinafter the “Agents”) are each either employees or authorized agents
of FFL and authorized agents for one or more of the Insurance Companies.
90. Defendants YSC and Friedman are authorized agents for one of more of
the Insurance Companies.
91. As part of their overall telemarketing program, Defendant FFL and the
Agents will outsource their outbound telemarketing to call centers utilizing automated
29
telephone dialing systems to initiate telephone calls en masse to consumers to
develop prospective buyers for the insurance products.
92. The fact that many of telephone calls are placed using automated telephone
dialing systems is indicated when calls are received with multi-second delays and/or
a “boink” or clicking sound is heard before a live telemarketer comes on the line,
when the call is simply dead air, and when the caller identification number display is
“spoofed” or manipulated to display a false telephone number.
93. These call centers are usually located outside the United States, typically
in the Asian continent, and thus usually outside the reach of United States laws and
law enforcement authorities.
94. The call centers, in turn, hire individuals to act as lead generators – known
in telemarketing parlance as “ropers” – to pre-qualify called consumers as to whether
the consumer meets the qualification criteria for specific insurance products.
95. The lead generator or “roper” will engage in deceptive and illegal
techniques to solicit consumers, including, inter alia: manipulating the caller
identification such that the caller cannot be easily identified or called back;
identifying with a false or generic-sounding business name; deliberately calling
telephone numbers which appear on the National Do Not Call Registry; refusing to
provide identifying information to the called party upon inquiry; uttering profanities
30
to or otherwise threatening or harassing the called party if the consumer does not
cooperate by expressing interest or providing requested personal information or the
called party requests not to be called.
96. Once a lead generator or “roper” has a consumer who meets the
qualification criteria – referred to in telemarketing slang as the “mark” – the lead
generator will then live transfer the call to an Agent who will then attempt to close
the sale of the insurance product to the consumer. It is usually only late at this stage
that a called party might learn any identifying information as to the source of the
telephone call.
97. FFL, the Agents, and the Insurance Companies all are well aware of the
illegal tactics being used by their contracted call centers, but are deliberately
indifferent to what is occurring so as to be able to represent that they are “unaware”
of the illegal telemarketing conduct.
98. In the past 12 months alone, Plaintiff has received well over 500 telephone
calls from telemarketers who have falsified or “spoofed” their caller identification and
who have identify as being with “Senior Benefits”, “American Benefits”, “Medicare
Benefits” or similar generic sounding names, and during which call where Plaintiff
was unable to develop the true identify of the ultimately responsible seller.
99. Because the telemarketers engage in such deceptive practices designed to
31
conceal their actual identities, Plaintiff has had to engage in various investigative
techniques to identify the sources of the telemarketing calls being received.
100. One investigative technique utilized by Plaintiff is termed a “canary trap”,
wherein Plaintiff provides false, but unique, identifying information during each
received call, in particular a unique name. If and when that unique information
surfaces at a later date, a tie-in between the two events, and hence the ability to
identify the source call, is able to be made.
101. As discovery progresses in this case and Plaintiff is able to learn the
identity or identities of the call centers that Defendants have utilized to initiate the
telephone solicitations, Plaintiff will seek to amend this complaint to add the call
centers as additional named defendants.
Call Number 1
102. On July 30, 2021, at approximately 6:47 P.M., Defendants or Defendants’
agent initiated a call to Plaintiff’s residential telephone line ***-***-2424.
103. The caller identification number displayed was 734-419-5984 and the
caller identification name displayed was WAYNE MI.
104. Upon answering the telephone line, Plaintiff observed a 4-5 second delay
after saying “hello” before a live telemarketer who identified himself as “John with
American Senior Benefits” came onto the line.
32
105. “John” then proceeded to pre-qualify Plaintiff for a life insurance policy
and sought personal information from Plaintiff. “John” already knew Plaintiff’s name
(Mark Dobronski).
106. The call was then transferred to an individual who identified himself as
“Ryan Hensen... a licensed insurance agent in the state of Michigan.”
107. “Ryan” then attempted to sell Plaintiff a $20,000 life insurance policy
issued by United for a premium of $131.00 per month.
108. “Ryan” then sought Plaintiff’s address, date of birth, medical information,
driver’s license number, and social security number, to which Plaintiff provided
controlled (false) information.
109. The call was then transferred to a female telemarketer who identified
herself as “Vanina Martin” with “Mutual of Omaha”.
110. “Vanina” then went over the information that Plaintiff had provided to
“Ryan” earlier. “Vanina” referred to “Ryan” as “Isaac.”
111. “Vanina” sought an email address for Plaintiff, to which Plaintiff
provided a controlled email address.
112. Immediately after the termination of the telephone call, Plaintiff dialed
back the caller identification number displayed (734-419-5984) and received a
recording that the telephone number was disconnected.
33
113. On July 30, 2021, at 7:37 P.M., Plaintiff received an email at the
controlled email address from a Vanina Bonanno which included an application for
life insurance with United. The application had been pre-filled with the controlled
information which Plaintiff had provided during Call Number 1, supra.
Call Number 2
114. On August 3, 2021, at approximately 7:02 P.M., Defendants or
Defendants’ agent initiated a call to Plaintiff’s residential telephone line ***-***-
2424.
caller identification name displayed was WILLIAM PARTY.
116. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff observed a 4-5 second delay after
saying “hello” when a male voice came on and asked “Hey Mark, how you doing?”
117. Plaintiff asked who was calling and the caller identified himself as
“Isaac.”
118. Despite Plaintiff inquiring, “Isaac” would not identify what company he
was calling on behalf of.
119. “Isaac” made reference to the life insurance policy which Plaintiff had
purchased “last week” and then transferred the call to “Vanina”.
120. “Vanina” then went over the life insurance application which had been
34
emailed to Plaintiff the previous week.
121. Plaintiff then confronted “Vanina” regarding the source of the calls, to
which “Vanina” indicated that the calls were from “their call center” and their job was
to screen calls and forward them to “Vanina.”
122. Upon the termination of the telephone call, Plaintiff dialed the caller
identification number displayed (734-434-2391). The call was answered “Williams
Party Store”, which is a small mom-and-pop party store located in Ypsilanti,
Michigan. Plaintiff inquired of the person answering whether anyone had called
Plaintiff soliciting life insurance to which the person answering stated that they were
the only person working at the store and nobody had used the telephone.
Call Number 3
123. On April 9, 2022, at approximately 1:03 P.M., Defendants or Defendants’
agent initiatied a call to Plaintiff’s residential telephone line ***-***-1212.
124. The caller identification number displayed was 734-899-2113.
125. A recorded message from “Brad from U.S. Benefits” was heard which
recorded message sought Plaintiff to respond with his age. Plaintiff responded “67".
126. The was then transferred to a live telemarketer who began pre-qualifying
Plaintiff. Plaintiff provided the name “Arthur Heaton” to the caller.
127. After the termination of the call, Plaintiff dialed telephone number 734-
35
899-2113, which simply rang and was not answered.
Call Number 4
128. On April 11, 2022, at approximately 5:43 P.M., Defendants or
Defendants’ agent initiated a call to Plaintiff’s residential telephone number ***-***-
1212.
caller identification name displayed was PLYMOUTH MI.
Plaintiff said “hello”, at which time a live telemarketer who identified himself as
“John with Life Benefits” came on the line. The telemarketer then asked for
identifying information. Plaintiff provided the name “Derrick Simpson”.
131. The call was then transferred to a female who stated that she was a
“licensed agent” licensed in Michigan, her name was Anna Siago, her call back
telephone number was 904-572-1050, and she was an agent for United. Amongst the
information sought by Siago was an email address for “Derrick Simpson”, to which
Plaintiff provided a controlled email address.
132. Siago then quoted for and qualified “Derrick Simpson” for a $30,000 life
insurance policy.
133. At the conclusion of the call, Plaintiff dialed back the caller identifcation
36
number displayed (734-420-1658) and received a recording that the number was
disconnected.
134. On April 11, 2022, at 7:05 P.M., Plaintiff received an email addressed to
Derrick Simpson from Kohnsavan Vongdara forwarding an United individual life
insurance application for “Derrick Simpson.” The information contained in the
application included the personal identifying information supplied by Plaintiff to
Siago during the course of Call Number 2. The application purports to show the
signature of “Derrick Simpson” and includes a certification by Vongdara that he “read
and explained the terms” to “Derrick Simpson.”
135. Despite diligent search, Plaintiff has been unable to identify any female
with the surname “Siago” who is a licensed insurance agent anywhere in the United
States and specifically none licensed in Michigan.
136. During the course of discovery, should Plaintiff discover the true identity
of “Anna Siago”, Plaintiff intends to amend this Complaint to include Siago as an
additional defendant.
Call Number 5
137. On April 12, 2022, at approximately 3:42 P.M., Defendants or
Defendants’ agent initiated a call to Plaintiff’s residential telephone number ***-***-
1212.
37
139. Upon answering the telephone, there was a “boink” sound followed by
