Complaint — Mark W. Dobronski v. ERTC Express, LLC and John Paul Souza (Eastern District of Michigan)

Summary

A complaint filed June 18, 2025, by Mark W. Dobronski, appearing in propria persona, against ERTC Express, LLC and John Paul Souza in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG. It brings claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227, the Michigan Home Solicitation Sales Act and the Florida Telemarketing Sales Act over telemarketing calls. The complaint states that the plaintiff's number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since at least June 1, 2004, and that the plaintiff never consented to contact from the defendants. It alleges that Souza holds himself out as a manager and owner of ERTC Express and personally participated in the conduct. The civil cover sheet describes the cause as automated telephone solicitations.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Page 30 of 30 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.1 Filed 06/18/25 Pagetiff? 362 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case: 2:25-cv-11822
MARK W. DOBRONSKI, Assigned To: MeMiilion. Brandy R.
an individual, Referral Judge: Grand, David R.

|
|
|
|
Assign. Date : 6/18/2025 |

Description: CMP DOBRONSKI V. |

Plaintiff, ERTC EXPRESS ET AL. (JB)
|

Vv.

ERTC EXPRESS, LLC,
a Wyoming limited liability company;

JOHN PAUL SOUZA,
an individual;

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, MARK W. DOBRONSKI, appearing in propria
persona, and for his complaint against the named Defendants alleges:

1. This matter arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seqg., the Michigan Home Solicitation Sales Act
(“MHSSA”), M.C.L. § 445.101, et seg., and the Florida Telemarketing Sales Act
(“FTSA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.059.

Parties

2. Plaintiff is an individual, of the age of majority, a citizen of the United States
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.2 Filed 06/18/25 Page 2 of 30

of America, is domiciled in and has a place of business in Orange County, Florida, and
has a residence and place of business in Washtenaw County, Michigan.

3. Defendant ERTC EXPRESS, LLC (“ERTC’”) is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Wyoming, with a principal office
being located at 5404 Cypress Center Drive, Suite 375, Tampa, Hillsborough County,
Florida 33609-1054.

4. Defendant JOHN PAUL SOUZA (“Souza”) is an individual, is of the age of
majority, is mentally competent, is not in the military service, and resides at 6630
Southwest 72" Court, Miami, Miami Dade County, Florida 33143-2907.

5. Defendant Souza holds himself out as being a manager and owner of ERTC,
and authorized, directed, and personally participated in the tortious conduct alleged
herein.

Jurisdiction

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

7. This Court has special or limited personal jurisdiction over Defendant ERTC,
pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.715, as a result of the defendant or its agent: transacting any
business within the state; or, doing or causing any act to be done, or consequences to
occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort.

8. This Court has special or limited personal jurisdiction over Defendant Souza,
pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.705, as a result of the individual or his representative:

2
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No. 1, PagelD.3 Filed 06/18/25 Page 3 of 30

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.
Venue

9. 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 directed to a telephone
number with a Michigan area code, and were received by Plaintiff at his residence in
this judicial district, to wit: in Washtenaw County, Michigan.

Preliminary Statement

10. As the Supreme Court recently explained, “Americans passionately disagree
about many things. But they are largely united in their disdain for robocalls.” Barr v.
American Association of Political Consultants LLC, 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2343 (2020).

11. The Federal Government receives a staggering number of complaints about
robocalls — 3.7 million complaints in 2019 alone. /d.

12. In response to widespread public outrage over intrusive telemarketing calls
to homes and businesses, the United States Congress acted to prevent persons, like
Defendant, from invading American citizen’s privacy and to prevent abusive “robo-
calls” by enacting the TCPA.

13. According to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), “unwanted
calls and texts are the number one complaint to the FCC.”

14. In regard to such telephone solicitations, Senator Hollings of South
Carolina, the primary sponsor of the TCPA, explained, “computerized calls are the

3
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No. 1, PagelD.4 Filed 06/18/25 Page 4 of 30

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 Red. 17459, 17474, fn. 90 (2002), quoting 137 Cong.
Rec. 30,821-30,822 (Nov. 7, 1991).

