top of page
Search

Alleviate tax sued again for unwanted telephone calls!

  • Writer: Peter Schneider
    Peter Schneider
  • Jun 7
  • 8 min read

Updated: Jul 24

ree

George Baseluos, the CEO of Alleviate Tax, recently went on a podcast crowing about what a great business he's running, but for running a great business, his company sure does get sued a lot.


The latest lawsuit is Nickson v. Alleviate Tax LLC 8:25-cv-01042-TDC in the district court for the district of Maryland. The factual allegations in the lawsuit are pretty damning!

¶12 Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been registered on the “National Do Not Call Registry” since November 16, 2018. Please see Plaintiff's exhibit [#1] (“DNC” registry). ¶13 Defendant’s first illegal, unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing call was on Friday June 16, 2023, at 6:37 P.M. from “Spoofed” phone number (202) 951-4007. Plaintiff was eating dinner when he was disturbed by Defendant's unwanted call and looked at his phone and instinctively chose not to answer it, knowing it was from a telemarketer. Defendant’s call aggravated Plaintiff late in the evening hours. ¶14 Defendant’s second illegal, unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing call was on Tuesday June 27, 2023, at 11:26 AM. from the same “Spoofed” phone number (202) 951-4007. Plaintiff was enroute to an appointment when he was distracted and answered his cell phone and heard a beeping sound before 2 male voice came on the line and said, “Hello ’I’m calling from Alleviate tax relief services, do you have any tax issues we can assist you with” Plaintiff immediately stated, “I'm not interested” and disconnected the call. The Defendant’s call annoyed and aggravated Plaintiff. ¶15 Defendant’s third illegal, unsolicited and unwanted telemarking call was on a Tuesday June 27, 2023, at 2:21 P.M. from again “Spoofed” phone number (202) 951-4007. Plaintiff was trying to relax when he answered his cell phone and hears beeping sounds and a short pause before Defendant's representative in a male voice came on the line and said, “Hello this is Jose how are you doing today?” Plaintiff responded, “I'm sorry what is this again?” the representative replied, “We are Alleviate tax just reaching out to you, to see if you possibly have a tax debt we might be able to help you with” Plaintiff asked “Where are you located?” the representative replied “We are located in Irvine California”. Plaintiff started to confront the representative about the spoofed phone number and stated the following “O.K. you called me from (202) 951-4007 are you in Washington, D.C.?” the representative responded, “No, we use local phone numbers to avoid long distance charges” Plaintiff replied, “That’s spoofing” the representative stated “No it’s not” Plaintiff again stated, “Yes it is spoofing and Pm on the do not call registry and you guys have called me several times”. The representative stated. “Well, I’ll hang up then”. and disconnected the call. Plaintiff again felt harassed and annoyed by Defendant's illegal calls. Plaintiff video recorded this call and Defendant's use of spoofed phone number. ¶16 Defendant’s fourth illegal, unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing call was on Wednesday July 05, 2023, at 11:29 AM. from “Spoofed” phone number (202) 783-8516. Plaintiff was in the middle of meditating when he answered his cell phone and heard beeping sounds and a pause before a female voice came on the line and stated the following, “Hello 'm calling from Alleviate tax relief services we are a company that helps individuals find a tax relief program that best fits your needs and gives you peace of mind , we have a variety of accredited tax programs that offer protection from the IRS can I transfer you to a specialist?” Plaintiff wanted to get to the bottom of the harassing phone calls and responded “sure” Plaintiff was transferred and a live male voice came on the call and said, “Hello this is Cole with Alleviate tax relief services” Plaintiff replied, “Where are you located?” the representative responded, “Irvine, California.” Plaintiff at that point disconnected the call. Plaintiff again was frustrated and angered that he had to endure unwanted and harassing telemarketing calls from the Defendant. Video Recorded. Please see Plaintiff's exhibit [#2] (Screen shots of Defendant's phone numbers”).

There are a few nits to pick in the complaint.




Troutmin Amin does not believe in leaving one dollar of client money unspent, so while they come after the ATDS claim, they probably will come after the personally-registered-number-on-the-dnc thing, milking Rombough v. Robert D. Smith Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 22-CV-15-CJW-MAR, 2022. But Rombough is a considered by many other courts as an outlier.

Rombough, an out-of-circuit district court decision, read the relevant regulation narrowly and dismissed a TCPA claim on the grounds that the plaintiff had not alleged that she personally registered her number on the Do-Not-Call Registry . . . Plaintiff is correct that Rombough is an outlier and does not bind this Court. Clouse v. Loan Depot, LLC

Update

Right on que, Alleviate did file a motion to dismiss going after the ATDS claim because while it isn't impossible to bring one, it's difficult.



