14.  Defendant Exit Realty is a real estate agent or brokerage.   15.  Defendant John Doe 1 is an authorized agent of Defendant Exit Realty.   16.  As a way to cut corners yet also increase its advertising reach, Defendant and its  authorized agents, including John Doe 1, repeatedly called thousands of cellular and residential phones  at a time using an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the TCPA.     17.  When the Class members answered their cellular phones, they heard silence for several  seconds and a distinct “click” sound before being transferred to a live agent, which denotes the use of  an automatic telephone dialing system.     19.  On or about July 3, 2019, Plaintiff received a call on his cellular phone number ending in  1146.    20.  The Caller ID displayed that the phone number originated from 520-277-9156.   21.  When Plaintiff answered his phone, Plaintiff said “hello” several times, but there was  silence for approximately 4 seconds. Plaintiff then heard a “click” sound. There was an additional silent  delay after the distinct “click” before a live agent answered.    22.  Upon information and belief, the technology used to robocall Plaintiff had the capability  to store phone numbers and dial those numbers automatically.     23.  The live agent informed Plaintiff that he was calling on behalf of Defendant Exit Realty  and advertising Defendant’s Exit Realty’s services. The live agent gave Plaintiff some information  about Defendant Exit Realty and asked if Plaintiff would be interested in more information.    24.  In order to investigate the company calling, Plaintiff agreed to receive more information  about Defendant Exit Realty. The live agent told Plaintiff that he would be sending Plaintiff a video  regarding Defendant Exit Realty and that one of his partners would follow up.   25.  On or about July 10, 2019, Plaintiff received a follow up telephone call from a real estate  agent with Defendant Exit Realty. Plaintiff did not answer the telephone call as Plaintiff did not  recognize the telephone number 612-702-1869. Defendant’s voicemail stated, in pertinent part, “Hi this  is for Terry. This is Cade from Upper Midwest Realty. We had one of our associates reach out and  connect with you here last week …”   26.  Plaintiff never consented to be contacted by Defendants.   27.  Prior to the robocall, Plaintiff had no relationship with Defendants.   29.  Class Definition: Plaintiff Shanahan brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and a class defined as follows:  TCPA Class.  All persons in the United States who: (1) from the last 4 years to  present (2) who received at least one telephone call; (3) on his or her cellular or  residential telephone; (4) that used an automatic telephone dialing system; (5)  for the purpose of promoting Defendant’s services; (6) where Defendant did not  first obtain the person’s express written consent.   30.  The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding  over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants’ subsidiaries, parents,  successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or their parents have a controlling  interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute  and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have  been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’  counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.   31.  Numerosity: The exact number of the Class members is unknown and not available to  Plaintiff, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief, Defendants  placed telephone calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the Class. Members of  the Class can be identified through Defendants’ records.   32.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Class, in  that Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ uniform wrongful  conduct and unsolicited telephone calls.   34.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendants have 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 Class members and making final injunctive relief appropriate with  respect to the Class as a whole. Defendants’ practices challenged herein apply to and affect the Class  members uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinge on Defendants’ conduct with  respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.   36.  Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because class  proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy as joinder of all parties is impracticable. The damages suffered by the individual members  of the Class will likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and expense of individual  prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant Exit Realty and Defendant John Doe  1’s actions. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Class to obtain  effective relief from Defendant Exit Realty and Defendant John Doe 1’s misconduct. Even if members  of the Class could sustain such individual litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action,  because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex  legal and factual controversies presented in this Complaint. By contrast, a class action presents far  fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and  comprehensive supervision by a single Court. Economies of time, effort and expense will be fostered,  and uniformity of decisions ensured.  40.  The May 2013 FCC Ruling rejected a narrow view of TCPA liability, including the  assertion that a seller’s liability requires a finding of formal agency and immediate direction and control  over the third-party who placed the telemarketing call. Id. at 6587 n. 107.    41.  Prior to conducting discovery in this litigation, due to the anonymous nature of  robocalling, Plaintiff has no way to identify the exact party who called his cellular phone whether it  was Defendant Exit Realty, Defendant John Doe 1 or some other unknown company.   42.  However, for the purposes of TCPA liability, Plaintiff is not expected to know this  information at the pleading stage.    44.  Even if Defendant Exit Realty alleges that it did not personally make the TCPA-violating  calls, Defendant Exit Realty is liable because it took steps to cause the calls to be made by hiring a  third party to market the services Defendant Exit Realty, or because the calls were made pursuant to  Defendant Exit Realty’s actual authority, apparent authority and/or ratification, or pursuant to joint  enterprise or acting in concert liability.    79.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   80.  Defendants and/or its agents placed calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to  Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ cellular telephones without having their prior express written  consent to do so.   81.  The system used by Defendants to place such automated calls had the capability to store a  list of numbers and automatically dial those numbers.     82.  Defendant Exit Realty’s and Defendant John Doe’s calls were made for the purpose of  advertising and marketing employment opportunities and realty services with Defendant Exit Realty.   83.  Defendants used an automatic telephone dialing system as proscribed by 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B) to generate Plaintiff’s phone number as well as the  phone numbers of the Class members.   85.  Defendants made the violating calls “willfully” and/or “knowingly” under 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(C).   86.  If the court finds that Defendants willfully and/or knowingly violated this subsection, the  court may increase the civil fine from $500 to $1500 per violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class against all Defendants)  