Chmielewski v. Advantage First Financial, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02095

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

9. Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA, and a citizen and resident of Passaic County, New Jersey.
10. Defendant is a Wyoming limited liability company with its headquarters located in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
11. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendant’s name in this Complaint includes all agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, vendors, and insurers of Defendant.

Factual Allegations

12. In or about April 2025, Plaintiff requested to opt-out of Defendant’s calls by verbally requesting Defendant to place Plaintiff on Defendant’s do-not-call list.
13. Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s request and continued calling Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, on or about: a. October 17, 2025; and b. October 17, 2025.
14. Overall, Defendant called Plaintiff more than one (1) time after Plaintiff’s initial stop
15. Upon information and belief, the purpose of Defendant’s calls was to solicit the sale of request. consumer goods, services, and/or properties.
16. Upon information and belief, the purpose of Defendant’s calls was to advertise, promote, and/or market Defendant’s goods, services, and/or properties.
17. As demonstrated by Defendant’s failure to honor Plaintiff’s opt-out request, Defendant does not honor consumer requests to opt-out of call solicitations. Indeed, Plaintiff attempted to opt-out of Defendant’s call solicitations by telling Defendant not to contact them anymore, but Defendant continued to call Plaintiff.
18. Defendant’s refusal to honor Plaintiff’s opt-out requests demonstrates that Defendant has not instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive calls from Defendant. The precise details regarding its lack of requisite policies and procedures are solely within Defendant’s knowledge and control.
19. Defendant’s refusal to honor Plaintiff’s opt-out requests demonstrates that Defendant does not provide training to its personnel engaged in telemarketing. The precise details regarding its lack of training are solely within Defendant’s knowledge and control.
20. Defendant’s refusal to honor Plaintiff’s opt-out requests demonstrates that Defendant does not maintain a standalone do-not-call list. The precise details regarding its lack of training are solely within Defendant’s knowledge and control.
21. Defendant did not maintain the required procedures for handling and processing opt-out requests prior to the initiation of the violative calls it sent to Plaintiff as reflected by the fact that Plaintiff made an opt-out request and that request was never processed; the request was ignored by Defendant and its employees and Defendant continued to call.
22. Defendant sent at least two solicitations after Plaintiff’s first opt-out request.
23. Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received the above call solicitations.
24. Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone that received Defendant’s calls for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff’s residential telephone line.
25. Upon information and belief, Defendant has access to outbound transmission reports for all calls advertising/promoting its services and goods. These reports show the dates, times, target telephone numbers, and content of each call sent to Plaintiff and the Class members. Defendant also has access to call logs showing Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ inbound opt-out requests.
26. Defendant’s calls caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights.

Remedies Sought

• An order certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class as defined above,
• An award of statutory damages for Plaintiff and each member of the Class as applicable under the TCPA;
• An order declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set out above, violate the TCPA;
• An injunction requiring Defendant to comply with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by (1) maintaining the required written policies; (2) providing training to their personnel engaged in telemarketing; and (3) maintaining a do-not-call list; and
• Such further and other relief as the Court deems necessary.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this lawsuit about?

Plaintiff filed this class action in federal court against Defendant. See the facts section above for the full allegations.

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