a 4-5 second delay before a live telemarketer came on to the line and identified
himself as “Benjamin with Senior Benefits.”
140. “Benjamin” asked to speak with “Mr. Simpson.”
141. Benjamin sought personal identifying information from Plaintiff,
including age, date of birth, and address. Benjamin asked Plaintiff to verify that his
first name was Derrick.
herself as Olivia Perez, stated that she was a licensed insurance agent, and that she
worked for FFL. Perez then attempted to sell Plaintiff a life insurance policy with
Americo and another with United. Perez provided her telephone number as 904-572-
1050, which is a disconnected telephone number.
143. During the call, Plaintiff inquired about the “guy at the beginning of the
call who spoke poor English”, to which Perez explained that the male was “our lead
generation specialist... his job is to transfer the call to [her].”
144. At the conclusion of the call, Plaintiff dialed back telephone number 734-
420-1559 and received a recording that the number was disconnected.
38
Call Number 6
145. On April 19, 2022, at approximately 10:37 A.M., Defendants or
1212.
147. Upon answering the telephone line there was a 5-6 second delay before
a female telemarketer came onto the line and identified herself as “Olivia” with
“Family First Life” and asked for “Arthur Heaton.”
148. During the call, Olivia identified herself as Olivia Perez, and wanted to
review a $20,000 life insurance policy.
Call Number 7
149. On May 26, 2022, at approximately 11:41 A.M., Defendant or
1000.
150. The caller identification number displayed was 734-911-9748, which is
an invalid telephone number.
151. Upon answering the telephone line there was a 5-6 second delay before
a telemarketer came onto the line and identified himself as Mark.
152. The telemarketer asked pre-qualifying questions, including seeking the
39
called party’s name, to which Plaintiff responded with the name “Alexander Burke.”
herself as being Vanessa Powell with FFL First Life. Plaintiff was able to elicit the
following information from Powell, inter alia: her insurance producer number is
19739892, and her cell phone is 760-617-8812. Powell then pitched to Plaintiff an
“indexed universal life policy” with United in the amount of $50,000.00.
154. On May 26, 2022, at 12:12 P.M., Plaintiff received an email to Plaintiff’s
controlled email addressed to Alexander Burke from Powell which included a
completed application for life insurance in the name of “Alexander Burke” from
United.
Call Number 8
155. On May 31, 2022, at approximately 5:23 P.M., Defendant or Defendants’
156. The caller identification number displayed was 734-499-0082, and the
caller identification name displayed was “V5311705900022".
157. Upon answering the line, Plaintiff observed a 4-5 second delay, a click,
and then a live telemarketer introduced himself as “Zack” with “Senior Benefits.”
158. Zack then engaged in pre-qualifying Plaintiff for life insurance. Amongs
personal information requested by Zack, Plaintiff provided a “canary trap” name of
40
“David McAfree”.
159. The call was then transferred to a licensed agent who identified herself
as “Olivia Perez” of “Family First Life” and located in Jacksonville, Florida.
160. Perez attempted to sell Plaintiff a $$20,000 life insurance policy from
Americo.
161. Perez provided her call back number as 904-453-8842, which was later
determined to be a non-working telephone number.
162. During the call, Plaintiff confronted Perez regarding the telemarketer who
identified himself as Zack who initiated the call, to which Perez responded that the
telemarketer works for her company from one of two transfer centers, one located in
Pakistan and the other in the Phillipines, and that they utilize a database of all people
over the age of 65 and randomly call the telephone numbers of those people.
163. Immediately after the termination of the call, Plaintiff dialed the caller
identification number displayed (734-499-0082), which was a non-working telephone
number.
Call Number 9
164. On June 1, 2022, at approximately 10:33 A.M., Defendants or
1212.
41
caller identification name displayed was NO NAME.
166. Upon answering the telephone line, the telemarketer asked for “Mr.
McAfree” and identified herself as “Olivia” with “Family First Life.”
167. Olivia advised that “Mr. McAfree” had been approved for a $20,000
triple indemnity death insurance policy with Americo.
identification number displayed (904-453-8842), which was a non-working telephone
number.
169. On or about June 2, 2022, Plaintiff was mailed a life insurance policy
issued by Americo to the “canary trap” name of David McAfree. The copy of the
application included therewith purports to show a signature of David McAfree which
was allegedly witnessed by Vongdara on May 31, 2022 in Michigan.
Call Number 10
170. On June 7, 2022, at approximately 12:17 P.M., Defendants or
1212.
42
172. Upon answering the telephone, Plaintiff observed approximately a five
(5) second delay before a live telemarketer came onto the line and identified himself
as “James” with “Final Expense” and asked for “Derrick Simpson.”
173. “James” then began to pre-qualify Plaintiff for life insurance.
174. The call was then transferred to an individual who identified himself as
“Chris Martin” with “Family First Life” who stated that he was a licensed insurance
agent and continued to pre-qualify Plaintiff. Plaintiff inquired as to Martin’s license
number, to which Martin provided the number “M6071217"; upon review the number
appears to be false. Upon inquiry, Martin provided his telephone number as 304-512-
0932; dialing back the number merely rings.
175 The call was then transferred to an individual who identified himself as
“Jacob Taylor” in the “Final Expense Department”, who then began quoting rates for
a life insurance policy with Americo. Plaintiff inquired as to Taylor’s license
number, to which Taylor responded 19247602; upon review the number appears to
be false. Upon inquiry, Taylor also provided his telephone number as 304-449-6165.
176. Upon termination of the call, Plaintiff dialed back the caller identification
number display (734-420-1419), which was a disconnected number.
Call Number 11
177. On June 16, 2022, at approximately 10:47 A.M., Defendants or
43
1212.
caller identification name displayed was TECHNFL.
179. Upon answering the call, the caller asked to speak with “David McAfree”
and identified herself as Olivia Perez with Family First Life.
180. Plaintiff confronted Perez regarding the numerous calls being received.
Perez disclosed that her manager is Kohnsavan Vongdara, that they utilize third-party
telemarketers located in Asian to transfer calls to Perez, and Perez added that she
would make sure to place Plaintiff’s telephone number on their do-not-call list.
identification number display (904-834-8363), the call merely rang and went
unanswered.
Call Number 12
182. On June 23, 2022, at approximately 4:05 P.M., Defendants or
Defendants’ agent initiated a call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone line ***-***-9671.
184. Upon answering the call, there was a several second delay before a live
telemarketer came onto the line and said “My name is James. How are you? “
44
185. James then asked “Is this Mark?” and proceeded to ask Plaintiff several
pre-qualifying questions.
186. James then transferred the call to an individual who identified himself as
“Elijah Wood” on the Final Expense Department.
187. Wood then asked Plaintiff some more pre-qualifying questions and then
asked Plaintiff to verify his name and address. Much to Plaintiff’s surprise, Wood
Wood recited Plaintiff’s true name and true address and asked Plaintiff to verify
same.
188. Wood pressed for some additional personal identifying information from
Plaintiff, including date of birth, Social Security Number, height, weight, and credit
card number, to which Plaintiff provided controlled faux information.
189. Wood then sold Plaintiff a $5,000 life insurance policy, with a monthy
premium of $35.95, to be issued by Western.
190. Wood represented that he was a licensed insurance agent.
191. Wood provided his call back telephone number as 918-324-2152.
192. Wood stated that he worked for “Family First Life.”
identification number display (734-330-2168) and received a recorded message that
the telephone number was not in service.
45
194. Plaintiff then dialed the call back telephone number provided by Wood
(918-324-2152) and received a recorded message that the telephone number was not
in service.
195. Plaintiff has searched the database of licensed insurance agents and has
been unable to find any Elijah Wood licensed as an insurance agent or insurance
solicitor in any state.
196. On June 24, 2022, Western mailed a $5,000.00 life insurance policy to
Plaintiff which policy included the “canary trap” information which Plaintiff had
provided to Wood.
197. The selling insurance broker for the life insurance policy is stated as
Defendant Scheifele.
198. The selling insurance agent for the life insurance policy is stated as
Defendant Vongdara.
Call Number 13
caller identification name displayed was V70513155600006.
201. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff heard an pre-recorded message that
46
began “Hello. This is Patricia. I am calling from Senior Benefits. How are you?”.
The recording then stated that a licensed agent was going to come onto the line and
the transferred to lively piano music.
202. After approximately 10 seconds of piano music, a boink sound was heard
and then a live telemarketer who identied himself as “Michael with Final Expense”
came onto the line and asked pre-qualifying questions. Amongst requested
information, Plaintiff provided a “canary trap” name of Carlos Ramirez.
203. The call was then transferred to another telemarketer who identified
himself as Donte Grant with Family First Life. Grant then attempted to qualify
Plaintiff for a $20,000 life insurance policy
204. During the course of the call, Plaintiff inquired of Grant as to who the
person was that transferred the call to Grant. Grant identified the individual as
“Dishon” who “works for [Grant’s] transfer company.”; Dishon transfers calls to
Grant.
Call Number 14
207. Because Plaintiff was indisposed at the time, Plaintiff’s wife answered
47
the call. The caller asked for Carlos Ramirez and the call then disconnected.
Call Number 15
Defendants’ agent initiated a call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone ***-***-9671.
210. Upon answering the telephone call, Plaintiff observed a 6 second delay
