Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

NATHAN ROWAN, individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated, Case no.

Plaintiff,
CLASS ACTION
v.
JURY DEMAND
US DEALER SERVICES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation,
Defendant.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Nathan Rowan (“Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff Rowan”) brings this Class Action

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant US Dealer Services, Inc. (“US Dealer

Services”), to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

(“TCPA”) by making unsolicited calls to consumers who registered their phone numbers on the

National Do Not Call Registry (“DNC”), and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief

for all persons injured by Defendant’s actions. Plaintiff alleges as follows upon personal

knowledge as to himself and his own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon

information and belief, including investigation conducted by his attorneys.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Rowan is an East Rochester, New York resident.

2. Defendant US Dealer Services is a New Jersey incorporated corporation

headquartered in Van Nuys, California. US Dealer Services conducts business throughout this

District and the United States.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 2

3. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28

U.S.C. § 1331, as the action arises under the TCPA.

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant and venue is proper in this

District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant is incorporated in this District and does

business in this District.

TELEMARKETING INTRODUCTION

5. As the Supreme Court recently explained, “Americans passionately disagree about

many things. But they are largely united in their disdain for robocalls. The Federal Government
receives a staggering number of complaints about robocalls—3.7 million complaints in 2019
alone. The States likewise field a constant barrage of complaints. For nearly 30 years, the people’s
representatives in Congress have been fighting back.” Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants,
No. 19-631, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3544, at *5 (U.S. July 6, 2020).
6. The National Do Not Call Registry provides for consumers to register their
telephone numbers and thereby indicate their desire not to receive telephone solicitations at those
numbers. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).
7. A listing on the DNC “must be honored indefinitely, or until the registration is
cancelled by the consumer or the telephone number is removed by the database administrator.” Id.
8. When Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991, it found that telemarketers called more
than 18 million Americans every day. 105 Stat. 2394 at § 2(3).
9. By 2003, due to more powerful autodialing technology, telemarketers were calling
104 million Americans every day. In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991,
18 FCC Rcd. 14014, ¶¶ 2, 8 (2003).
10. The problems Congress identified when it enacted the TCPA have only grown
exponentially in recent years.
11. Industry data shows that the number of robocalls made each month increased from
831 million in September 2015 to 4.7 billion in December 2018—a 466% increase in three years.

2
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 3

12. According to online robocall tracking service “YouMail,” 4.9 billion robocalls were
placed in March 2021 alone, at a rate of 159.4 million per day. www.robocallindex.com (last

visited April 20, 2021).

13. The FCC also has received an increasing number of complaints about unwanted
calls, with 150,000 complaints in 2016, 185,000 complaints in 2017, and 232,000 complaints in
2018. FCC, Consumer Complaint Data Center, www.fcc.gov/consumer-help-center-data.
14. “Robocalls and telemarketing calls are currently the number one source of
consumer complaints at the FCC.” Tom Wheeler, Cutting off Robocalls (July 22, 2016), statement
of FCC chairman.1
15. “The FTC receives more complains about unwanted calls than all other complaints
combined.” Staff of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, In re Rules
and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 02-278, at 2 (2016).2

INTRODUCTION TO US DEALER SERVICES

16. US Dealer Services sells extended car warranty plans to consumers.3

17. US Dealer Services engages in telemarketing in order to solicit the sales of extended

car warranty plans.

18. These calls are being placed to consumers, like Plaintiff, who (1) registered their

telephone numbers with the DNC, (2) do not have an existing business relationship with the

Defendant, (3) did not provide prior express written consent to be called.

1
https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2016/07/22/cutting-robocalls
2
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advocacy_documents/comment-staff-ftc-bureau-
consumer-protection-federal-communications-commission-rules-
regulations/160616robocallscomment.pdf
3
http://www.usdealerservices.com/index.php/about

3
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 4

19. The US Dealer Services Better Business Bureau (“BBB”) page is filled with

complaints from consumers about unsolicited calls from US Dealer Services, including complaints

from people who have registered their phone numbers with the DNC. This is a small sample of

those BBB complaints:

• 5

• 6

4
https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/van-nuys/profile/auto-service-contract-companies/us-dealer-
services-inc-1216-358292/complaints
5
Id.
6
Id.

