The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ZACHARY FRIDLINE, No. 4:23-CV-00656
Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)
v.
MILLENNIA TAX RELIEF, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MARCH 29, 2024
I. BACKGROUND
This case was initially filed by Plaintiff, Zachary Fridline, against Defendant,
Millennia Tax Relief, LLC (“Millennia Tax”), on April 20, 2023.1 For the past eleven
months, Defendant has failed to appear before this Court at all. Plaintiff moved for
entry of default on June 9, 2023,2 and default was subsequently entered by the Clerk
of Court on June 12, 2023.3 Then, Plaintiff moved for default judgment on February
13, 2024.4 Still, Defendant has refused to respond, and therefore the motion is now
ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
1 See Doc. 1 (Compl.).
2 See Doc. 7 (Request for Entry of Default).
3 See Doc. 8 (Clerk’s Entry of Default).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Default Judgment is Warranted
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 allows the District Court to enter default
judgment upon application by a party.5 “Generally, the entry of a default judgment is
disfavored, and a court is required to exercise sound judicial discretion in deciding
whether to enter default judgment.”6 “This element of discretion makes it clear that
the party making the request is not entitled to a default judgment as of right, even
when defendant is technically in default and that fact has been noted under Rule
55(a).”7 It is “well settled that decisions relating to default judgments are committed
to the sound discretion of the district court.”8
The Court must consider three factors in deciding whether to grant default
judgment: “(1) prejudice to the plaintiff if default is denied, (2) whether the defendant
appears to have a litigable defense, and (3) whether defendant’s delay is due to
culpable conduct.”9 “But when a defendant has failed to appear or respond in any
fashion to the complaint, this analysis is necessarily one-sided; entry of default
judgment is typically appropriate in such circumstances at least until the defendant
5 FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2).
6 Kibbie v. BP/Citibank, No. 3:CV-08-1804, 2010 WL 2573845, at *2 (M.D. Pa. June 23,
2010) (Vanaskie, J.).
7 10A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 2685
(Apr. 2020 Update).
8 Pesotski v. Summa & Lezzi, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00221, 2017 WL 3310951, at *2 (M.D. Pa.
Aug. 3, 2017) (Kane, J.).
9 Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000).
comes forward with a motion to set aside the default judgment under Rule 55(c).”10 In
cases where a defendant fails to appear, this Court may enter default judgment “based
solely on the fact that the default has occurred.”11
The Court nevertheless considers those factors for the sake of completeness; in
this case, they favor the grant of default judgment. First, Plaintiff would be prejudiced
by his “current inability to proceed with [his] action due to Defendant[’s] failure to
defend.”12 Defendant’s decision not to appear before this Court would otherwise
prevent Plaintiff from recovering any damages for his claim. Similarly, the second
factor points in favor of the grant of default judgment. “Defendant has not responded
to the allegations and, thereby, has failed to assert a defense.”13 Finally, there does not
appear to be any excuse for Defendant’s failure to appear or otherwise respond to
Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff submitted an executed summons indicating that service
of process occurred on April 21, 2023.14 Having received service, Defendant has yet
to respond or appear in this action. Because Defendant has offered no explanation for
its failure to engage in the litigation, the Court finds that Defendant is culpable.15
Therefore, default judgment is appropriate in these circumstances.
10 Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Strunz, Civ. No. 1:12-cv-01678, 2013 WL 122644, at *1
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2013) (Kane, J.).
11 Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Rev., 922 F.2d 168, 177 n.9 (3d Cir. 1990).
12 Broad. Music, Inc. v. Kujo Long, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00449, 2014 WL 4059711, at *2 (M.D.
Pa. Aug. 14, 2014) (Kane, J.).
13 Pesotski, 2017 WL 3310951, at *3.
14 See Doc. 4 (Executed Summons).
15 See Laborers Local Union 158 v. Shaffer, Civ. No. 1:CV-10-1524, 2011 WL 1397107 (M.D.
Pa. Apr. 13, 2011).
A finding that default judgment is warranted, however, “is not the end of the
inquiry.”16 First, the Court must consider whether the “unchallenged facts constitute a
legitimate cause of action.”17 Although the defaulting party does not concede
conclusions of law, “the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to
the amount of damages, will be taken as true.”18 Plaintiff’s complaint asserts two
claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The Court now
considers whether the allegations in the complaint, taken as true, state claims under
the TCPA.