15. According to YouMail, Inc., a company which tracks robocall activity and
publishes the YouMail Robocall Index, during calendar year 2023 alone, American
consumers were bombarded with over 55.05 billion robocalls; an average of over 165
robocalls to each and every man, woman, and child. [Source:

www.robocallindex.com].

16. 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-

scams-over-the-past-year.html ].

17. 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.

18. Asaresult, in enacting the TCPA, Congress intentionally created a legally

4
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.5 Filed 06/18/25 Page 5 of 30

enforceable bounty system, not unlike gui tam statutes, to incentivize the assistance of
aggrieved private citizens to act as “private attorneys general” in enforcing federal law.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

19. In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA to restrict the use of sophisticated
telemarketing equipment that could target millions of consumers en masse. Congress
found that these calls were not only a nuisance and invasion of privacy to consumers
specifically, but were also a threat to interstate commerce generally. See S. Rep. No.
102-178, at 2-3, 1991 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1968, 1969-71, 1991 WL 211220 (1991).

20. The TCPA imposes restrictions on the use of automated telephone
equipment. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).

21. 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 the aforesaid
restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment. The TCPA implementing
regulations are promulgated at 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a), et seq.

22. As part of the restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment,
Congress created a private right of action for aggrieved persons to received $500.00
in damages for each violation of the subsection of the statute or the regulations
prescribed thereunder, which amount the court may treble if the court finds that the
defendant willfully or knowingly violated the statute or the regulations. 47 U.S.C. §
227(b)(3).

23. Additionally, the Congress also sought to protect subscriber privacy rights,

5
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No. 1, PagelD.6 Filed 06/18/25 Page 6 of 30

and directed the FCC to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to compare and evaluate
alternative methods and procedures, and to develop proposed regulations to implement
the methods and procedures that the FCC determines are most efficient to accomplish
the need to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone
solicitations to which they object. 47 C.F.R. § 227(c)(1). The FCC conducted such
a rulemaking and implemented regulations to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy
rights. See In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, 68 FR 44144, 2003 WL 21713245 (2003).

24. As part of the protection of subscriber privacy rights, Congress created a
private right of action for aggrieved persons to receive $500.00 in damages for each
violation of the subsection of the statute or the regulations prescribed thereunder,
which amount the court may treble if the court finds that the defendant willfully or
knowingly violated the statute or the regulations. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

Michigan Home Solicitation Sales Act

25. The Michigan Legislature has also enacted statutes governing and restricting
telephone solicitors from making or causing to be made a telephone solicitation to a
residential telephone subscriber. The restrictions include a prohibition on telephone
solicitations using in whole or in part a recorded message. M.C.L. § 445.111(a)(1). A
telephone solicitor shall not make a telephone solicitation to a residential telephone
subscriber whose name and residential telephone number appears on the national do-
not-call list. M.C.L. § 445.111(a)(4). Telephone solicitors must properly identify

6
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.7 Filed 06/18/25 Page 7 of 30

themselves and their organization. M.C.L. § 445.111b(1) and (2). Telephone solicitors
may not block or otherwise interfere with the caller ID function of the telephone.
M.C.L. § 445.111b(3). Further, telephone solicitors may not engage in specified unfair
or deceptive acts or practices as set forth in the act. M.C.L. § 445.111c.

26. The MHSSA provides that a person who suffers a loss as a result of
violation of the MHSSA may bring an action to recover actual damages or $250.00,
together with reasonable attorney fees. M.C.L. § 445.111c(3).

Florida Telemarketing Sales Act

27. The Florida Legislature has enacted statutes governing and restricting
telephone solicitors in making telephone sales calls. The statute includes, inter alia,
requirements for identification of telephone solicitors and the transmission of caller
identification information, prohibitions on the use of automated systems for the
selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when
a connection is completed to a number called without the prior express written consent
of the called party, prohibitions on calling telephone numbers appearing on the national
do-not-call registry or where a person has previously communicated to the telephone
solicitor or other person that he or she does not wish to receive an outbound telephone
call, text message, or voicemail transmission. Fla. Stat. § 501.059.

