10.  Defendant placed, or had placed on its behalf, telephone calls en masse to  thousands of cellular telephone numbers throughout the United States.   11.  In placing the solicitation telephone calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendant  utilized an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). Specifically, the hardware and  software used by Defendant or its agent has the capacity to store, produce, and dial random or  sequential numbers, and/or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such  numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention. Defendant’s ATDS  includes features substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch as it is capable of placing  numerous telephone calls simultaneously (all without human intervention).   12.  In fact, Defendant advertises its use of automated technology on its very own  website.  There, Defendant explicitly states that it may use automated technology to contact  consumers.  The image below is taken from https://www.freedommortgage.com.    13.  The above image reads, “[b]y clicking “submit,” you are providing Freedom  Mortgage with your express consent to be contacted through automated means such as  autodialing, text SMS/MMS (charges may apply), and prerecorded messaging …”    15.  The essential job functions include to “[s]erve as subject matter expert in  telephony technology, specifically outbound dialer functionality and optimization.”   16.  In addition, a disgruntled employee wrote on glassdoor.com about her experience  working for Freedon Mortgage  as “Inbound Leads are TERRIBLE!! They come from an  autodialer making ‘ringlesss calls’ to people that DON’T even OWN HOMES, NOR DO THEY  28.  In 2015, Defendant FMC acquired Plaintiff Sieleman’s home mortgage from his  previous mortgage lender Bell Bank Mortgage.    30.  When Sieleman would answer these calls, he would hear a noticeable  pause/delay.  This artificial pause/delay is indicative of the use of an ATDS.   Sieleman has  answered approximately four (4) calls.    31.  Sieleman has requested that FMC stop calling him twice. Despite these requests,  the auto-dialed calls to his cell phone continued.    32.  During one of these calls from FMC, when Sieleman spoke to an agent to find out  if the calls were legitimate, he was transferred to one of FMC’s agents, who confirmed that  Sieleman was already receiving the best rate and could not get a refinanced mortgage if he  wanted one.  Sieleman again asked FMC’s agent to to stop calling him at the end of the call.    33.  On September 14, 2017, FMC attempted to contact Sieleman in an effort to solicit  his business, despite the two stop-call requests that he made.  Sieleman did not answer and FMC  left a message on his voicemail.  FMC’s agent stated that the purpose of the call was to refinance  Sieleman’s loan.      34.  Sieleman has never provided his telephone number directly to FMC, or requested  that FMC place solicitation telephone calls to him or alert him of its services.  Simply put,  Sieleman has never provided his prior express written consent to FMC to place solicitation  telephone calls to him.    36.  In order to redress these injuries, Sieleman, on behalf of himself and Classes of  similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47  U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits unsolicited voice calls to cellular telephones.   37.  On behalf of the proposed Classes, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring FMC to  cease all unwanted autodialed calling activities and an award of statutory damages to the Class  members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  38.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and seeks certification of  the following four Classes:  Autodialed No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who from  a date four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint to the present:  (1) Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) sent text  messages, (2) to the person’s cellular telephone number, (3) for the  purpose of selling Defendant’s products and/or services, (4) using an  automated telephone dialing system, and (5) for whom Defendant claims it  obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendant  claims it supposedly obtained prior express written consent to send  automated text messages to the Plaintiff.  Autodialed Stop Class: All persons in the United States who from a date  four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint to the present: (1)  Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) text messaged,  (2) on the person’s cellular telephone, (3) for the purpose of selling  Defendant’s products and/or services, (4) using an automated telephone  dialing system, (4) after the person informed Defendant that s/he no longer  wished to receive text messages from Defendant.   40.  On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands of members of the  Classes such that joinder of all members is impracticable.    41.  There are several questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and  the Classes, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual  members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes that may be answered in a single  stroke include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:  (a) whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA;  (b) whether Defendant utilized an automatic telephone dialing system to send text  messages to members of the Classes;  (c) whether members of the Classes are entitled to statutory and treble damages  based on the willfulness of Defendant’s conduct;  (d) whether Defendant obtained prior express written consent to contact any Class  members; and  (e) to the extent Defendant’s conduct does not constitute telemarketing, whether  Defendant obtained prior express oral consent to contact any class members.   43.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the other  members of the Classes. Plaintiff’s claims are made in a representative capacity on behalf of the  other members of the Classes. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the interests of other  members of the proposed Classes and is subject to no unique defenses. Plaintiff has retained  counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex litigation and TCPA class actions.  Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the  members of the Classes and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor his  counsel have any interest adverse to those of the other members of the Classes.   45.  In addition, this suit may be maintained as a class action under Federal Rule of  Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) because a class action is superior to all other available methods for the  fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Absent a class action, most members of the  Classes would find the cost of litigating their claims to be prohibitive, and will have no effective  remedy. The class treatment of common questions of law and fact is also superior to multiple  individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that it conserves the resources of the courts and the  litigants, and promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication. The claims asserted herein are  applicable to all customers throughout the United States who received an unsolicited solicitation  text message from Defendant. The injury suffered by each individual class member is relatively  small in comparison to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and  extensive litigation necessitated by Defendant’s conduct. It would be virtually impossible for  members of the Classes individually to redress effectively the wrongs done to them. Even if the  members of the Classes could afford such litigation, the court system could not. Individualized  litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties, and to the court system, presented by the  complex legal and factual issues of the case. By contrast, the class action device presents far  fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of  scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.   46.  Adequate notice can be given to the members of the Classes directly using  information maintained in Defendant’s records or through notice by publication.  47.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges by reference paragraphs 1-40 of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   48.  Defendant and/or its agents agent transmitted unwanted solicitation telephone  calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the  Autodialed No Consent Class using equipment that, upon information and belief, had the  capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential  number generator, and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en  masse, without human intervention. The telephone dialing equipment utilized by Defendants  and/or its agent, which is substantially similar to a predictive dialer, dialed numbers from a list,  or dialed numbers from a database of telephone numbers, in an automatic and systematic  manner.   49.  These solicitation telephone calls were made en masse without human  intervention and without the prior express written consent of the Plaintiff and the other members  of the Autodialed No Consent Class to receive such solicitation telephone calls.   50.  At no time did Defendant obtain prior express written consent from the Plaintiff  orally or in writing to receive solicitation telephone calls. Also, at no time did Defendant obtain  prior express written consent that contained a disclosure informing Plaintiff or any other  consumer that agreeing to receive solicitation telephone calls was not a condition of the purchase  of any property or service.   52.  In the event that the Court determines that Defendant’s conduct was wilful and  knowing, it may, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent Class.  53.  Plaintiff incorporate and realleges by reference paragraphs 1-40 as if fully set  forth herein.   54.  Defendant placed unsolicited and unwanted telephone calls to telephone numbers  belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed Stop Class on their cellular  telephones after they had demanded that Defendant stop calling them.     55.  Defendant placed the telephone calls using equipment that had the capacity to  store or produce telephone numbers to be called and/or texted using a random or sequential  number generator, and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en  masse.   56.  Defendant utilized equipment that placed the telephone calls to Plaintiff and other  members of the Autodialed Stop Class simultaneously and without human intervention.   58.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Autodialed Stop Class suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive the  unsolicited telephone calls on their cellular phones and, under Section 227(b)(3)(B), are each  entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.   59.  Should the Court determine that Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing,  the Court may, pursuant to Section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed Stop Class.  8.  Defendant places autodialed telephone calls to consumers’ cellular telephones in  an attempt to solicit their business and to promote its mortgage-lending and refinancing services.   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Autodialed Stop Class)  