Eastern Financial Partners (EFPTR LLC) Sued for Robocalls to Do-Not-Call Numbers

Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF)

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

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

Introduction

1. Mathew Rogers (“Plaintiff”), through his attorneys, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendant EFPTR LLC (“EFPTR” or “Defendant”).
2. This class action arises from Defendant’s persistent disregard for federal law — specifically, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227.
3. Defendant uses unlawful and invasive telemarketing tactics to drum up business. And Defendant flooded Plaintiff with invasive telemarketing solicitations in clear violation of the TCPA.
4. Now, Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harassed by Defendant and its unlawful telemarketing tactics.

Parties

5. Plaintiff Mathew Rogers is a natural person and a citizen of Nashville, Tennessee.
6. On information and belief, Defendant EFPTR, LLC was — at least at some point in time — a New Jersey limited liability company. However, EFPTR, LLC no longer appears to be registered in New Jersey. On further information and belief, EFPTR, LLC does business as “Eastern Financial Partners,” offering “debt restructuring” services. EFPTR, LLC maintains offices in New Jersey, yet posts job listings for in-person positions in Boca Raton, Florida. On still further information and belief, EFPTR LLC is a successor entity to another business called Alliance Capital Funding, LLC.

Jurisdiction and Venue

7. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227.
8. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it directed telemarketing calls to Tennessee which establishes sufficient minimum contacts for claims arising from those telemarketing calls.
9. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

Background — The Telephone Consumer Protection Act

10. Congress enacted the TCPA to combat “the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls to consumers and businesses from telemarketers.” Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395, 399 (2021).
11. The TCPA generally prohibits robocalls to cell phones and home phones. Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants, 591 U.S. 610, 613 (2020).
12. The result of the telemarketing regulations was the national Do-Not-Call registry. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).
13. As used herein, “TCPA” refers to both the federal statute 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. and its implementing regulations 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 et seq.
14. The TCPA establishes a “private right of action” whereby persons can seek both injunctive and monetary relief. 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(b)(3), (c)(5).
15. For damages, the TCPA provides “$500 in damages for each such violation.” However, the TCPA provides treble damages of $1,500 for each “willful” or “knowing” violation.

Plaintiff Mathew Rogers

22. Plaintiff is an individual and a “person” under the meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).
23. Plaintiff’s residential telephone number is 608-774-XXXX.
24. To avoid unsolicited telemarketing calls, Plaintiff personally placed his telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on January 22, 2007. Since then, Plaintiff has not removed his telephone number from the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
25. Plaintiff uses his telephone number for personal, residential, and household purposes.
26. Plaintiff has not used his telephone number for business purposes, aside from occasional use for work calls of a personal nature.
27. Plaintiff has not associated his telephone number with any business.
28. Plaintiff has been the sole owner of his telephone number for approximately ten (10) years.

Plaintiff’s Relationship (or Lack Thereof) with Defendant

33. Plaintiff filled out online health insurance and business loan inquiries over twelve (12) months ago, but is not a current or former customer of Defendant.
34. Plaintiff has never had a business relationship with Defendant.
35. Plaintiff never provided his telephone number to Defendant.
36. Plaintiff has never consented to receive the alleged telephone solicitations from Defendant.

Defendant Engages in Telemarketing

37. Defendant “provide[s] business debt restructuring for businesses with Merchant Cash Advances only,” and “specialize[s] in MCA negotiations.”
38. Simply put, Defendant sells debt restructuring services.
39. A screenshot of Defendant’s website is referenced in the complaint.
40. Notably, in Defendant’s industry, telemarketing is a widespread and standard practice. Indeed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that the “Business Support Services” industry has one of the highest levels of telemarketing.
41. To sell its services, Defendant (or its third-party agents) engages in telemarketing campaigns.
42. Defendant has already received numerous complaints about its unlawful telemarketing practices.
43. Screenshots of consumer complaints to the Better Business Bureau and Yelp are referenced in the complaint.