from the time of saying “hello” until a live telemarketer can onto the line and
identified himself as “Sam” with “Senior Benefits.”
211. Sam then began to ask pre-qualification questions of Plaintiff, to which
Plaintiff provided a “canary trap” name of Bruce Petri.
212. The call was then transferred to another telemarketer who identified
himself as “Luke” who then went through an application process with Plaintiff. Upon
inquiry, Luke supplied his call back telephone number as 760-580-0544. During the
call, Luke stated that he worked for YSC. At the closing of the call, Luke stated that
Plaintiff would receive his insurance policy through the U.S. Mail.
213. Upon termination of the call, Plaintiff dialed the caller identification
number displayed (734-228-7840) and received a recording that the “call did not go
through.”
48
Call Number 16
216. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff observed a 6 second delay from the
time of saying “hello” before hearing a “boink” sound and then a live telemarketer
came onto the line and identified himself as Mike Webster with Senior Benefits.
Webster was promoting a final expense plan and began pre-qualifying Plaintiff.
Webster asked Plaintiff his age and the amount of coverage desired. Of significant
note, Webster did not ask for Plaintiff’s name at any time during this call. Webster
then stated he was transferring the call to a licensed agent, at which point the call
suddenly terminated.
Call Number 17
217. On August 12, 2022, at approximately 2:35 P.M., while Plaintiff was
engaged in the call described as Call Number 16, supra, Defendants or Defendants’
agent initiated a call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone ***-***-9671.
218. The caler identification number displayed was 734-228-7840.
219. Because Plaintiff was already engaged at the time with Call Number 16,
supra, this call was missed.
49
220. The calling party did not allow the telephone to ring more than 3 times
in order that Plaintiff’s voice mail system could answer and take a message.
Call Number 18
223. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff observed over a 6 second delay after
saying “hello” before a live telemarketer identifying himself as “Kevin” calling
regarding “new low cost final expense insurance plan” came onto the line.
224. Kevin began pre-qualifying Plaintiff, and then stated that he was
transferring the call to “the licensed agent” by the name of “Derrick”.
225. A live telemarketer then came on the line and identified himself as “John
Murphy” and represented that he was a licensed insurance agent. Murphy then
sought personal information from Plaintiff, and Plaintiff provided a “canary trap”
name of “Michael Xavier Overton”. The call suddenly disconnected.
identification number displayed (734-330-2655) and received a recording that “the
number you have dialed is unallocated.”
50
Call Number 19
229. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff observed over 10 seconds of silence
after saying “hello”, after which the telephone call disconnected.
identification number displayed (734-330-2655) and received a recording that the
number is not in service.
Call Number 20
233. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff was again speaking with “John
Murphy” who claimed there was some “technical issue.” Murphy continued to
qualify Plaintiff for a $15,000 life insurance policy with Omaha.
234. The call was then transferred to “Mr. Zion” who stated that he was in the
Finance Department at Omaha. Zion sought Plaintiff’s banking information and
advised that a life insurance policy was being issued by Omaha.
51
235. Immediately after the call terminated, Plaintiff dialed the caller
identification number displayed (734-330-2918) and received a recording that “the
number you have dialed is no longer in service.”
236. On August 15, 2022, at 10:54 A.M., Plaintiff received an email addressed
to Michael X. Overton from Khonsavan Vongdara which included an United
application for individual life insurance with the unique “canary trap” personal
information which Plaintiff had provided during the telephone calls on August 13,
2022.
237. The application included purported signatures by Michael X. Overton that
were allegedly witnessed by Khonsavan Vongdara on August 15, 2022 at 2:54 P.M.
G.M.T.
Call Number 21
238. On August 15, 2022, at approximately 11:00 A.M., Defendants or
saying hello, a click, and then a live telemarketer identified himself as “Roy Jackson
with American Benefits.” Jackson asked to speak with Bruce Petri and began asking
pre-qualifying questions for life insurance.
52
241. The call was then transferred to a live telemarketer who identified herself
as “Shannon Adams.” Adams stated that she works for Family First Life. Adams
attempted to sell Plaintiff a life insurance policy issued by Americo.
Call Number 22
saying “hello”, a click, and then a telemarketer identified himself as Mike Webster.
Webster stated that he had spoken with Plaintiff approximately three weeks
previously and was following up on Plaintiff’s need for life insurance. Webster then
began confirming information that he had, including referencing the “canary trap”
name of “Bruce Petri” and the identical identifying particulars which Plaintiff had
originally provided to another caller for the first time on August 12, 2022 during the
course of Call Number 13, supra.
245. Webster then transferred the call to another telemarketer who identified
himself as Dario Wickham, a licensed insurance agent. Wickham then attempted to
sell a $10,000 life insurance policy to Plaintiff.
246. Upon termination of the telephone call, Plaintiff dialed the caller
53
identification number displayed (984-282-3407) and received a recording that the
number was invalid.
Call Number 23
saying “hello”, a click, and then a live telemarketer identified himself as “Roy
Jackson with American Benefits.” Jackson asked to speak with Bruce Petri and began
asking pre-qualifying questions for life insurance.
250. The call was then transferred to a live telemarketer who identified herself
as “Shannon Adams.” Adams stated that she works for Family First Life. Adams
attempted to sell Plaintiff a life insurance policy issued by Americo.
251. On August 16, 2022, at 11:57 A.M., Plaintiff received an email addressed
to Bruce Petri from Americo which included a copy of a $15,000 life insurance policy
issued to Bruce Petri. The policy lists the agent as being Shannon Adams.
Call Number 24
Defnedants’ agent initiated a call to Plaintiff’s residential telephone line ***-***-
54
1212.
254. Upon answering the telephone, Plaintiff observed a 5-6 second delay
because a live telemarketer came onto the line and identified herself as “Emma” with
“U.S. Life Benefits”.
255. Emma then began to pre-qualify Plaintiff for a “new low cost final
expense life insurance policy which has just recently been approved in [Plaintiff’s]
state.”
256. The call was then transferred to an individual identifying himself as
“Chris” the “senior guy”. Chris continued qualifying Plaintiff for a $5,000 life
insurance policy and sought personal identifying information. Plaintiff provided a
“canary trap” name of Dennis Xavier Curtis.
257. The call was then transferred to an individual identifying himself as “Zion
Aydin” with United. This is the same individual who is referenced in Paragraph 164,
supra, as “Mr. Zion”. Zion attempted to convince Plaintiff to up the insurance policy
to $10,000, and then took Plaintiff’s checking account information. The call
concluded with Zion informing Plaintiff that the policy would be sent via email.
55
number displayed (734-420-1763), which was a disconnected number.
Call Number 25
259. On October 15, 2022, at approximately12:05 P.M., Defendants or
Defendants’ agent initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone line (***-
***-9671).
261. Upon answering the telephone, Plaintiff observed a 5-6 second delay
because a live telemarketer came onto the line and identified herself as “Chris Ryan”
with the “Final Expense Department.”
262. Ryan asked to speak with “Michael Overton” and stated that he was
following up on the $15,000 life insurance policy which Plaintiff had recently
purchased through Omaha.
263. Ryan stated, as a result of Omaha having “sent a paper” inquiring about
Plaintiff’s medical conditions, Ryan was switching Plaintiff from life insurance with
Omaha and, instead, issuing a policy with Aetna.
264. Ryan then recited to Plaintiff the faux Social Security Number and
address – which were part of the “canary trap” information supplied by Plaintiff
during Call Number 20, supra – and asked for Plaintiff to confirm the information.
265. Ryan stated that Plaintiff would be contacted back in approximately 24
56
hours to confirm the change in policies.
266. Plaintiff did not hear back from Ryan, as promised. Accordingly, on
October 17, 2022, at approximately 11:32 A.M., Plaintiff dialed the telephone number
appearing in the caller identification (267-900-7938) which call was answered by the
same person that had identified himself in Call Number 25 as “Chris Ryan.”
267. During this call, Ryan disclosed that he did not call Plaintiff back
because, when Ryan contacted Aetna, Aetna informed Ryan that Plaintiff’s telephone
number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry and that Aetna did not want
to issue a policy to Plaintiff for that reason.
268. Ryan stated that he is a licensed insurance agent in 40 states.
269. Plaintiff inquired of Ryan as to his insurance agent National Producer
Number and location and Ryan refused to provide the information.
270. Ryan hung up on Plaintiff.
271. Based upon Plaintiff’s investigation, Plaintiff reasonably believes that
Ryan is not licensed as an insurance agent or solicitor or similar capacity.
Call Number 26
272. On October 28, 2022, at approximately 11:01 A.M., Defendants or
57
274. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff observed a 5 second delay after saying
“hello”, then a click sound, and then an individual identified himself as “John
Murphy” and asked to speak with “Michael Overton.”
275. Murphy stated that he had previously spoken “tomorrow” (sic) with
Plaintiff regarding a final expense policy, but that the agent was not available at that
time, but the agent was now available. Murphy then attempted, several times, to
transfer the call, then stated that he was unable to transfer the call to the agent due to
a tornado that occurred “last night.”
number displayed (586-326-6350) and received a recorded message that “the call
cannot be completed as dialed.”