4
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 5

• 7

PLAINTIFF ROWAN’S ALLEGATIONS

20. Plaintiff Rowan registered his phone number with the DNC on June 4, 2005.

21. Plaintiff Rowan uses his phone number for personal use only. It is not associated

with a business.

22. On January 12, 2021 at 7:06 PM, Plaintiff Rowan received an unsolicited call to his

phone from Defendant US Dealer Services, from phone number 218-865-8516.

23. When Plaintiff answered this call, he heard dead air until the call disconnected

automatically.

24. 218-865-8516 appears to be a spoofed number.

25. On January 15, 2021 at 2:49 PM Plaintiff Rowan received another call to his cell

phone from US Dealer Services, from phone number 218-865-8517.

26. This call was not answered, and no voicemail was left.

27. 218-865-8517 appears to be a spoofed number.

28. On January 19, 2021 at 12:16 PM Plaintiff Rowan received another call to his phone

from US Dealer Services, from phone number 218-865-8518.

29. This call was not answered, and no voicemail was left.

30. 218-865-8518 appears to be a spoofed number.

7
Id.

5
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 6

31. On January 20, 2021 at 2:48 PM Plaintiff Rowan received another call to his phone

from US Dealer Services, from phone number 218-865-8517.

32. This call was not answered, and no voicemail was left.

33. On January 21, 2021 at 6:18 PM, Plaintiff Rowan received another unsolicited call

from US Dealer Services, from phone number 218-865-8517.

34. Plaintiff answered this call and heard a loud “bloop” sound before a live employee

came on the line.

35. During the solicitation call, the employee identified himself as “Andrew Hermann”.

36. Hermann marketed an extended car warranty plan to Plaintiff.

37. In order to determine the identity of the company repeatedly telemarketing to him,

Plaintiff Rowan played along and agreed to purchase the extended car warranty plan.

38. Plaintiff was transferred to an employee named “Rob” who verified the details of

the warranty plan and processed Plaintiff’s payment information.

39. Shortly after purchasing the warranty plan, Plaintiff received an email from

pomdriving.com showing that US Dealer Services sold the plan to Plaintiff Rowan:

6
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 7

40. When Plaintiff received the warranty paperwork in the mail, US Dealer Services

was clearly shown as the seller of the plan:

41. In addition, US Dealer Services is listed as the payee on Plaintiff’s bank account

for this transaction.

42. Plaintiff Rowan never consented to receiving solicitation calls from Defendant US

Dealer Services.

7
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 8

43. Plaintiff was not looking an extended car warranty.

44. The unauthorized telephone calls made by Defendant, as alleged herein, have

harmed Plaintiff Rowan in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed

the use and enjoyment of his phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phone.

45. Seeking redress for these injuries, Plaintiff Rowan, on behalf of himself and a Class

of similarly situated individuals, bring suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47

U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits unsolicited telemarketing calls to phone numbers that are

registered with the DNC.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS
Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiff’s TCPA Claim

46. Plaintiff Rowan brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) and seek certification of the following Class:

Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who from four
years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1)
Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant) called more than one
time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) where the person’s telephone
number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least
thirty days, (4) for the same purpose Defendant called Plaintiff.

47. The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate

presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parents,

successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling

interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4)

persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (5) the legal

representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons; and (6) persons whose claims

against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated and/or released. Plaintiff Rowan

anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following appropriate discovery.

8
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 9

48. Numerosity: On information and belief, there are thousands of members of the

Class such that joinder of all members is impracticable.

49. Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact

common to the claims of Plaintiff Rowan and the Class, and those questions predominate over any

questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class

include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

a. whether Defendant US Dealer Services placed multiple solicitation calls to

Plaintiff and members of the Do Not Call Registry class;

b. whether US Dealer Services made those calls without prior express written

consent; and

c. whether Defendant’s conduct was willful or knowing, entitling the class to

treble damages.

50. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff Rowan will fairly and adequately represent

and protect the interests of the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class

actions. Plaintiff Rowan has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and the Defendant has

no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Rowan and his counsel are committed to vigorously

prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Class, and have the financial resources to

do so. Neither Plaintiff Rowan nor his counsel have any interests adverse to the Class.

51. Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification because the

Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class as a whole,

thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of

conduct toward the members of the Class and making final class-wide injunctive relief appropriate.

Defendant’s business practices apply to and affect the members of the Class uniformly, and

9
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 10

Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as

a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff. Additionally, the damages suffered by

individual members of the Class will likely be small relative to the burden and expense of

individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions. Thus, it

would be virtually impossible for the members of the Class to obtain effective relief from

Defendant’s misconduct on an individual basis. A class action provides the benefits of single

adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227)
(On Behalf of the Plaintiff and the Do Not Registry Class)

52. Plaintiff Rowan repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 51 of this Complaint

and incorporates them by reference.

53. The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o

person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber

who has registered her or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who

do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”

54. Any “person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month

period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this

subsection may” may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were

promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone

solicitations to which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c).

55. Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated,

telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as the Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry

Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call

10
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 11

Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained

by the federal government.

56. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call

Registry Class received more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf

of the Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above.

57. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Do Not Call

Registry Class suffered actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled, inter

alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.

58. To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, the

Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages

recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rowan, individually and on behalf of the Class, pray for the
following relief:
a) An order certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class as defined

above; appointing Plaintiff Rowan as the representative of the Class; and appointing his

attorneys as Class Counsel;

b) An award of actual and/or statutory damages and costs;

c) An order declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set out above, violate the TCPA;

d) An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited calling activity, and to

otherwise protect the interests of the Class; and

e) Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Rowan requests a jury trial.

11
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 12

Respectfully Submitted,

NATHAN ROWAN, individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated

Dated: April 21, 2021 /s/ Stefan Coleman

Stefan Coleman
law@stefancoleman.com
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN
1072 Madison Ave, Suite 1
Lakewood, NJ 08701
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946

Attorney for the Plaintiff and the putative Class

12
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) CIVIL COVER
Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1-1 FiledSHEET
04/21/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 13
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
NATHAN ROWAN, individually and on behalf of all US DEALER SERVICES, INC., a New Jersey Corporation
others similarly situated,
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Monroe County, NY County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Los Angeles, CA
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, 1072 Madison Ave,
Lakewood, NJ 08701 (877) 333-9427

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government ✖ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act ✖ 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✖ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
47 U.S.C. 227
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
VII. REQUESTED IN ✖ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ✖ Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
April 20, 2021 /s/ Stefan Coleman
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 10/20) Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1-1 Filed 04/21/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 14
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1-2 Filed 04/21/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 15

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

DistrictDistrict
__________ of NewofJersey
__________

NATHAN ROWAN, individually and on behalf of all )

others similarly situated, )
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
US DEALER SERVICES, INC., a New Jersey
)
corporation,
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

US Dealer Services Inc.
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Paul Cass, registered agent
7803 Maddison Ave
Citrus Heights, CA 95650

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Stefan Coleman
Law Offices of Stefan Coleman
1072 Madison Ave, Suite 1
Lakewood, NJ 08701
law@stefancoleman.com
(877) 333-9427
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
 Case 2:21-cv-09945 Document 1-2 Filed 04/21/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 16

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):
.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print Save As... Reset

 ClassAction.org
This complaint is part of ClassAction.org's searchable class action lawsuit database and can be found in this
post: US Dealer Services Hit with Class Action Over Alleged Extended Car Warranty Robocalls