28. The FTSA provides that a called party who is aggrieved by a violation of
the section may bring an action to, inter alia, recover actual damages or $500,

whichever is greater. Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(a). Further if the court finds that the
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.8 Filed 06/18/25 Page 8 of 30

defendant’s violations were willful or knowing, the court may, in its discretion, treble
the amount of the award. Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(b).

General Allegations

29. Plaintiffs 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, some claiming that arrest warrants have been issued against
Plaintiff for alleged drug trafficking and money laundering activities.

30. Plaintiff's telephone number is 734-xxx-x300.

31. Plaintiffs telephone number 734-xxx-x300 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 has been so listed continuously since at least June 1, 2004, and
at all times subsequent thereto and relevant hereto.

32. Plaintiff uses telephone number 734-xxx-x300 primarily for personal,
family, and household communications, and not for business purposes.

33. Plaintiff's telephone number 734-xxx-x300 is assigned to a service for
which the called party is charged for the call on a per call and per minute basis.

34. Plaintiff's telephone number 734-xxx-x300 is not assigned to a cellular

telephone service.
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.9 Filed 06/18/25 Page 9 of 30

35. By listing his telephone number on the National Do Not Call Registry,
Plaintiff has given constructive notice to the World, including the Defendants, that
Plaintiff does not wish to receive telephone solicitations or robocalls at his telephone
number.

36. Courts are legally bound to give great deference to the FCC’s interpretations
of the TCPA and its own regulations. See FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 U.S.
582, 598, 101 S.Ct. 1266, 1276, 67 L.Ed.2d 521 (1981) (“the construction of a statute
by those charged with its execution should be followed unless there are compelling
indications that itis wrong ...”).

37. 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.” /n 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 (2015).

38. Plaintiff is the customary user of the called telephone line, is the one that
was the actual recipient of the telephone calls at issue in this complaint, and suffered
the nuisance and invasion of privacy of same. Thus, Plaintiffhas standing to bring this
action for alleged violations of TCPA’s provisions. See Leyse v. Bank of America Nat.
Ass'n, 804 F.3d 316, 324 (3" Cir., 2015).

39. The FCC has ruled that telephone subscribers who ask to be put on the

9
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.10 Filed 06/18/25 Page 10 of 30

national do-not-call list are presumed to be “residential subscribers.” Jn re Rules and
Regulations Implementing the TCPA, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, 14039, 2003 WL 21517853,
at *14, J 36 (2003).

40. At no time relevant hereto has Plaintiff or any other authorized person
requested, consented, permitted, or authorized the contact from the Defendants.

41. At no time has Plaintiff provided permission to the Defendants to engage
in telephone solicitation with the Plaintiff via telephone.

42. At no time has Plaintiff provided “prior express consent” or “prior express
written consent” (as those terms are defined under the TCPA and as interpreted by the
FCC) for the Defendant or anyone acting on behalf of the Defendant to initiate 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
Plaintiff's telephone number.

43. At no time has Plaintiff had an “established business relationship” (as that
term is defined under the TCPA and as interpreted by the FCC) with the Defendants.

44. The FCC has declared that a necessary element for a person to provide
“consent” is that the person must knowingly and voluntarily provide the telephone

number at which they are authorizing telemarketing calls to be received at. For

example, capturing a caller’s telephone number by a Caller ID or ANI device cannot

be considered consent to receive telemarketing calls. Jn the Matter of Rules and
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.11 Filed 06/18/25 Page 11 of 30

Regulations Implementing the TCPA, 7 FCC Rcd. 8752, 8769, 1992 WL 690928, at
*11,931 (1992).

45. The FCC has further declared that persons who knowingly release their
phone numbers have in effect given their invitation or permission to be called at the
number which they have given, if the caller is making calls within the scope of the
consent given, and absent instructions to the contrary. Jn the Matter of Rules and
Regulations Implementing the TCPA, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 8028, 2015 WL 4387780,
at *47, § 141 (2015).

46. Similarly, for purposes of an “established business relationship,” the FCC
has declared that a consumer inquiry cannot be considered to create a business
relationship where the consumer's number has been captured absent that consumer's
express invitation or permission to be contacted at the captured number. Jn the Matter
of Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA, 7 FCC Red. 8752, 8771, 1992 WL
690928, at *13, n. 67 (1992).