Call Number 27
279. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff observed a 5 second delay after saying
“hello”, then a click sound, and then an individual identified himself as “Mark
Anderson with the Burial Insurance Department” and asked to speak with “Michael
Overton.”
280. Anderson stated he was reviewing Plaintiff’s final expense application
58
and was wanted to verify Plaintiff’s address, which Plaintiff confirmed.
Call Number 28
283. Upon answering the call, the same “Mark Anderson” as in Call Number
27 was on the line.
284. Anderson stated that he was reviewing Plaintiff’s application for $15,000
life insurance policy with Omaha and that the address provided by Plaintiff was
coming up as a United States Post Office and that Omaha was now questioning the
address.
285. Plaintiff told Anderson that the address was correct.
286. Plaintiff inquired of Anderson as to what company or agency he worked,
and Anderson hung up.
Call Number 29
287. On January 9, 2023, at approximately 2:54 P.M., Defendants or
0222.
caller identification name displayed was “LEBRECHT NANCI”.
59
289. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff observed a 5-6 second delay after he
said hello, then heard a “boink” sound, and then a live telemarketer came on the line
and identified himself as being “Alex” with “U.S. Benefit.”
290. “Alex” then began to ask pre-qualifying questions for “a new low cost
final expense plan just approved in your state.”
291. The call was then transferred to the “Senior Supervisor” by the name of
“Isaac.” Isaac sought further information from Plaintiff.
292. Plaintiff engaged Isaac by using the “canary trap” investigative technique,
and provide faux identifying information.
293. The call was then transferred to “Paul” who stated that he was with
“Family First Life.”
294. “Paul” quoted Plaintiff a $20,000 life insurance policy with a monthly
premium of $123.16 from Omaha.
295. Plaintiff was able to obtain “Paul”’s name as being Paul Christle, that he
was located in Palm Beach, Florida, and that his direct telephone number was 561-
420-9620.
296. Plaintiff confronted Christle regarding the “funny sounding” individuals
that had called Plaintiff and transferred the call to Christle. Christle explained that
the individuals work “in our one our call centers” and that “what they do all day is
dial, dial, dial... and then transfer the calls to me.”
60
297. On January 9, 2023, at 3:11 P.M., Plaintiff received an email from
Christle with an Omaha application pre-filled with the information which Plaintiff
had supplied to Christle during the telephone conversation.
298. On January 9, 2023, at 3:22 P.M., while Plaintiff was engaged in the
telephone conversation with Christle, a person or persons unknown, identifying
themselves using the “canary trap” email address which Plaintiff had supplied to
Christle during the telephone conversation, accessed the FTC’s National Do Not Call
Registry (“NDCR”) database attempting to confirm the registration of Plaintiff’s
residential telephone number ***-***-0222 on the NDCR.
identification number (407-760-7450) displayed. The call was answered by an
elderly-sounding female, who confirmed that she had not been on her telephone
during the prior hour and that there was nobody at her home selling life insurance.
Call Number 30
300. On January 9, 2023, at approximately 6:21 P.M., Defendants or
Defendants’ agents initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff residential telephone line
***-***-0222.
caller identification name displayed was V109182052000300.
302. The numeric caller identification name displayed is characteristic of an
61
automatic telephone dialing system being utilized.
303. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff observed a delay of approximately 10
seconds from the time of saying “hello” until a person cam onto the line and
identified himself as “This is Hohn. How are you doing today? I am calling about
a new final expense program.”
304. John then asked Plaintiff some pre-qualifying questions.
305. The call was then transferred to “Isaac... the senior supervisor.” “Isaac”
is the same “Isaac” described in Call Number 26, supra, from approximately 3 hours
earlier.
306. Isaac continued to ask pre-qualifying questions.
307. Isaac then attempted to transfer the call to a live agent, the line rang and
was answered by an automated system stating “[y]our call has been forwarded to an
automated voice messaging system. Five Six One Four Two....” and was suddenly cut
off.
308. Isaac came back onto the line and stated that the agent was busy and Paul
would have to call Plaintiff back later.
309. Plaintiff asked Isaac the name of the live agent, to which Isaac responded
Paul.
310. Given that the telephone number for Paul Christle in Call Number 26 also
became with the same first 5 digits as were identified in the automated system, and
62
coincidentally was also named Paul, Plaintiff reasonably believes “Paul” to be Paul
Christle.
311. Plaintiff pressed Isaac for more information, such as the company he
worked for, and his location, and his telephone number, which Isaac stated he “is not
allowed to give.”
number displayed (407-710-0656), which was a disconnected telephone number.
313. Plaintiff has reason to believe, and does believe, that “Isaac” identified
in Call Numbers 29 and 30, supra, is one and the same person as “Ryan Hensen”
identified in Call Number 1, supra.
Call Number 31
314. On January 31, 2023, at approximately 10:42 A.M., Defendants or
316. Upon answering the call by saying “hello”, Plaintiff observed
approximately 5 seconds of silence, then a “boink” sound, followed by an individual
coming on the line and identifying himself as “Max with Senior Benefits... calling
about a new low cost final expense plan.”
317. “Max” then asked pre-qualifying questions of Plaintiff. Plaintiff
responded with “canary trap” information unique to the call.
63
318. “Max” then stated that the licensed agent is busy and will call back in 5
minutes.
319. Plaintiff asked the name of the licensed agent, to which “Max” responded
that her name was “Gretchen.”
320. Immediately after termination of the call, Plaintiff dialed the caller
identification number displayed (734-316-6293) and received a reorder tone.
Call Number 32
321. On January 31, 2023, at approximately 11:33 A.M., Defendants or
Defendants’ agents initiated a call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone line ***-***-9671.
322. The caller identification number display was 734-559-7673.
323. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff observed a several second delay from
the time of saying “hello” until a telemarketer came on the line and identified himself
as “James with U.S. Life... calling regarding a final expense plan.”
324. James stated that he had a licensed agent named “Gretchen” holding on
the line and that he was going to transfer the call, but he first had some questions, and
then proceeded to asked several pre-qualifying questions.
325. The call was then transferred to a female who identified herself as
Gretchen Drouhard with Family First Life.
326. Drouhard then attempted to sell Plaintiff a $30,000 life insurance policy
with a monthly premimum of $183.00 from Omaha.
64
327. Drouhard when through asking Plaintiff detailed personal information
and medical history questions.
328. On January 31, 2023, at 12:21 P.M., Drouhard sent an Omaha life
insurance application that was pre-filled with the personal information provided by
Plaintiff during the telephone conversation to Plaintiff’s controlled email address.
329. Immediately after termination of the call, Plaintiff dialed the caller
identification number displayed (734-559-7673) and received a recorded message
which stated “the telephone number is not in service.”
Call Number 33
330. On February 1, 2023, at approximately 2:26 P.M., Defendants or
331. The caller identification number display was 734-232-9681.
332. Upon answering the call, Plaintiff observed a 5 second delay from the
time of saying “hello”, then hard a “boink” sound, and then a telemarketer came on
the line and identified himself as “John with Senior Benefits... calling regarding a
final expense plan.”
333. John began asking pre-qualifying questions, including age, whether
plaintiff had a checking or savings account, zipcode, state of residence, beneficiary,
and name.
334. Plaintiff provided “canary trap” responses to “John”, including giving the
65
faux name of Jason Robards.
335. “John” then stated that Plaintiff was “perfectly qualified for final expense
benefits” and live transferred the call to a licensed insurance agent who identified
herself as Gretchen Drouhard – the same Gretchen Drouhard who attempted to sell
Plaintiff a life insurance policy the day prior during Call Number 32, supra.
336. As Drouhard began her telemarketing pitch, the call suddenly terminated.
337. Immediately upon termination of the call, Plaintiff dialed the caller
identification number displayed (734-232-9681), which turned out to be a telephone
number for the Personnel Department at the University of Michigan Medical Center.
Call Number 34
338. On February 1, 2023, at approximately 2:30 P.M., Defendant Gretchen
Drouhard initiated a call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone line ***-***-9671.
340. Upon answering the call, Drouhard introduced herself again and
explained that, for reasons unknown, the call had become disconnected.
341. Plaintiff complained to Drouhard about the loud background noise and
inability to understand the caller that transferred her call to Plaintiff, to which
Drouhard explained that Family First Life uses call centers outside the USA.
342. Drouhard again began her final expense life insurance sales pitch.
343. Drouhard attempted to send her business card to Plaintiff’s cell phone
66
number, but while doing so, Drouhard recognized that she had communicated with
Plaintiff the day prior at the same telephone number.
344. Plaintiff then confronted Drouhard with the fact that Plaintiff keeps
receiving the calls marketing final expense insurance and wants to know the identity
of the call center involved so that Plaintiff may demand that they stop calling.
345. Drouhard refused to name the call center, told Plaintiff “good luck,” and
the call terminated.
Call Numbers 35 through 51
346. On the following dates and times, Plaintiff’s cellular telephone ***-***-
9671 received the following telephone calls all showing the caller identification
number of 734-228-7840:
Call Date Time Caller Supplied Identity