But Mr. Nickson did take a shot at it in his complaint:

Plaintiff alleges that Alleviate placed four unsolicited telemarketing calls to him using an ATDS “which has the present and/or future capacity to store, produce and/or dial such numbers using a random and/or sequential number generator.” Compl. at ¶ 18. However, Plaintiff is merely parroting the definition of an ATDS under the TCPA. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). Plaintiff cannot depend on a “formulaic recitation” of the elements of his cause of action, without any factual support. See e.g., Sprye v. Ace Motor Acceptance Corp., No. CV PX 16-3064, 2017 WL 1684619, at *5 (D. Md. May 3, 2017) (plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant contacted his cellular phone via an “automatic telephone dialing system, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1)” were insufficient to sustain an ATDS claim); see also Worsham v. Disc. Power, Inc., No. CV RDB20-0008, 2021 WL 3212589, at *3 (D. Md. July 29, 2021), amended on reconsideration, No. CV RDB-20-0008, 2021 WL 5742382 (D. Md. Dec. 1, 2021), aff'd, No. 22-1942, 2023 WL 2570961 (4th Cir. Mar. 20, 2023) (dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s ATDS claims because plaintiff alleged that the calls “were all initiated and made with an ‘automated telephone dialing system’ (“ATDS”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(2)” without asserting any facts to support the allegation that ATDS was used).

Alleviate was nice enough to provide a case Mr. Nickson can use supports his claim, Boger v. Citrix Sys., Inc., No. 8:19-CV-01234-PX, 2020 WL 1033566, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 3, 2020):

Boger has plausibly alleged a claim with sufficient specificity to survive challenge even under the most restrictive statutory interpretation. The Complaint avers the use of an ATDS. [and so did Mr. Nickson] ("One of the telemarketing strategies used by Citrix involves the use of an [ATDS] to solicit customers through the use of a predictive dialer"); ("Citrix engages in use of this equipment because it allows for thousands of automated calls to be placed at one time"); ("Mr. Boger received five automated calls from Citrix"). The Complaint more specifically avers that when Boger accused Citrix of using an ATDS, its representatives did not deny it. Benfer indicated that he did not know how the call to a cell phone number "got through," which, construed most favorably to Boger, suggests that Citrix knew the restrictions imposed under the TCPA, knew the dialing system constituted an ATDS, and plausibly used (or misused) an ATDS in some fashion such that Benfer could not explain how it managed to dial a cell phone number. [I am sure Mr. Nickson will point out that Alleviate's faked a/k/a spoofed local numbers isn't how you save on long distance charges, but spoofed numbers are a hallmark of automated telephone dialing equipment] Additionally, the Complaint avers that Boger noticed "a distinctive pause before sales representatives came onto the line that was indicative of the use of a predictive dialer." That the caller heard a "pause" at the beginning of the call allows the plausible inference that Citrix used an ATDS. See, e.g., Oliver v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 14-CV-7794, 2015 WL 1727251, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 13, 2015) ("[Plaintiff's] allegation regarding the "momentary pause," along with his other allegations regarding Defendant's phone calls, are sufficient to draw a reasonable inference that Defendant used an ATDS . . ."). The Court recognizes that some predictive dialers do not, in the end, qualify as an ATDS. See ACA Int'l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687, 703 (D.C. Cir. 2018). However, information regarding the specific features of Citrix's dialer system remains within the exclusive province of the defendant and are thus best left for exploration in discovery. See Whitehead v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 218CV470FTM99MRM, 2018 WL 5279155, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2018) ("There is no way for Plaintiff to know the technological capabilities of the device(s) used to place the calls at issue in this case short of Plaintiff learning that information in discovery."); see also Zeidel v. Nat'l Gas & Elec., LLC, No. 18 CV 06792, 2019 WL 2161546, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2019) ("Moreover, the difference between a predictive dialer and an ATDS is not readily apparent to a recipient of an automated call. Such a determination requires information about the technical details of the device that the defendant used to make the calls—information that the plaintiff lacks prior to discovery.");

Mr. Nickson has a shot at making his ATDS claims stick. In Taylor v. Offerspedia, LLC 2024 WL 5098223 (S.D. Tx. Dec. 12, 2024), that plaintiff's ATDS allegations were pretty thin, but enough to survive the motion to dismiss.

Defendant first argues that Plaintiff did not plead that Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system. That is incorrect. Plaintiff's Complaint states: On each occasion in which Plaintiff received a telephone call, Plaintiff answered the call, said “Hello,” and then heard either a lengthy pause or delay and/or a prerecorded voice before anyone came on the line, indicating to her that the call was made using an autodial a/k/a an “ATDS.” In certain cases involving calls or text messages, Plaintiff was prompted to take an action or press a button to “unsubscribe” or be taken off calling lists . . . These features also indicate that the call or text message was made using an ATDS.' Upon information and belief, each of the phone calls and text messages that Plaintiff received were sent using an ATDS.... Therefore, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded that Defendant’s communication was made or sent via an ATDS.

Worst case, he can put forward similar facts in his Response and ask for leave to amend his complaint.


*** Update

And Alleviate folded and settled the case!

ree

Do you have a question or a telemarketing, debt collection, or bankruptcy case that would make a great blog article? We might even review your pro-se complaint or motion in a blog post. Email peter@nwdebtresolution.com and/or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com and we may answer it for everyone!


Are telemarketers harassing you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana? My Washington State TCPA plaintiff law practice can help, just give us a call at 206-800-6000 or email peter@nwdebtresolution.com.


The thoughts, opinions and musings of this blog are those of Peter Schneider, a consumer advocate and Washington State plaintiff's TCPA attorney at Northwest Debt Resolution, LLC. They are just that, his thoughts, opinions and musings and should be treated as such. They are not legal advice. If you are looking to file a lawsuit for TCPA violations and unwanted calls please contact me for a consultation.




 
 
 

Comments

Back to Top

BACK TO TOP

bottom of page