47. Atno time has Plaintiff released his phone number to any of the Defendants
in order to have given invitation or permission to be called at that number.

48. Consent cannot be “presumed.” The TCPA and the Commission's rules
plainly require express consent, not implied or “presumed” consent. Jn re Rules and
Regulations Implementing the TCPA, 30 FCC Red. 7961, 7991, 2015 WL 4387780,
at *20, | 52 (FCC, 2015).

49. The FCC has declared that “[p]urporting to obtain consent during the call...

1]
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.12 Filed 06/18/25 Page 12 of 30

does not constitute the prior consent necessary to deliver the message in the first place
as the request... is part of the telemarketing.” Jn re Rules and Regulations Implementing
the TCPA, 18 FCC Red. 14014, 14019, 2003 WL 21517853, at *49, 9 142 (2003)
[Emphasis as in original].

50. The TCPA places no affirmative obligation on a called party to opt out of
calls to which he or she never consented. In re Rules and Regulations Implementing
the TCPA, 30 FCC Red. 7961, 8004, 2015 WL 4387780, at *29, 4 81 (2015).

51. 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.”

Inre Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, 20 FCC Red. 13664, 13667, 2005 WL 1981564, at *3, 7 7 (2005).

52. A seller may be liable for violations by its representatives under a broad
range of agency principles, including not only formal agency, but also principles of
apparent authority and ratification. Jn re Dish Network, 28 FCC Rcd. 6574, 6584, 2013
WL 1934349, at *9, | 28 (2013).

53. Aseller would be responsible under the TCPA for the unauthorized conduct

12
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No. 1, PagelD.13 Filed 06/18/25 Page 13 of 30

of a third-party telemarketer that is otherwise authorized to market on the seller’s
behalf if the seller knew (or reasonably should have known) that the telemarketer was
violating the TCPA on the seller’s behalf and the seller failed to take effective steps
within its power to force the telemarketer to cease that conduct. Jn re Dish Network,
28 FCC Red. 6574, 6592, 2013 WL 1934349, at *15, | 46 (2013).

54. 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.

55. 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 WL 5966340, *4 (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.”).

56. 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 ofa corporation.

13
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No. 1, PagelD.14 Filed 06/18/25 Page 14 of 30

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.

57. For each and every call alleged herein initiated to Plaintiff's telephone line,
Plaintiff suffered the injury of invasion of privacy and intrusion on Plaintiff's right of
seclusion.

58. For each and every call alleged herein initiated to Plaintiffs telephone line,
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 Defendants’ calls.

59. For each and every call alleged herein initiated to Plaintiff's telephone line,
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.

60. Each and every call placed without consent by Defendants alleged herein
to Plaintiffs telephone lines resulted in the injury of a trespass to Plaintiff's chattel,
namely Plaintiff's telephone line and its telephone services.

61. For purposes of the TCPA, the FCC has defined “willfully or knowingly”

14
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.15 Filed 06/18/25 Page 15 of 30

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
violator need not know that his action or inaction constitutes a violation; ignorance of
the law is not a defense or mitigating circumstance.

The Scheme

62. The Employee Retention Credit (ERC), also known as the Employee
Retention Tax Credit, was established by Congress under the CARES Act in March
2020. It provides financial relief to eligible businesses that retained employees during
the COVID pandemic, even when their operations were partially or fully suspended
due to government orders or significant declines in gross receipts.

63. Defendant ERTC is engaged in providing a service to businesses across the
United States to qualify for and obtain the Employee Retention Credit.

64. As part of the scheme, Defendants utilize telemarketing to identify and
target prospective businesses and business owners who are eligible to utilize ERTC’s
service.

65. Defendants, either directly or through a third-party telemarketing platform
provider, initiate telephone calls en masse using automated telephone dialing systems
which have the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a
random or sequential number generator to dial such numbers, to solicit prospects.