35 03/04/2022 10:16 A.M. [Unintelligible], Medicare Benefits
36 04/05/2022 1:03 PM #
37 04/06/2022 2:38 P.M. #
38 04/05/2022 5:29 P.M. George, Medicare Benefits
39 04/20/2022 3:53 P.M. Mario, Senior Benefits
40 04/22/2022 4:40 P.M. #
41 04/25/2022 1:58 P.M. Chris, Senior Benefits
42 05/31/2022 3:13 P.M. #
43 06/21/2022 1:59 P.M. #
44 06/21/2022 2:10 P.M. #
45 06/21/2022 4:32 P.M. Charles, Senior Care Benefits
46 06/24/2022 12:08 P.M. “You stupid mother f***er....”
47 06/24/2022 5:35 P.M. Max, Health Care Solutions
48 07/05/2022 5:16 P.M. #
49 07/06/2022 7:16 P.M. Leo, Senior Care
50 07/06/2022 2:47 P.M. #
67
51 07/14/2022 10:44 A.M. #

Notes: (#) Call answered, dead air.
347. In the case of each dead air call denoted with an octothorpe (#) in
paragraph 195, supra, the calling party did not provide any identification or
disclosure as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(a)(7)(i).
Call Numbers 52 through 56
348. On the following dates and times, Plaintiff’s residential telephone line
***-***-1212 received the following telephone calls all showing the caller
identification number of 734-228-7840:
Call Date Time Caller Supplied Identity