B. The Facts Alleged in the Complaint
Zachary Fridline is a resident of Northumberland, Pennsylvania; Millennia Tax
is a “marketing company that purports to offer consumers assistance with tax debt.”19
Fridline owned a cell phone that he used for “primarily residential purposes.”20
Plaintiff previously registered this number on the National Do Not Call Registry
(“DNC Registry”) in September 2005.21
Fridline did not have any “outstanding tax liability” and therefore “would not
have knowingly or willfully opted in to receiving telemarketing calls about any tax
16 Martin v. Nat’l Check Recovery Servs., LLC, Civ. No. 1:12-CV-1230, 2016 WL 3670849, at
*1 (M.D. Pa. July 11, 2016).
17 Broad Music, Inc. v. Spring Mount Area Bavarian Resort, Ltd., 555 F. Supp.2d 537, 541
(E.D. Pa. 2008).
18 Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990).
19 Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 5-6.
20 Id. ¶¶ 16-17.
21 See id. ¶ 18.
relief.”22 Despite this, Plaintiff began to receive calls from Millennia Tax in
November 2021 “soliciting tax relief.”23 These voice calls used “an automatically
generated and/or pre-re corded voice” and “pre-recorded messages.”24 This “message
was generic, rather than specifically tailored to Plaintiff, and was non-interactive and
robotic.”25
Defendant placed “at least” four voice calls and two text messages to Fridline
soliciting tax relief.26 “[A]t least two of the voice calls contained pre-recorded
messages, purported to offer a ‘fresh start’ on tax liability” from a number
“attributable to Millennia” Tax.27 The first phone call occurred on November 8,
2021.28 After that, Fridline received no contact from Defendant until he received two
unsolicited text messages in late February 2022.29 These texts stated that Millennia
Tax’s records “indicate[d] [Plaintiff] have a outstanding tax liability and” encouraged
Fridline to call a listed phone number.30
Finally, Plaintiff received two phone calls in May 2022.31 At least one of these
calls left Fridline a “‘ringless’ voicemail that deliver[ed] a prerecorded message to
22 Id. ¶ 20.
23 Id. ¶ 21.
24 Id. ¶ 23.
25 Id. ¶ 24.
26 Id. ¶ 29.
27 Id. ¶ 34.
28 See id. ¶ 30.
29 These text messages were received on February 24, 2022 and February 25, 2022. See id.
30 Id. ¶ 33.
31 See id. ¶ 30.
[his] voice mailbox.”32 To do so, “callers dial the same number, from two phones
almost instantaneously” to cause “the latter-dialed call to terminate directly in the
recipient’s voicemail.”33 The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)
classifies “ringless voicemails” as “calls made using an artificial or prerecorded
voice” subject to the TCPA.34 Plaintiff concludes that these calls “were not made for
‘emergency purposes’” and that he found this unwanted telemarketing solicitation to
be “annoying, frustrating, upsetting, harassing, and an invasion of his privacy.”35
In Count I, it is alleged that “Defendant’s calls to Plaintiff … were without
Plaintiff’s prior consent” and that Millennia Tax “contacted Plaintiff … despite the
fact that [his] telephone number[]” was on the DNC Registry.36 In Count II, it is
alleged that Defendant “knew or should have known that Plaintiff … had [his]
number[] registered on” the DNC Registry and that Millennia Tax again “did not
obtain valid express written consent from” Plaintiff.37
C. Plaintiff’s Claims
Fridline brings a claim under both Section 227(b) and Section 227(c) of the
TCPA. Each of these claims is analyzed below.
32 Id. ¶ 25.
33 Id. ¶ 26.
34 Id. ¶ 27.
35 Id. ¶ 36.
36 Id. ¶¶ 54, 56.
37 Id. ¶¶ 64-65.
1. Section 227(b) Violations
Under Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA, it is “unlawful for any person …
to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the
prior express consent of the called party) … using any automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice … to any telephone number assigned to a
… cellular telephone service … unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed
or guaranteed by the United States.”38
Section 227(b) provides a private cause of action.39 “To state a cause of action
under [Section 227(b) of] the TCPA, a plaintiff must allege: ‘(1) the defendant called
a cellular telephone number; (2) using an [automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice]; (3) without the recipient’s prior express consent.’”40
The FCC has determined that a “ringless voicemail” to “wireless phones requires
consumer consent because it is a ‘call’ made using an artificial or prerecorded voice
and thus is covered by [S]ection 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)” of the TCPA.41
The complaint clearly identifies two voice calls Defendant placed to his cell
phone using a pre-recorded voice, and Plaintiff provided supplemental information
38 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).