66. These automatic telephone dialing platforms can store lists of telephone
numbers (and, often, personal information) of businesses and business owners and use

15
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.16 Filed 06/18/25 Page 16 of 30

a random number or sequential number generator which has the capacity to select and
initiate calls to persons from the stored lists of telephone numbers with no human
involvement and only route the call to a telemarketing agent when a called person has
actually answered the call.

67. Ifa call goes unanswered, the automatic telephone dialing platform places
the telephone number of the unanswered call back into the dialer list so that the
telephone number may, once again, be selected by the sequential or random number
generator at a future time to be called again.

68. Defendants do not scrub their outbound call lists against the National Do
Not Call Registry, thus they routinely will call telephone numbers of consumers who
do not wish to receive telemarketing calls.

69. Defendants do not obtain prior express consent or prior express written
consent before they initiate outbound calls using automated telephone dialing systems
to consumers.

70. Defendants deliberately manipulate the caller identification information
displayed for each outbound call to disguise their identity and so as to prevent called
persons from being able to block Defendants’ calls.

71. Parties are acting in concert when they act in accordance with an agreement
to cooperate in a particular line of conduct or to accomplish a particular result. The
agreement need not be expressed in words or may be implied and understood to exist

from the conduct itself. Whenever two or more persons commit tortious acts in concert,

16
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.17 Filed 06/18/25 Page 17 of 30

each become subject to liability for the acts of the others, as well as for his own acts.
In either case, the defendant's embrace of the actor's purpose or design—whether by
agreement or by action—renders the defendant liable for the underlying tort.

72. The liability of coconspirators to civil damages is joint and several. All
those who, in pursuance of a common plan to commit a tortious act actively take part
in it and further it by cooperation or request, or who lend aid or encouragement to the
wrongdoer, or who ratify and adopt the acts done for their benefit, are equally liable
with him.

73. On January 23, 2024, at approximately 10:19 A.M., Defendants initiated
a telephone call to Plaintiff's telephone number 734-xxx-x300.

74. The caller identification number displayed was 786-206-6033, with no caller
identification name information.

75. Upon answering the incoming call, Plaintiff heard a click sound, followed
by approximately 4 seconds of silence, and then an individual identified himself as
“John... with ERTC.com”.

76. John proceeded to tell Plaintiff about the Employee Retention Credit and
explained the service which ERTC supplied.

77. Plaintiff was able to elicit that John’s surname was Souza.

78. Plaintiff asked John to be provided a copy of ERTC’s written do-not-call

policy, and provided John with an email address to send the information to.

17
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.18 Filed 06/18/25 Page 18 of 30

79. Plaintiff informed John that Plaintiff's telephone number was listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry, and asked Plaintiff's telephone number not be called
again.

80. John abruptly hung up.

81. Immediately after the call terminated, Plaintiff dialed the caller identification
number displayed (786-206-6033) to make a do-not-call demand; but the dialed
number was not in service.

Call 2

82. On January 23, 2024, at approximately 1:03 P.M., Defendants initiated a
telephone call to Plaintiff's telephone number 734-xxx-x300.

83. The caller identification number displayed was 786-206-6033, with no caller
identification name information.

84. Upon answering the incoming call, Plaintiff heard a click sound, followed
by approximately 4 seconds of silence, and then the call abruptly terminated.

Call 3

85. On January 23, 2024, at approximately 1:04 P.M., Defendants initiated
a telephone call to Plaintiff's telephone number 734-xxx-x300.

86. The caller identification number displayed was 786-206-6033, with no caller
identification name information.

87. Upon answering the incoming call, Plaintiff heard a click sound, followed

by approximately 4 seconds of silence, and then the call abruptly terminated.

18
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.19 Filed 06/18/25 Page 19 of 30

COUNT I
TCPA VIOLATION - 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii)

88. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraph 1 through 87, supra.

89. A common characteristic evidencing the use of an automatic telephone
dialing system is a “click” or electronic sound being heard immediately after answering
a call, followed by a brief period of silence before a live person comes onto the line or
a recorded message is played. Each of Calls 1 through 3, supra, exhibited these
characteristics.