52 07/28/2022 4:00 P.M. Sam, U.S. Saving Center
53 08/02/2022 4:54 P.M. *
54 08/05/2022 1:40 P.M. *
55 08/05/2022 1:41 P.M. *
56 08/05/2022 3:27 P.M. *
Notes: (*) Missed call.
349. In the case of each dead air call denoted with an asterisk (*) in paragraph
197, supra, the calling party failed to allow the phone to ring at least three times in
order that Plaintiff’s voice mail system might answer and take a message, as required
by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(6).
Confrontation Calls
350. As part of Plaintiff’s investigation into the telephone calls alleged herein,
Plaintiff has engaged in several instances of making “confrontation” calls to one or
68
more defendants and challenging said defendants regarding their involvement.
351. On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff telephoned and spoke with Khonsavan
Vongdara. Specifically, Plaintiff confronted Vongdara regarding the telephone call
identified as Call Number 17 alleged at Paragraphs 158 through 163, supra, and Call
Number 19 alleged at Paragraphs 168 through 173, supra. During the confrontation
call, Vongdara represented that the persons identified as Kevin, John Murphy, and
Mr. Zion were Vongdara’s employees. When Plaintiff told Vongdara that Plaintiff’s
telephone numbers were on the national do not call registry, Vongdara assured
Plaintiff that now that Plaintiff had purchased a life insurance policy, there would be
no further calls. Plaintiff was clear and direct to Vongdara that Plaintiff did not want
to receive telemarketing calls from any source. When Plaintiff asked Vongdara for
a copy of his written do not call policy, Vongdara stated that he did not have one.
352. On August 15, 2022, approximately one hour after Plaintiff had spoken
with Vongdara, Plaintiff received a call on his cellular telephone (***-***-9671)
from caller identification number 304-666-3436. The caller identified himself as
Zion Aydin. Zion stated that his broker (Vongdara) had called him regarding Plaintiff
having complained to Vongdara. Zion asked Plaintiff to “just forget about” the
incident. Zion claimed that he had 2 children and that his bosses were mad at him.
Zion then told an incredible story about a woman named “Helen” (whom Zion does
not know the last name of) who controls his money and pays his bills. At one point,
69
Zion claimed to live in West Virginia; then changed the location to Se-ah-till-ee
(phonetic), Washington; then claimed to reside at 7601 Evergreen Way, in Everett,
Washington (which address, upon investigation, is a Safeway grocery store).
353. On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff spoke with Shannon Adams over the
repetitive calls he was receiving. Adams assured Plaintiff that she would notify the
call center to remove Plaintiff’s telephone numbers from any further contact.
354. On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff received a call on his cellular telephone
***-***-9671 from caller identification number 817-703-5796. The calling party
identified himself as Emmanuel, but did not provide his last name. Emmanuel stated
that Shannon Adams worked for him, and that he and his unnamed partner had
notified their call center to stop calling Plaintiff. Plaintiff was able to identify
“Emmanuel” as being Emmanuel Igweh, whose insurance license information reflects
his telephone number as 817-703-5796.
355. On January 31, 2023, at approximately 8:23 P.M., Plaintiff called the
caller identification number displayed (314-763-3511) during Call Numbers 27 and
38, supra. Upon the call being answered, Plaintiff asked to speak with “Mark”. The
called party stated that his name was “Mark.” The called party sounded identical to
the “Mark Anderson” that spoke with Plaintiff during Call Numbers 27 and 28, supra.
Plaintiff told “Mark” that Plaintiff was calling about a life insurance policy. “Mark”
denied knowing anything about any life insurance policy.
70
Additional Calls
356. Over the past twelve (12) months alone, Plaintiff has received over 400
telephone calls to his residential telephone lines ***-***-0222, ***-***-1000, ***-
***-1212 and/or ***-***-2424 and/or his cellular telephone ***-***-9671 wherein
the calling party utilized a false or spoofed caller identification number, the
telemarketer identified as being with “Senior Benefits” or similar generic and non-
specific entity name, and wherein the telemarketer was attempting to pre-quality
Plaintiff for “final expense” or life insurance. Through the course of discovery,
Plaintiff intends to establish that many of these calls are related to the same
defendants in this case, at which time Plaintiff will amend his claims against the
defendants to include damages related to these additional calls.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - AUTODIALER CALL
357. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 356, supra.
358. Each of the following Calls: 12, 15 through 23, 25 through 28, 31 through
33, and 35 through 51; were in violation of the TCPA and its implementing
regulations, specifically 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 47 C.F.R. §
64.1200(a)(1)(iii), as Defendant or Defendant’s agent initiated a telephone call to
Plaintiff’s cellular telephone line using an automatic telephone dialing system
without the prior express consent of the called party and there being no emergency.
71
359. The aforesaid violations of the TCPA were wilful and/or knowing as is
evidenced by the repeated number of calls.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - RECORDED MESSAGECALL
361. Each of the following Calls: 3 and 13; were in violation of the TCPA and
its implementing regulations, specifically 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B) and 47 C.F.R. §
64.1200(a)(3), as Defendant or Defendant’s agent initiated a telephone call to
Plaintiff’s residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver
a message without the prior express written consent of the called party and there
being no emergency.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - PREMATURE HANG UP
364. Each of the following Calls: 17, and 53 through 56; were in violation of
the TCPA implementing regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(6), as the
call was disconnected prior to at least 15 seconds or four (4) rings.
72
COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - ABANDONED CALL
364. Each of the following Calls: 1, 2, 4 through 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21
through 27, and 29 through 33; were in violation of the TCPA implementing
regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(7), as the call was not connected to
a live sales representative within two (2) seconds of the called person’s completed
greeting.
COUNT V
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - DO NOT CALL
367. Each of the following Calls: 1 through 6, and 8 through 56; were in
violation of the TCPA implementing regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. §
64.1200(c)(2), as Defendants or Defendants’ agent initiated a telephone solicitation
to a residential telephone subscriber who has registered his telephone number on the
national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone
solicitations that is maintained by the Federal Government.
73
COUNT VI
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - NO WRITTEN DNC POLICY
370. Each of the following Calls: 1 through 56, inclusive; were in violation of
the TCPA implementing regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1), as
Defendants and/or Defendants’ agents failed to have a written do not call policy,
available upon demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list.
COUNT VII
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - FAILURE TO TRAIN
Defendants and/or Defendants’ agents failed to inform and train their personnel
engaged in any aspect of telemarketing in the existence and use of the do-not-call list.
COUNT VIII
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - FAILURE TO RECORD DNC REQUEST
74
Defendants and/or Defendants’ agents failed to record the requests made by Plaintiff
not to receive calls from that person or entity.
COUNT IX
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - FAILURE TO IDENTIFY
379. Each of the following Calls: 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16. 18
through 33, and 35 through 52; were in violation of the TCPA implementing
regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4), as Defendants and/or Defendants’
agents making the calls for telemarketing purposes failed to provide the called party
with the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity on whose
behalf the call is being made, and/or a telephone number or address at which the
person or entity may be contacted.
COUNT X
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - NO DO NOT CALL LIST
75
Defendants and/or Defendants’ agents making calls for telemarketing purposes failed
to maintain a record of a consumer’s request not to receive further telemarketing calls.
COUNT XI
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - FALSIFIED CALLER ID
385. Each of the following Calls: 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15 through 33, and
35 through 51; were in violation of the TCPA implementing regulations, specifically
47 C.F.R. § 64.1601 (e)(1), as Defendants and/or Defendants’ agents failed to provide
caller identification information displaying a telephone number which would permit
any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours.
386. The Defendants had to take deliberate and overt action to manipulate the
telephone network equipment to provide false caller identification information,
therefore the aforesaid violation of the TCPA was wilful and/or knowing.
COUNT XII
VIOLATION OF THE MTCCCA
388. Each of the following Calls: 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15 through 21, 23,
76
24, 26, 31 through 33, and 35 through 56; were in violation of the of the MTCCCA,
specifically M.C.L. § 484.125(2)(a), as Defendants or Defendants’ agent used a
telephone line to contact a subscriber at the subscriber’s residence to deliver a
recorded message for the purpose of presenting commercial advertising and the
subscriber having not requested, consented, permitted, or authorized the contact; or
M.C.L. 484.125(2)(b), as Defendant or Defendant’s agent delivered or attempted to
deliver intrastate commercial advertising having activated a feature to block the
display of caller identification information that would otherwise be available to the
subscriber.
COUNT XIII
VIOLATION OF THE MHSSA
the MHSSA, specifically M.C.L. § 445.111a(5), as Defendants or Defendants’ agent
made a telephone solicitation to a residential telephone subscriber whose name and
residential telephone number is on the federal do-not-call list; and/or M.C.L. §
445.111b(1), as Defendants or Defendants’ agents did not at the beginning of the
telephone solicitation state his or her name and the full name of the organization on
whose behalf the call was initiated and provide a telephone number of the
organization on request.
77
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the aforesaid premises considered, Plaintiff prays that this
Court enter a judgment for Plaintiff and against the Defendants, jointly and severally,
as follows:
A. Damages for violations of the TCPA alleged:
Count Violations
I 34
II 2
III 5
IV 25
V 55
VI 56
VII 56
VIII 56
IX 34
X 56
XI 45
A total of 424 violations at $500 per violation for damages of $212,000.00, which
amount shall be trebled because the violations were willful and/or knowing, for total
damages of $636,000.00.
B. Damages for violations of the MTCCCA alleged at Count XII: 44 violations
at $1,000 per violation for damages of $44,000.00.
C. Damages for violations of the MHSSA alleged at Count XIII: 56 violations
at $250 per violation for damages of $14,000.00.
The cumulative total amount of damages claimed in this action is $694,000.00,and
78
in the event of default judgment is the sum certain damages amount that will be
sought.
D. An award of Plaintiff’s taxable costs and disbursements incurred in the
filing and prosecution of this action;
E. An injunction enjoining Defendants from initiating any telephone calls to
Plaintiff’s residential telephone and cellular telephone lines.
F. Interest accruing from the date of filing until paid at the statutory rate; and,
G. Such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary, reasonable,
prudent and proper under the circumstances.
*** PROPOSED FIRST ***

