Tom v. Delancey Street Group LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01150

Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF)

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

The following is taken verbatim from the complaint filed in federal court. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.

The Parties

4. Plaintiff David Tom is an individual.
5. Defendant Delancey Street Group LLC, which does business under the name MCA Justice, is a New York-based company that sells services related to loan and debt restructuring and creditors’ rights. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.
7. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Delancey Street d/b/a MCA Justice because it is a resident corporation of New York.
8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Defendant is a resident of this District, having its registered office in Albany. BACKGROUND A. The TCPA Prohibits Calls to Numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.
9. The TCPA prohibits making multiple telemarketing calls to a residential telephone number that has previously been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).
10. The National Do Not Call Registry allows consumers to register their telephone numbers and thereby indicate their desire not to receive telephone solicitations at those numbers. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).
11. A listing on the National Do Not Call Registry “must be honored indefinitely, or until the registration is cancelled by the consumer or the telephone number is removed by the database administrator.” Id.
12. The TCPA and implementing regulations prohibit the initiation of telephone solicitations to residential telephone subscribers on the Registry and provide a private right of action against any entity that makes those calls, or “on whose behalf” such calls are promoted. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). B. The TCPA Also Requires Telemarketers to Transmit Caller Identification Information Including the Telemarketer’s Name.
13. The TCPA requires any “person or entity that engages in telemarketing” to “transmit caller identification information.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(e).
14. The relevant regulation defines “caller identification information” as “either CPN or ANI, and, when available by the telemarketer’s carrier, the name of the telemarketer.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(e)(1).
15. A violation of this subsection of the TCPA is enforceable under the private right of action provided for under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)’s private right of action. Dobronski v. Selectquote Ins. Servs., No. 2:23-CV-12597, 2025 WL 900439, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2025).

Factual Allegations

16. The Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).
17. At no point did the Plaintiff consent to receiving telemarketing calls or text messages from the Defendant prior to receiving the calls at issue.
18. Plaintiff’s telephone number, (321) XXX-XXXX, is a residential, non- commercial telephone number.
19. Mr. Tom uses the number for personal, residential, and household reasons.
20. The number is a residential telephone line because it is assigned to a residential telephone exchange service for consumers and is not assigned to a telephone exchange service for businesses.
21. Moreover, the telephone line is assigned to a cellular service which is presumptively residential and was eligible for registration on the National Do Not Call Registry at the time it was registered.
22. Plaintiff’s telephone number has been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since he listed it there over a year prior to the calls at issue.
23. Plaintiff has never been a customer of MCA Justice or Delancey Street.
24. In fact, the Plaintiff had similar communications from the Defendant in March of 2022, and requested that the Defendant cease contacting him at that number at that time.
25. Despite that fact, the Plaintiff received over eight telemarketing text messages from the Defendant, starting on March 6, 2025, and continuing through present.
26. The text messages and calls all came from the following numbers. Counsel for the Plaintiff has access to “dip” the Caller ID database of the calling carrier to ascertain the CNAM information to ascertain (1) whether caller name delivery (CNAM) is available with the Defendant’s calling carrier, and (2) whether such CNAM information contained the name of the telemarketer. The results of those dips are as follows: Number Date CNAM Available? CNAM Result Carrier 03/06/2025 Y BABYLON NY BANDWIDTH 03/06/2025 Y BABYLON NY BANDWIDTH 03/06/2025 Y BABYLON NY BANDWIDTH 03/06/2025 Y BABYLON NY BANDWIDTH 03/06/2025 Y BABYLON NY BANDWIDTH 03/07/2025 Y BABYLON NY BANDWIDTH 03/08/2025 Y BABYLON NY BANDWIDTH 03/10/2025 Y BABYLON NY BANDWIDTH
27. As the aforementioned chart shows, the CNAM transmitted by the Defendant’s ultimate telephone carrier, Bandwidth, provided CNAM functionality, but the CNAM functionality transmitted a geographic location and not the Defendant’s name or telemarketer’s name.
28. Bandwidth provides its customers and other users the ability to set the CNAM result accurately to reflect their own name as desired, but if the customer does not elect such a CNAM, Bandwidth’s default CNAM customer setting is to transmit the geographic location of the telephone exchange for the calling telephone number, and not the caller’s name, as occurred here.
29. The Plaintiff received the following text messages:
30. As reproduced above, the text messages all came from the illegally and fictitiously named “MCA Justice.”
31. Also as reproduced above, the Plaintiff stated “Don’t text me email me only,” but the Defendant continued to text Plaintiff 6 more times.
32. Defendant illegally uses the fictitious name “MCA Justice” as a “marketing arm” for the Defendant’s company to hide ill will for Delancey Street, whose services were promoted:
33. In fact, the email also includes a link to Delancey Street:
34. In other words, “MCA Justice” is Defendant Delancey Street.
35. Under the TCPA, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, text messages are “calls” for the purposes of the TCPA. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 153 (2016).
36. The calls were unwanted.
37. The calls were nonconsensual encounters.
38. Plaintiff’s privacy has been repeatedly violated by the above-described telemarketing calls.
39. Plaintiff never provided his consent or requested the calls.
40. Plaintiff and the Classes have been harmed by the acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed. In addition, the calls occupied their telephone lines, storage space, and bandwidth, rendering them unavailable for legitimate communication, including while driving, working, and performing other critical tasks.

Claims for Relief

COUNT II — Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Telemarketing Caller ID Class): The defendants allegedly failed to transmit proper caller identification information — including the telemarketer’s name — when making telemarketing calls, despite their carrier (Bandwidth) offering that option. All eight texts showed “BABYLON NY” (a geographic default) instead of the company’s name. Damages: up to $500 per violation, trebled to $1,500 if willful.

COUNT III — Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Internal DNC Class): The defendants allegedly continued sending telemarketing texts to persons who had previously asked to stop being contacted. The named plaintiff asked Delancey Street to stop calling in March 2022; three years later, the texts resumed and continued even after he asked to stop again mid-conversation. Damages: up to $500 per violation, trebled to $1,500 if willful.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has Delancey Street Group LLC, which does business under the name MCA Justice, been found liable in this case?

No. This is a complaint — a legal filing that contains allegations made by David Tom. Delancey Street Group LLC, which does business under the name MCA Justice, has not been found liable for any wrongdoing. A finding of liability requires a court proceeding where evidence is presented and evaluated by a judge or jury.

What does the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibit?

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227) prohibits auto-dialed calls, pre-recorded messages, and unsolicited text messages to cell phones without prior express written consent. It also protects numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Violations carry statutory damages of $500 per call, tripled to $1,500 for willful violations.

What is the current status of this case?

This case was recently filed. See the CourtListener docket linked at the bottom of this page for the complete filing record. This page is updated automatically when new documents are filed.

Where can I read the full complaint against Delancey Street Group LLC, which does business under the name MCA Justice,?

The full complaint is publicly available on CourtListener. The Facts as Alleged section above reproduces the complaint’s factual allegations verbatim. The complete case record, including all filings, is available through the docket link at the bottom of this page.

Source: CourtListener. Information on this page is taken verbatim from the court complaint. These are allegations only; no finding of fact has been made.