90. Each of Calls 1 through 3, supra, were in violation of the TCPA regulations,
specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii), as Defendants initiated a telephone call
using an automatic telephone dialing system to a telephone number assigned to a
service for which the called party is charged for the call without the prior express
consent of the called party and there being no emergency.

91. The aforesaid violations of the TCPA were wilful and/or knowing as is
evidenced by the repeated number of calls and the numerous violations per call.

COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)

92. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 87, supra.
93. Each of Calls 1 through 3, supra, were in violation of the TCPA regulations,
specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2), as Defendants initiated a telephone call that

constitutes telemarketing, using an automatic telephone dialing system, to a telephone

19
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.20 Filed 06/18/25 Page 20 of 30

number assigned to a service for which the called party is charged for the call without
the prior express written consent of the called party.

94. The aforesaid violations of the TCPA were wilful and/or knowing as is
evidenced by the repeated number of calls and the numerous violations per call.

COUNT Hl
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(7)

95. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs | through 87, supra.

96. Calls 1 through 3, supra, were in violation of the TCPA regulations,
specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(7), as Defendants initiated a telephone call to
Plaintiff's telephone line and a live sales representative was not available and did not
speak to Plaintiff within two (2) seconds after the called person’s completed greeting.

97. The aforesaid violation of the TCPA was wilful and/or knowing as is

evidenced by the repeated number of overall violations.

COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(7)(i)(A)

98. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs | through 87, supra.

99. Each of Calls 1 through 3, supra, were in violation of the TCPA regulations,
specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(7)(i)(A), as Defendants initiated a telephone call
to Plaintiffs telephone line and a live sales representative was not available and did not
speak to Plaintiff within two (2) seconds after the called person’s completed greeting

and did not provide a prerecorded identification disclosing that the call was for

20
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.21 Filed 06/18/25 Page 21 of 30

“telemarketing purposes” and state the name of the business entity, and a telephone
number for such business entity that permits the called person to make a do-not-call
request during regular business hours.

100. The aforesaid violation of the TCPA was wilful and/or knowing as is
evidenced by the repeated number of overall violations.

COUNT V
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - 47 C.E.R. § 64.1200(a)(7)(i)(B)

101. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 87, supra.

102. Each of Calls 1 through 3, supra, were in violation of the TCPA
regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(7)(i)(B), as Defendants initiated a
telephone call to Plaintiff's telephone line and a live sales representative was not
available and did not speak to Plaintiff within two (2) seconds after the called person’s
completed greeting and did not provide an automated, interactive voice- and/or key
press-activated opt-out mechanism that enables the called person to make a do-not-call
request prior to terminating the call.

103. The aforesaid violations of the TCPA were wilful and/or knowing as is

evidenced by the repeated number of calls.

COUNT VI
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)

104. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs | through 87, supra.

105. Each of Calls 1 through 3, supra, were in violation of the TCPA

21
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.22 Filed 06/18/25 Page 22 of 30

implementing regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), as Defendants
initiated a telephone solicitation to 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 received telephone solicitations that is maintained by the Federal
Government.

106. The aforesaid violations of the TCPA were wilful and/or knowing as is
evidenced by the repeated number of calls and overall violations and the fact that
Plaintiff had previously made a do-not-call demand to Defendant.

COUNT VII
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1)

107. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs | through 87, supra.

108. Call 1, supra, was in violation of the TCPA implementing regulations,
specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1), as Defendants did not provide a written copy
of its do not call policy when demand was made for same by Plaintiff.

109. The aforesaid violations of the TCPA were wilful and/or knowing as is
evidenced by the repeated number of calls and overall violations.

COUNT VIII
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3)

110. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs | through 87, supra.
111. Calls 1 through 3, supra, were in violation of the TCPA implementing

regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3), as Defendants failed to record and

22
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No. 1, PagelD.23 Filed 06/18/25 Page 23 of 30

did not honor Plaintiff's request not to receive calls from that person or entity.
112. The aforesaid violations of the TCPA were wilful and/or knowing as is
evidenced by the repeated number of calls and overall violations.

COUNT IX
VIOLATION OF THE TCPA - 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(e)

113. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 87, supra.

