10.  Which is why Hardee Jr. teaches his agents what he calls the “Mojo system,”  named after the Mojo Dialer, a web-based based autodialer that provides “Automated multi-line  power dialing up to 300 calls per hour.”3     13.  By placing the unsolicited telephone calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendant  caused Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes actual harm and cognizable legal injury.    14.  This includes the aggravation and nuisance and invasions of privacy that result  from the unsolicited autodialed telephone calls that are being made to cellular phones, and a loss  of the use and enjoyment of their phones, including wear and tear to the related data, memory,  software, hardware, and battery components, among other harms.   15.  In response to Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff files this action seeking an  injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unwanted autodialed call activities and an award of  statutory damages to the members of the Classes under the TCPA.  16.  Plaintiff Huzar registered his cellular number on the National Do Not Call  Registry on June 4, 2005 in order to avoid receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls.    17.  Despite having his cell phone number registered on the DNC at the time, Plaintiff  received no fewer than 3 unsolicited autodialed call from Century 21 Hardee-Team Realty, on  March 14, 2018 at 8:04 AM from phone number 330-329-1012, on March 14, 2018 at 8:18 AM  from phone number 281-627-8517, and on March 15, 2018 at 8:21 AM from phone number 832- 691-8600.   18.  A number of the calls began with dead air before the agent on the line spoke,  which is indicative of the use of an autodialer.    20.  Despite his request for the calls to stop, Plaintiff received another unsolicited,  autodialed call the next day, during which the Hardee agent refused to identify how she obtained  Plaintiff’s cell phone number.   21.  Notably, until March 13, 2018, Plaintiff’s uncle’s property was listed for sale by  Stromatt and Associates, Inc.21 The listing contained the contact information for the agent that  was representing the property, Dave Stromatt, but did not contain Plaintiff’s uncle’s phone  number, much less Plaintiff’s phone number:    22.  Plaintiff has never provided his phone number to Defendant or any other party  from which Defendant’s agents may have purchased leads for real estate listings.  Simply put,  Huzar has never provided his prior express written consent to Defendant to place solicitation  telephone calls to him.    24.  Seeking redress for these injuries, Plaintiff, 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 autodialed voice calls to cellular telephones  and unsolicited calls to telephone numbers registered on the DNC.  26.  The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (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 Classes; (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 anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following  appropriate discovery.   27.  Numerosity: On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands of  members of the Classes such that joinder of all members is impracticable.    29.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff. 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 has any interest adverse to the Classes.   31.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.   32.  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.    33.  At no time did Defendant obtain prior 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.   34.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent Class are  each entitled to, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each  violation of such act.   36.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.   37.  Defendant placed unsolicited and unwanted autodialed phone calls to Plaintiff and  the other members of the Autodialed Stop Class on their cellular telephones after they had  informed Defendant to stop calling them.     38.  Defendant placed the unwanted phone 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.   39.  By unwanted autodialed phone calls to Plaintiff and other members of the  Autodialed Stop Class’s cellular telephones using an automated telephone dialing system after  they requested to no longer receive such calls, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B) by  doing so without prior express written consent.   40.  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.   42.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.   43.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c) provides that 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” 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.   44.  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 his 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.”   46.   47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate  any call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or  entity has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive  telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must  meet the following minimum standards:   47.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated,  telephone solicitations to wireless telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do  Not Call Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is  maintained by the federal government. These consumers requested to not receive calls from  Defendant, as set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3).   48.  Defendant also violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by failing to have a written policy  of dealing with do not call requests, by failing to inform or train its personnel engaged in  telemarketing regarding the existence and/or use of any do not call list, and by failing to  internally record and honor do not call requests.   49.  Defendant made more than one unsolicited telephone call to Plaintiff and other  members of the Do Not Call Registry Class within a 12-month period without their prior express  consent to receive such calls. Plaintiff and other members of the Do Not Call Registry Class  never provided any form of consent to receive telephone calls from Defendant and do not have a  current record of consent to place telemarketing calls to his registered phone numbers.   51.  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) 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  Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. 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.   52.  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.  9.  Hardee’s marketing plan directs agents to market its realty services through  unsolicited, autodialed calls to cellular phone numbers and other telephone numbers registered  on the DNC, with the call recipients’ consent.  This is because Chris Hardee Jr., owner of  Defendant Hardee, believes that “agents who cold call give the best service, [and] sell the most  homes.”2   At Hardee’s Direction, Hardee Agents Repeatedly Called Plaintiff’s Cell   Phone Number Without Plaintiff’s Consent, Despite it Being Listed   on the DNC, and Despite Plaintiff’s Demand that the Calls Stop   Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiff’s TCPA Claims Arising   From Calls Made by Hardee Agents at Hardee’s Direction   Hardee Directs Agents to Market Its Services by Obtaining Lists of Leads   and Repeatedly Autodialing Them Without Consent   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Autodialed Stop Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Huzar and the Do Not Call Registry Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Autodialed No Consent Class)  