10.  Upon information and belief, Defendant utilizes third party vendors to market its  services.   11.  Upon information and belief, Defendant’s vendors are essential to their  telemarketing activities.     12.  Upon information and belief, Defendant’s ability to increase revenues depends  significantly on their access to high-quality vendors.    13.  Defendant is subject to liability under the TCPA for actions of their third party  vendors who are engaging in outbound telemarketing efforts on their behalf.   14.  Defendant’s third party vendors identify themselves as representatives of “Total  Home Protection.”     15.  Upon information and belief, Defendant’s outbound telemarketing efforts include  the use of an automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) to solicit consumers nationwide.   17.  The technology employed by Defendant has the capacity – (A) to store or produce  telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial  such numbers.   18.  An ATDS allows its telemarketing agents to only communicate with consumers  who answer their phone.   19.  Consequently, Defendant shifts the burden of wasted time to consumers with  unsolicited calls and messages.  20.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was the sole operator, possessor, and subscriber of  the cellular telephone number ending in 1890.   21.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s number ending in 1890 was assigned to a cellular  telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   22.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was financially responsible for his cellular telephone  equipment and services.   23.  In February of 2020, Plaintiff started to receive phone calls from Defendant.     24.  On no less than five (5) occasions, Plaintiff answered.     25.  Each time Plaintiff answered, he was met by noticeable pause prior to being  connected to Defendant’s representative.     26.  Each time, Defendant sought to market Defendant’s service(s).   27.  Each time, Plaintiff politely informed Defendant that was not interested, before  asking Defendant to stop calling.   29.  Nonetheless, these phone calls continued.   30.  Defendant used caller ID spoofing to make it appear that Defendant’s phone calls  were placed from local phone numbers – including (313) 217-5501 and (855) 940-0978.   31.  At no time did the Defendant have Plaintiff’s written consent to place these phone  calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.   32.  Defendant’s unwanted solicitation phone calls have caused Plaintiff actual harm,  including but not limited to, aggravation that accompanies unsolicited telemarketing phone calls,  anxiety, emotional distress, increased risk of personal injury resulting from the distraction caused  by the phone calls, wear and tear to Plaintiff’s cellular phone, intrusion upon and occupation of  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, temporary loss of use of Plaintiff’s cellular phone, invasion of  privacy, loss of battery charge, loss of concentration, mental anguish, nuisance, the per-kilowatt  electricity costs required to recharge Plaintiff’s cellular telephone as a result of increased usage of  Plaintiff’s telephone services, and wasting Plaintiff’s time.  33.  All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as  though fully set forth herein.   35.  The following individuals are excluded from the Putative Class: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or their 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 Putative Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such executed  persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated  and/or released.    A.  Numerosity   36.  The exact number of members of the Putative Class are unknown and not available  to Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable.     37.  On information and belief, Defendant made phone calls to thousands of consumers  who fall into the definition of the Putative Class.   38.  Members of the Putative Class can be objectively identified from records of  Defendant and any affiliated marketers to be gained in discovery.  B.  Commonality and Predominance    39.  There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the  Putative Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual  members of the Putative Class.  C.  Typicality   41.  This case is also appropriate for class certification as class proceedings are superior  to all other available methods for the efficient and fair adjudication of this controversy.     42.  The damages suffered by the individual members of the Putative Class will likely  be relatively small, especially given the burden and expense required for individual prosecution.   43.  By contrast, a class action provides the benefits of single adjudication, economies  of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court.     44.  Economies of effort, expense, and time will be fostered and uniformity of decisions  ensured.  E.  Adequate Representation   45.  Plaintiff will adequately and fairly represent and protect the interests of the Putative  Class.   46.  Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Putative Class, and Defendant  has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.   47.  Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced counsel in consumer class action  litigation.  48.  All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as  though fully set forth herein.   50.  Under the TCPA consent rules, some types of calls require prior express written  consent, while other types of calls do not require that the consent be in writing.   51.  “Prior express written consent” is required for (a) all telemarketing/promotional  calls/texts made using an ATDS placed to wireless numbers, and (b) all artificial or prerecorded  telemarketing/promotional voice calls to wireless and residential numbers.1   52.  The TCPA consent rules define “prior express written consent” as “an agreement,  in writing, bearing the signature of the person called that clearly authorizes the seller to deliver or  cause to be delivered to the person called advertisements or telemarketing messages using an  ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice, and the telephone number to which the signatory  authorizes such advertisements or telemarketing messages to be delivered.”   53.  Defendant placed or caused to be placed no less than 10 telemarketing/promotional  phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 1890 utilizing an ATDS without  Plaintiff’s prior express written consent in violation of 47 U.S.C. §227 (b)(1)(A)(iii).   54.  Upon information and belief, based on the noticeable pause Plaintiff experienced,  Defendant employed an ATDS to place calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.     55.  Upon information and belief, the ATDS employed by Defendant transfers the call  to a live representative once a human voice is detected, hence the clear pause.   57.  Upon information and belief, the system employed by Defendant to place phone  calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone has the capacity – (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to  be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.    58.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has no database to maintain and update  consumers’ contact preferences and consent to call them.     59.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and the  members of the Putative Class are entitled to receive $500.00 in damages for each such violation.     9.  Upon information and belief, Defendant develops marketing campaigns using a  combination of sales channels, with an emphasis on outbound telemarketing.   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Members of Putative Class)  