114. Calls 1 through 3, supra, were in violation of the TCafPA implementing
regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), as Defendants failed to transmit
proper caller identification information, which must include the telemarketer’s name
and a telephone number which would permit a called person to make a do-not-call
request during regular business hours.

115. The aforesaid violations of the TCPA were wilful and/or knowing as
Defendants had to take deliberate action to manipulate their caller identification

information.

COUNT X
VIOLATION OF THE MHSSA

116. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs | through 87, supra.

117. Each of Calls 1 through 3, supra, were in violation of the MHSSA,
specifically: M.C.L. § 445.111a(5), as Defendants made a telephone solicitation to a
residential telephone subscriber whose residential telephone number is on the federal

do-not-call list; and/or M.C.L. § 445.111b(3), as Defendants intentionally blocked or

23
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.24 Filed 06/18/25 Page 24 of 30

interfered with the caller ID function of the telephone so that the correct telephone
number of the caller was not displayed.

COUNT XI
VIOLATION OF THE FTSA

118. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 87, supra.

119. Each of Calls 1 through 3, supra, were in violation of the FTSA,
specifically: Fla. Stat. § 501.059(2), as Defendants made an unsolicited telephone sales
call to aresidential telephone number and failed to identify himself by hus true first and
last names and the business on whose behalf he is soliciting immediately upon making
contact by telephone with the person who is the object of the telephone solicitation;
and/or, Fla. Stat. § 501.059(4), as Defendants made or caused to be made an
unsolicited telephone sales call to a residential telephone number that appears in the
no sales solicitation calls listing; and/or Fla. Stat. § 501.059(5), Defendants initiated
an outbound telephone call to a consumer or business who has previously
communicated to the telephone solicitor or other person that he does not wish to
receive an outbound telephone call made by or on behalf of the seller; and/or, Fla. Stat.
§ 501.059(8)(a), as Defendants made an unsolicited telephone sales call which call
involves an automated system for the selection of telephone numbers to a number
called without the prior express written consent of the called party; and/or Fla. Stat. §

501.059(9)(b), as Defendants made a telephonic sales calls or caused a telephone sales

call to be made and failed to transmit or cause not to be transmitted the originating
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.25 Filed 06/18/25 Page 25 of 30

telephone number and the name of the telephone solicitor to the caller identification
service in use by the recipient of the telephonic sales call.

120. The aforesaid violations of the FTSA were knowing and/or willful as is
evidenced by the repetitive number of violations, and the fact that Plaintiff had
expressly made a do not call request to the Defendants.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the aforesaid premises considered, Plaintiff prays that his Court
enter a judgment for Plaintiff and against the Defendants, and each of them jointly and
severally, as follows:

A. Damages:

i. Damages for violations of the TCPA alleged:

Count Violations
I 3
II 3
Ill 3
IV 3
V 3
VI 3
Vil 1
VIII 3
IX 3

A total of 25 violations at $500.00 per violation for damages of
$12,500.00, which amount shall be trebled because the violations
were willful and/or knowing, for total damages of $37,500.00.

ii. Damages for violations of the MHSSA alleged at Count X: 3

25
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.26 Filed 06/18/25 Page 26 of 30

violations at $250.00 per violation, for damages of $750.00;

iii. Damages for violations of the FTSA alleged at Count XI: 3
violations at $500.00 per violation, for damages of $1,500.00,
which amount shall be trebled because the violations were willful
and/or knowing, for total damages of $4,500.00.

The cumulative total amount of damages claimed in this action (exclusive

of additional calls and violations to be ascertained during discovery) is

$42,750.00,and in the event of default judgment is the sum certain
damages amount that will be sought.
B. Anaward of Plaintiff's taxable costs and disbursements incurred in the filing
and prosecution of this action;
C. An injunction enjoining Defendants and/or Defendants’ agents from
initiating any telephone calls to Plaintiffs telephone numbers.
D. Interest accruing from the date of filing until paid at the statutory rate; and,

E. Such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary, reasonable,

prudent and proper under the circumstances.
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.27 Filed 06/18/25 Page 27 of 30

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 16, 2025

Mark W. Dobronski

Post Office Box 99

Dexter, Michigan 48130-0099
Telephone: (734) 641-2300

Email: markdobronski@yahoo.com
Plaintiff Jn Propria Persona

27
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
(SEL INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
MARK W. DOBRONSKI

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Orange, FI.