*** AMENDED COMPLAINT ***
Dated: __________ _______________________________
Mark W. Dobronski
Telephone: (734) 330-9671
Email: [email protected]
79
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20580
December 27, 2021
CEASE AND DESIST DEMAND
VIA EMAIL TO [email protected]
Family First Life, LLC

c/o Shawn Meaike, CEO
80 Norwich New London Turnpike
Uncasville, CT 061382
Re: Earnings Claims Related to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Dear Mr. Meaike,
This is to advise you that FTC staff has reviewed social media posts made by Family
First Life’s business opportunity participants or representatives in December 2021. We have
determined that Family First life is unlawfully misrepresenting that consumers who become
Family First Life business opportunity participants are likely to earn substantial income.
Some examples of earnings claims made by your business opportunity participants or

representatives include:
• “Make your WEEKLY salary in ONE DAY as an Agent with Family First Life . . . .
What was your biggest paycheck in a month? -- Last month I checked on mine and it
was like $40k in a month. . . . -- What attracted you to the insurance business? -- I
think it was like a combination of multiple things. I was really burned out with covid
stuff, working at a hospital. And, my upline . . . I met him and . . . he was making
some money, really good money. And, I just didn’t really have anything to lose at
that point. So, I kind of just was like, let’s do it.” [Posted to TikTok by @winwithffl
on July 14, 2021].
• “I’ve been with Family First Life for 3 full months, okay, before joining Family First
Life, I was a nurse for 7 years. Okay, um, covid hit. I have a 5-year-old son with
cystic fibrosis, his pulmonologist took me away from patient care, so I was kind of
home all the time, and it just wasn’t the same. So, I found Family First Life, jumped
on board. . . Since jumping on board, it’s changed my life, my family’s financial
situation. Last month I did $46,000 issue pay. One month, y’all. That’s insane. So, if
you are a hard worker, if you’re young, if you’re energetic, if you’re looking for a
change and want financial freedom, let me know[.]… #financialfreedom.” [Posted to
TikTok by @meighanadams on June 5, 2021].
• “Hi there, my name is Lelah. If you’re like me, which many of you I’m sure are,
you’ve been significantly impacted by the pandemic. I had lost my job, my career. I
had no prior life insurance experience. I started with Family First in January. This
last weekend I had made – just in one weekend – what would have taken me 10
months at my prior job. I’m a single mom with three kids, and if I can do this,
anybody could do it. Click the link below to learn more.” [Posted to YouTube by
FFL U.S.A. on April 13, 2021].
Representations about a business opportunity, including earnings claims, violate Section