Factual Allegations — Defendant Violated the TCPA

44. As explained below, Defendant violated the TCPA numerous times.
45. Defendant first contacted Plaintiff by telephone on June 13, 2024. Since then, Plaintiff has received at least six (6) calls from Defendant, originating from telephone numbers associated with Defendant, including but not limited to (608) 409-4603, (608) 409-4609, and (608) 409-4610.
46. Plaintiff answered the call, and Defendant then attempted to solicit Plaintiff to purchase debt restructuring services.
47. Defendant placed numerous telephonic solicitations to Plaintiff’s telephone number, including on: June 13, 2024; July 20, 2024; August 13, 2024; September 6, 2024; September 16, 2024; and September 25, 2024.
48. On July 30, 2024, Defendant left a voicemail on Plaintiff’s telephone number stating: “Hi. This is Frank with Eastern Financial. We specialize in restructuring high interest business loans, reducing your daily or weekly payments by as much as 60% and reducing your payback principal by 30%. Give me a call at (888) 357-0093 to discuss what we can do for you. Thank you.”
49. On September 6, 2024, Defendant left a voicemail on Plaintiff’s telephone number stating: “Hi. This is Ashley with Eastern Financial. If your business is experiencing high daily or weekly payments to merchant cash advance lenders, our firm specializes in reducing the balance up to 30% and more and importantly, the daily or weekly payments by 50% or more, injecting immediate cash flow back into your business. If this is something you feel like your business can benefit from, please give us a call back at (888) 357-0093. Again, it’s (888) 357-0093. We look forward to hearing from you and have a great day.”
50. On September 16, 2024, Defendant left a voicemail with a nearly identical script — “Frank with Eastern Financial” again pitching debt restructuring services.
51. On September 25, 2024, another nearly identical voicemail from “Frank with Eastern Financial” was left on Plaintiff’s phone.
52. In other words, Defendant called Plaintiff’s telephone number and attempted to solicit Plaintiff to purchase its debt restructuring services.
53. The telephone calls and voicemails featured a voice with a monotone pitch and robotic cadence — indeed, the voice lacked the typical pitch inflections, pauses, missteps, and “filler words” that characterize normal human speech. Thus, on information and belief, the telephone calls and voicemails in question used a prerecorded or artificial voice.
54. During the telephone calls and voicemails, the caller spoke in a crisp and efficient manner — without the typical pauses, missteps, and “filler words” that characterize extemporaneous conversation. Thus, on information and belief, the caller read directly from a standardized script.
55. The aforementioned telephone solicitations to Plaintiff were unwanted, nonconsensual encounters, as Plaintiff never provided his consent or requested the calls.

Class Action Allegations

58. Plaintiff brings this class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), individually and on behalf of the following:
    • National Do-Not-Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States whose telephone numbers were on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 31 days but then received two or more telephone calls from, or on behalf of, Defendant during a 12-month period and within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation and up until the date of trial.
    • Internal Do-Not-Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States whose telephone numbers received two or more telephone calls from, or on behalf of, Defendant during a 12-month period, within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation and up until the date of trial, and who had previously requested for the telephone calls to stop.
    • Prerecorded Voice Class: All persons in the United States whose telephone number received one or more telephone calls from, or on behalf of, Defendant during a 12-month period, within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation and up until the date of trial, and when the telephone call used a prerecorded or artificial voice.

Count I — Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) (National Do-Not-Call Registry Class)

The complaint alleges that the foregoing acts of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple violations of the TCPA, by making telemarketing solicitations to Plaintiff and the National Do-Not-Call Class despite their numbers being on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Plaintiff and National Do-Not-Call Class Members seek statutory damages of $500 (or $1,500) for each unlawful telephone call and injunctive relief.

Count II — Violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) (Prerecorded Call Class)

The complaint alleges that Defendant made telephonic solicitations using a prerecorded and/or artificial voice. Plaintiff and Prerecorded Call Class Members seek statutory damages of $500 (or $1,500) for each unlawful telephone call and injunctive relief.

Count III — Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) (Internal Do-Not-Call Registry Class)

The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to honor Plaintiff’s and the Internal Do-Not-Call Class Members’ opt-out requests and instead continued to call them. The complaint further alleges that Defendant failed to: (1) institute procedures for maintaining a do-not-call list; (2) implement a written policy for maintaining a do-not-call list; and (3) train its personnel in the existence and use of the do-not-call list. Plaintiff and Internal Do-Not-Call Class Members seek statutory damages of $500 (or $1,500) for each unlawful telephone call and injunctive relief.

Prayer for Relief

Plaintiff and Class Members respectfully request judgment against Defendant including: (A) certifying this case as a class action; (B) awarding statutory damages; (C) providing injunctive relief; and (D) granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff demands a jury trial for all claims so triable.

Case filed March 17, 2026. Attorneys for Plaintiff: J. Gerard Stranch, IV of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC (Nashville, TN) and Cassandra P. Miller of Strauss Borrelli PLLC (Chicago, IL).

(Source: U.S. District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Case No. 3:26-cv-00315 — CourtListener Docket)