DEFENDANTS

JOHN PAUL SOUZA

(EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES)

PRO ee Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number;

NOTE:

Attomeys (If Known)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF

THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

ERTC EXPRESS, LLC and

Hillsborough, FL

Ci

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

U.S. Government
Defendant

Hl. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Piace an “V" in One Box Only)

|g Federal Question
(U.S. Government

[4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizensh

Nota Party)

ip of Parties in [tem Ll}

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF

Citizen of This State

Citizen of Another State

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

DEF

oO:

Incorporated or Principal Place

HI. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Piace an “\X” in One Box for Plaintiff

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF

DEF

of Business In This State

O 2

Incorporated and Principal Place

O>s Os

of Business In Another State

D3

Foreign Nation

Oo 160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

| REAL PROPERTY

H 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability

[_] 360 Other Personal

Injury

a] 362 Personal Injury -

Medical Malpractice

CIVIL RIGHTS

H 371 Truth in Lending

[J] 380 Other Personal
Property Damage

[2] 385 Property Damage
Product Liability

PRISONER PETITIONS

Act
| 720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act

790 Other Labor Litigation

210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure

230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land

245 Tort Product Liability
Cl 290 All Other Real Property

440 Other Civil Rights
[_] 441 Voting
7 442 Employment
443 Housing’
Accommodations
T 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -
Employment
Bl 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -

Other
[J 448 Education

Habeas Corpus:

463 Alien Detainee

510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence

530 General

535 Death Penalty

Other:

540 Mandamus & Other

550 Civil Rights

555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement

791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

TMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions

|____ SOCIAL SECURITY

861 HIA (1395ff)

862 Black Lung (923)

863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI

865 RSI (405(g))

poy FEDERAL TAX SULTS — 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

or Defendant)

1] 871 IRS—Third Party

26 USC 7609

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “x” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
| CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES ]
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY [4625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane oO 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability T_]690 Other 28 USC 157 3729%a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability oO 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
C 150 Recovery of Overpayment C) 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical TS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights | 430 Banks and Banking
H 151 Medicare Act [_] 330 Federal Employers” Product Liability 830 Patent LJ] 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated a 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application [[] 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
oO 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ABO! | 880 Defend Trade Secrets gl] 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran's Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud \ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)

| 485 Telephone Consumer
Protection Act
Bl eso Cable/Sat TV
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
4 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
T] 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

1 Original
Proceeding

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
2 Removed from
State Court

Remanded from
Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from
O O Another District

Reopened
(specifi)

Transfer

6 Multidistrict
Litigation -

o 8 Multidistrict
Litigation -
Direct File

47 U.S.C. 227

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Brief description of cause:
Automated telephone solicitations

COMPLAINT:

VII. REQUESTED IN

oO CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND § 42.750.00

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND:

VII. RELATED CASE(S)

(See instructions):

JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

DATE
June 16, 2025

EY OF RECORD

IF ANY
| FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT #

AMOUNT APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-11822-BRM-DRG ECF No.1, PagelD.29 Filed 06/18/25 Page 29 of 30
PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83.11

1. Is this a case that has been previously dismissed? [_] Yes
If yes, give the following information:

Court:

Case No.:

Judge:

2. Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously
discontinued or dismissed companion cases in this or any other [ ] Yes
court, including state court? (Companion cases are matters in which Cl No
it appears substantially similar evidence will be offered or the same
or related parties are present and the cases arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence.)

If yes, give the following information:

Court:

Case No.:

Judge:

Notes :


File and source

File

1-complaint-dobronski-v-ertc-express.pdf

Size

1,171,919 bytes

SHA-256

d79f4fc1917bee6e8d98319fd6c73262f3590408ea227cf44ee2f3e1a6a79257

Our copy

1-complaint-dobronski-v-ertc-express.pdf

Original

No public link identified.