Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Clerk
Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 13 Marion County, Indiana
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
AMERICAN HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, )
ANTHONY K. VALENTI, )
MICHAEL D. VALENTI, )
and JOHN DOES 1-10, )
)
Defendants. )
The Plaintiff, State of Indiana, by Attorney General Curtis T. Hill, Jr., and Deputy
Consumers Act, Ind. Code 24-4.7 (the “TSCA”), the Indiana Regulation of Automatic Dialing
Machines Act, Ind. Code 24-5-14 (the “Auto-Dialer Act”), and Ind. Code § 23-0.5-5-14,
petitions the Court for injunctive relief, civil penalties, reasonable costs, and other equitable
relief.
JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff, State of Indiana, is authorized to bring this action in Marion County and
to seek injunctive and other statutory relief pursuant to Ind. Code § 24-4.7-5-2, Ind. Code § 24-
2. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Defendants are or were involved in
as detailed below, are subject to the jurisdiction of an Indiana court pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule
4.4.
PARTIES
liability company whose principal address is or was 5022 Campbell Blvd., Nottingham,
MD 21236.
a manager of AHS.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendants, John Does 1-10, are individuals or
entities who participated in the activities described in this Complaint, and whose identities and
such act within the scope of his or her duties, employment, or agency.
10. Beginning on or before May 4, 2018, and continuing through at least July 18,
2018, Defendants made or caused to be made telephone calls to Indiana telephone numbers.
2
11. The Attorney General received complaints about 40 of these telephone calls
(“Consumer Complaints”). At this time, the Attorney General does not know exactly how many
12. The telephone calls described in the Consumer Complaints relate to each other
based on factors consistent among the calls, including the caller identification numbers
associated with the calls and the fact that all the calls involved a similar pre-recorded message.
13. According to the Consumer Complaints, the calls offered insurance products or
services.
15. At the time of the telephone calls, the subscribers of all 25 telephone numbers
listed above were “American Health Maryland LLC” and Anthony Valenti.
16. Upon information and belief, there is no such company as “American Health
17. Upon information and belief, the true company associated with the calls was
18. According to the Consumer Complaints, none of the consumers who received the
calls requested, consented to, permitted, authorized or gave permission for the calls.
3
19. At least thirty-six of the calls described in the Consumer Complaints were made
to telephone numbers that were on the Indiana Do Not Call list at the time of the calls.
20. According to the Consumer Complaints, all 40 of the calls began with a pre-
recorded message.
21. According to the Consumer Complaints, the recorded message played without a
22. It is believed and alleged that all 40 of the calls were made by an automatic
23. It is believed and alleged that Defendants made additional telephone calls to
Indiana telephone numbers in violation of Indiana law. The telephone numbers and dates of these
calls are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and may be identified during the course of this
litigation. Therefore, Plaintiff asserts a general allegation regarding additional violations of the
TSCA and the Auto-Dialer Act committed by Defendants with respect to as yet unidentified
Indiana consumers and incorporates all associated legitimate claims herein by reference
24. By soliciting the sale of insurance products to Indiana residents, AHS was or is
25. At all times relevant to the facts stated in this Complaint, AHS did not have a
certificate of authority from the Indiana Secretary of State, and was not registered as a foreign
26. At all times relevant to the facts stated in this Complaint, neither Anthony Valenti
4
COUNT I: DEFENDANTS MADE TELEPHONE SALES CALLS TO TELEPHONE
NUMBERS ON THE INDIANA DO NOT CALL LIST
IN VIOLATION OF IND. CODE § 24-4.7-4-1
27. The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
28. Pursuant to Ind. Code § 24-4.7-3-1, the Office of the Attorney General quarterly
publishes a no telephone sales solicitation listing, referred to herein as the “Indiana DNC List”.
The “Indiana DNC List” is a “listing of telephone numbers of Indiana consumers who request
29. The TSCA prohibits a telephone solicitor from making or causing to be made a
telephone sales call to a telephone number if that telephone number is registered on the Indiana
30. A “telephone solicitor” means a person doing business in Indiana. The term
includes a person that controls, directly or indirectly, one (1) or more other persons. Ind. Code §
24-4.7-2-9.
31. The term "doing business in Indiana" means: “(1) making; or (2) causing others
to make; telephone sales calls to consumers located in Indiana whether the telephone sales calls
are made from a location in Indiana or outside Indiana.” Ind. Code § 24-4.7-2-5.