39 See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).
40 Zemel v. CSC Holdings LLC, Civ. A. No. 18-2340-BRM-DEA, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
201917, at *7 (D.N.J. Nov. 29, 2018) (quoting Martinez v. TD Bank USA, No. 15-7712, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101979, at *4 (D.N.J. 2017)).
41 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG
Docket No. 02-278, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 37 FCC Rcd 13675 (15) para. 1 (F.C.C.
2022).
concerning a third pre-recorded voice call that runs aground of Section 227(b).42
Given that it is alleged that Millennia Tax lacked Plaintiff’s express consent, he has
sufficiently demonstrated three violations of Section 227(b) of the TCPA.
2. Section 227(c) Violations
To establish a violation of Section 227(c) of the TCPA, Fridline must show that
he (1) “receive[d] multiple calls within twelve months, (2) by or on behalf of the same
entity, (3) on a residential phone registered on the” DNC Registry.43 The first two
elements are easily shown: Plaintiff received seven calls in a twelve month period on
behalf of Millennia Tax.44 As to the requirement that the calls be placed to a
“residential phone registered on the” DNC Registry, Plaintiff has indicated that his
cell phone45 has been registered since September 2005.46 Consequently, Fridline has
asserted seven violations of Section 227(c).
42 See Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 34; Doc. 10 (Brief in Support of Motion for Default Judgment), Ex. 1
(Fridline Decl.) ¶¶ 10, 12.
43 Smith v. Vision Solar LLC, Civ. A. No. 20-2185, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172224, at *8 (E.D.
Pa. Sept. 21, 2020) (citing Huber v. Pro Custom Solar, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-01090, 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 87025, at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2020)).
44 See Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 29-33.
45 The Court considers Plaintiff’s cell phone to qualify as a “residential telephone subscriber”
as defined by the TCPA. See e.g., Jackson v. Direct Bldg. Supplies, LLC, No. 4:23-CV-
01569, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8811 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2024) (providing an in-depth analysis
of why cell phones qualify as “residential telephone subscribers” for purposes of the DNC
Registry.).
46 See Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 18.
D. Damages
Having found that Plaintiff has stated legitimate causes of action, the Court
now considers damages. Fridline is entitled to recover $15,000 for ten willful or
knowing violations of the TCPA.
1. Number of Violations that Occurred
First, it must be determined how many communications Plaintiff is able to
recover on. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) provides that “[a] default judgment
must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the
pleadings.” “The purpose of Rule 54(c)’s limitation on default judgments ‘is that a
defending party should be able to decide on the basis of the relief requested in the
original pleading whether to expend the time, effort, and money necessary to defend
the action.’”47
In the pleadings, Plaintiff identified six unsolicited communications from
Millennia Tax in a “non-exhaustive” list.48 By indicating that this list of unsolicited
communications was “non-exhaustive,” Plaintiff put Defendant on notice that it could
face additional liability beyond these six calls.49 Consequently, I will consider all
47 Pogan v. M/V Venture Pride, Civ. No. 2015-14, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45064, at *5 (D.V.I.
Mar. 28, 2018) (quoting Silge v. Merz, 510 F.3d 157, 159-62 (2d Cir. 2007)).
48 Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 30.
49 The Court notes that this is especially true given that the Complaint also included allegations
to support a class action. See Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 37-49. See also CMA CGM S.A. v. Biomass
Pro Inc., Civ. A. No. 19-13647, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125552, at *11 n. 4 (D.N.J. July 14,
2022) (“Although Plaintiffs listed the then-current damages at $2,162,039 in the complaint,
they also put Defendants on notice that ‘[a]dditional charges continue to accrue in
accordance with the terms of said tariffs’… Accordingly, awarding more than the $2,162,039
set forth in the complaint is consistent with [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 54(c).”).
seven phone calls identified by Fridline when determining how many TCPA
violations occurred.