5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., if they are false, misleading, or unsubstantiated and
material to consumers. Express and implied earnings claims must be truthful and non-misleading
to avoid being deceptive, which means that claims about the potential to achieve a wealthy
lifestyle, career-level income, or significant income are false or misleading if business
opportunity participants generally do not achieve such results. Even truthful testimonials from
participants who do earn significant income or more will likely be misleading unless the
advertising also makes clear the amount earned or lost by most participants. Your business
opportunity participants and representatives must immediately cease making all express and
implied earnings claims that would be false or misleading to current or prospective participants.
You are responsible for the claims of your business opportunity participants and
representatives. As the FTC stated in the January 2019 Business Guidance Concerning Multi-
Level Marketing, the compensation structure of a Multi-Level Marketing entity (“MLM”) may
create incentives for its participants to make certain representations to current or prospective
participants. “As a consequence, an MLM should (i) direct its participants not to make false,
misleading, or unsubstantiated representations and (ii) monitor its participants so they don’t
make false, misleading, or unsubstantiated representations.”
Please also note that, as outlined in the Notices of Penalty Offenses Concerning Money-
Making Opportunities and Endorsements and Testimonials that was sent to you in October and
November 2021, the Commission has determined, among other things, that it is an unfair or
deceptive trade practice to make false, misleading or deceptive representations concerning the
profits or earnings that may be anticipated by a participant in your business opportunity.
(Another copy of the Notices and the associated cover letter is attached hereto). Engaging in the
conduct described in the Notices could subject you to civil penalties of up to $43,792 per
violation.
Within 48 hours, please send a message to Kati Daffan (Assistant Director) via electronic
mail at [email protected] certifying that you and your participants and representatives have
ceased making express and implied earnings claims that would be false or misleading to current
or prospective participants. If you have any questions regarding compliance with the FTC Act,
please contact Suzanne Barth at 202-326-3317 or Melissa Dickey at 202-326-2662.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Lois C. Greisman

Lois C. Greisman
Associate Director
Division of Marketing Practices
cc: YouTube via email to [email protected];

TikTok via email to [email protected]

Family First Life Lawsuit Do Not Call Lawsuit For $694,000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family First Life Lawsuit Do Not Call Lawsuit For $694,000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family First Life Lawsuit Do Not Call Lawsuit For $694,000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:22-cv-12039-DPH-JJCG ECF No. 93, PageID.

882 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 91

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MARK W. DOBRONSKI, Case No. 2:22-cv-12039-DPH-JJCG

Plaintiff, Honorable Denise Page Hood

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, MARK W. DOBRONSKI, appearing in propria

WHEREFORE, and as further explained in the ancillary brief, Plaintiff

Dated: February 2, 2023 _______________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MARK W. DOBRONSKI, Case No. 2:22-cv-12039-DPH-JJCG

Plaintiff, Honorable Denise Page Hood

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF

First Amended Complaint, attached at EXHIBIT A.

• Counsel for Family First Life, LLC refused to provide

concurrence or non-concurrence, expressly stating that it

was inappropriate for Plaintiff to contact counsel inasmuch

as Family First Life, LLC is not a party to this action and

has never been served.

• Counsel for United Omaha Life Insurance Company

graciously indicated concurrence in the motion.

• Counsel for Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance

Company expressed non-concurrence.

• Counsel for Great Western Insurance Company graciously

indicated concurrence in the motion, but reserving the right

to file an appropriate dispositive motion as to the amended

• Counsel for Khnosavan Vongdara, Shannon Adams, Donte

C. Grant, Vanina E. Bonanno, Vanessa Isabel Powell,

Emmauel Chibuzor Igweh, and Dario Joseph Wickham has

been contacted and requested time to confer with her

clients, but has failed to respond back to Plaintiff as to the

issue of concurrence or non-concurrence.

• Pro Se Defendant Lewis Jan Friedman graciously indicated

concurrence in the motion.

The proposed First Amended Complaint seeks to name additional defendants

details as to the scheme, and adds allegations as to additional calls initiated by

Defendants or Defendants’ agents in violation of TCPA regulations. Indeed, Plaintiff

as Defendants or Defendants’ agents have continued to initiate illegal telemarketing

calls to Plaintiff – as recently as yesterday -- thus requiring further revisions to the

The United States Supreme Court has decreed:

“Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely

the Plaintiff in seeking this amendment. There is no undue prejudice to the

Defendants. And, lastly, the amendment is not futile.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

Dated: February 2, 2023 _______________________________

I, Mark W. Dobronski, certify that on February 2, 2023, I caused a copy of the

D. Peter Valiotis, Esq. Lewis Jan Friedman

John T. Mihelick, Esq.

Jennifer W. Weller, Esq.

Matthew J. Lund, Esq.

Alvin Lee, Esq.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MARK W. DOBRONSKI, Case No.

FAMILY FIRST LIFE, LLC,

UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE

AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE AND

GREAT WESTERN INSURANCE

YOUR SENIOR CARE INC.,

LEWIS JAN FRIEDMAN,