32. From before May 4, 2018 through at least July 18, 2018, Defendants made or
33. According to the Consumer Complaints, the callers offered insurance products or
services.
5
34. A telephone call made for the purpose of selling consumer goods or services or
obtaining information that will or may be used to solicit the sale of consumer goods or services
35. By making telephone sales calls, Defendants were “telephone solicitors” “doing
business in Indiana” as those terms are defined by Ind. Code § 24-4.7-2-10 and § 24-4.7-2-5,
respectively.
36. At least 36 of the telephone calls described above were made to telephone
37. By making telephone sales calls to telephone numbers on the Indiana DNC List,
Defendants violated the TSCA, Ind. Code § 24-4.7-4-1. Each violation of the TSCA is a
38. Plaintiff, through the Indiana Attorney General, has authority to seek an
39. Under Indiana Trial Rule 65(C), the State of Indiana, as a government entity, need
40. Pursuant to Ind. Code § 24-4.7-5-2, Plaintiff may seek a civil penalty of not more
than $10,000 for the first violation of Ind. Code ch. 24-4.7-4; and not more than $25,000 per
41. Pursuant to Ind. Code § 24-4.7-5-2, Plaintiff may also seek all the money
Defendants obtained through violation of Ind. Code ch. 24-4.7-4; the Attorney General’s
reasonable costs in investigating and maintaining the action; and reasonable attorney’s fees.
42. Plaintiff asserts a general allegation regarding additional violations of the TSCA
committed by Defendants with respect to as yet unidentified Indiana consumers who may be
6
identified during the course of this litigation and incorporates all associated legitimate claims
herein by reference.
43. The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
Code § 24-5-14-4, by telephone, Defendants are “callers,” as defined by Ind. Code § 24-5-14-2.
45. Of the telephone calls described above, all 40 were reported to be “robocalls,”
meaning they were made by an automated dialing-announcing device, as defined by Ind. Code
46. The recipients of the prerecorded messages did not knowingly or voluntarily
47. The prerecorded messages were not preceded by a live operator who could have
telephone lines in Indiana and disseminating prerecorded voice messages absent the required
consent or authorization, Defendants violated the Auto-Dialer Act, Ind. Code § 24-5-14-5(b).
50. Upon information and belief, the Defendants committed the above-described
violations knowingly.
51. Defendants are subject to remedies and penalties provided under Ind. Code § 24-
5-14-13 and Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-4, which include: injunction; voiding or limiting the
7
application of contracts and restitution to aggrieved consumers; payment of a civil penalty up to
$5,000 per violation; and payment of the reasonable costs of the attorney general’s investigation
52. Plaintiff asserts a general allegation regarding additional violations of the Auto-
Dialer Act committed by Defendants with respect to as yet unidentified Indiana consumers who
may be identified during the course of this litigation and incorporates all associated legitimate
53. The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
56. Ind. Code § 23-0.5-5-2 provides that “[a] foreign filing entity may not do business
in Indiana until it registers with the [Indiana] secretary of state under this article.”
58. As of the date of this Complaint, AHS has not registered with the Indiana
Secretary of State.
59. Ind. Code § 23-0.5-5-2(f) provides that “[a] foreign filing entity is liable for a
civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) if it transacts business in Indiana
without a certificate of authority. The attorney general may collect all penalties due under this
subsection.”
8
60. Ind. Code § 23-0.5-5-14 provides that “[t]he attorney general may maintain an
action to enjoin a foreign filing entity from doing business in Indiana in violation of this article.”
RELIEF SOUGHT
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, State of Indiana, requests that the Court enter Judgment
successors, assigns, and any other person acting on behalf of any Defendant
specifically:
b. Ordering Defendants to pay to the Office of the Attorney General any and all
money Defendants obtained through any violations of the TSCA, Ind. Code 24-
d. Ordering Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay civil penalties of $10,000 for
the first violation and $25,000 for each subsequent violation of the TSCA, Ind.
Code 24-4.7-4-1;
e. Ordering Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay civil penalties in the amount
of up to $5,000 for each violation of the Auto-Dialer Act, Ind. Code § 24-5-14-
5;
9
f. Pursuant to Ind. Code § 23-0.5-5-2(f), imposing upon AHS a civil penalty of
g. Awarding the Office of Indiana Attorney General its reasonable costs incurred
in the investigation and prosecution of this matter, pursuant to Ind. Code § 24-
Respectfully submitted,
10