2. Multiple Violations Per Call
Next, the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is entitled to recover for multiple
violations from a single call under the present circumstances.50 Statutory damages
provide for $500 per violation of Section 227(b) and Section 227(c) or, if the
violations were willful or knowing as determined by the Court, up to $1,500 per
violation as treble damages.51
3. Willful or Knowing Defined
“A willful or knowing violation encompasses conduct that goes beyond the
elements a plaintiff must allege to state a claim for actual or baseline statutory
damages, or for injunctive relief.”52 “‘[T]he [Court of Appeals for the] Third Circuit
has not yet addressed the [meaning of the] willful or knowing requirement [under the
TCPA].’”53 But district courts in this Circuit “‘have required more than a mere
showing that the transmission of a [call] was itself intentional to warrant treble
50 See e.g., Cunningham v. Capital Advance Sols., LLC, Civ. A. No. 17-13050 (FLW), 2019
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222355, at *5 n.4 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2019) (“The Court notes that, although
the [Court of Appeals for the] Third Circuit has not had the occasion to address this issue, the
Sixth Circuit and district courts within this Circuit have concluded that a claimant is entitled
to recover damages under separate subparts of the TCPA, even if the alleged violations arose
from the same telephone call.”).
51 See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).
52 Arcieri v. Suntuity Solar LTd. Liab. Co., Civ. A. No. 20-16292 (FLW), 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 186205, at *24 (D.N.J. Sept. 27, 2021).
53 Id. at *25 (quoting Zelma v. Penn LLC, Civ. No. 19-8725, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9615 at *6
(D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2020)).
damages.’”54 For example, with a focus on a “knowing” violation, I have previously
concluded that a plaintiff stated a claim for treble damages when it was alleged that
the “defendant knew it did not have the plaintiff’s prior express consent, knew it was
using an artificial or prerecorded voice, and otherwise knew that its conduct violated
the TCPA.”55 A willful violation encompasses knowing, intentional, or reckless
conduct.56
4. Section 227(b) Violations – Willful or Knowing Determination
Plaintiff never “provide[d] the express written consent the TCPA requires” for
Millennia Tax to contact him and, in fact, had placed his number on the DNC
Registry.57 “[A]t least [three] of the [five] voice calls “contained pre-recorded
messages, purported to offer a ‘fresh start’ on tax liability from the 800-449-8910
number that is attributable to” Defendant.58 Further, Millennia Tax had “placed
prerecorded voice calls to hundreds[,] if not thousands[,] of telephone numbers.”59
These allegations sufficiently establish three willful or knowing violations of Section
227(b) by Millennia Tax, and Plaintiff is entitled to $4,500 in damages for these
violations.60
54 Id.
55 Id. (citing Kline v. United Northern Mortg. Bankers Ltd., No. 4:18-CV-00489, 2018 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 157816, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 17, 2018).
56 Id. at *26-27.
57 Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 22, 56.
58 Id. ¶ 34; Doc. 10 (Brief in Support of Motion for Default Judgment), Ex. 1 (Fridline Decl.) ¶
12.
59 Id. ¶ 55.
60 The third violation comes from the supplemental information provided to the Court in
support of the Motion for Default Judgment. Plaintiff identified a third “ringless voicemail”
5. Section 227(c) Violations – Willful or Knowing Determination
Defendant “knew or should have known that Plaintiff … had [his] number[]
registered on the” DNC Registry and that it “did not obtain valid express written
consent from” Fridline to contact him.61 These allegations sufficiently entitle Plaintiff
to treble damages for the Section 227(c) violations as Millennia Tax willfully or
knowingly violated this part of the TCPA. Therefore, Fridline shall receive $10,500
for the seven Section 227(c) violations.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has adequately alleged three willful or knowing violations of Section
227(b) of the TCPA and seven willful or knowing violations of Section 227(c) of the
TCPA. Consequently, Fridline is entitled to recover $15,000 in damages from
Defendant. This figure represents $4,500 for the Section 227(b) violations and
$10,500 for the Section 227(c) violations.
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
that occurred on August 18, 2022 from Millennial Tax. See Doc. 10 (Brief in Support of
Motion for Default Judgment), Ex. 1 (Fridline Decl.) ¶¶ 10, 12. As already discussed above,
Plaintiff can recover for this additional violation.
61 Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 64-65.