15.  Plaintiff’s telephone number, (985) 228-XXXX, is registered to a cellular telephone service.  All  calls to Plaintiff described herein were to that cellular telephone number.   16.  Plaintiff’s telephone number, (985) 228-XXXX, has been on the National Do Not Call Registry  since May 5, 2019.   17.  The TCPA defines “automatic telephone dialing system,” or “ATDS,” as “equipment which 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.”  47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).   18.  SLI initiated unauthorized telephone solicitations to the cellular phones of Plaintiff and other  members of the Class using an ATDS and artificial or prerecorded voice messages to (1) advertise the  availability of SLI’s loan products to Plaintiff and other members of the Class, (2) encourage Plaintiff and  other members of the Class to apply for loan products offered by SLI, and (3) obtain applications for loan  products offered by SLI from Plaintiff and other members of the Class.   20.  Plaintiff did not give SLI his cellular telephone number or request information about a loan.   21.  Plaintiff did not expressly consent in writing to receive SLI’s autodialed telemarketing calls to his  cellular phone.  A.  November 19, 2019 Telemarketing Call   22.  On November 19, 2019, at 3:45 p.m. (CST), Plaintiff received an unsolicited call on his cellular  phone.     23.  The November 19, 2019 call began with a distinctive pause and a “beep” or “click” after Plaintiff  answered. Plaintiff said, “Hello?” and there was a pause and a “beep” or “click” before a pre-recorded  voice message came on the line.     24.  A pause followed by a “click” or “beep” is evidence of the caller’s use of a predictive dialer, which  uses an algorithm to “predict” when telemarketing agents will be available to field the call. See 2003  Order, 18 FCC Rcd. at 14022, n. 31. (in 2003, the FCC expressed growing concern about the proliferation  of predictive dialing systems that use “a complex set of algorithms to automatically dial consumers’  telephone numbers in a manner that predicts the time when a consumer will answer the phone and the  telemarketer will be available to take the call.”).   26.  Pursuant to the instructions outlined in the pre-recorded voice message, Plaintiff “pressed nine” to  be placed on SLI’s internal do not call list and the call automatically disconnected.  B.  November 21, 2019 Telemarketing Call   27.  On November 21, 2019, at 10:14 a.m. (CST), Plaintiff received another unsolicited call on his  cellular phone.   28.  The November 21, 2019 call began with a distinctive pause and a “beep” or “click” after Plaintiff  answered. Plaintiff said, “Hello?” and there was a pause and a “beep” or “click” before a pre-recorded  voice message came on the line.     29.  This pause followed by the “click” or “beep” sound is evidence of the caller’s use of a predictive  dialer.   30.  The pre-recorded voice message identified the caller as a telemarketer calling on behalf of “Secure  Lending Incorporated” and directed Plaintiff to “press one” to speak with an SLI representative or to  “press nine” to be placed on SLI’s internal do not call list.   32.  On November 25, 2019, at 10:10 a.m. (CST), Plaintiff received another unsolicited call on his  cellular phone.   33.  The November 25, 2019 call began with a distinctive pause and a “beep” or “click” after Plaintiff  answered. Plaintiff said, “Hello?” and there was a pause and a “beep” or “click” before a pre-recorded  voice message came on the line.     34.  This pause followed by the “click” or “beep” sound is evidence of the caller’s use of a predictive  dialer.   35.  This pause followed by the “click” or “beep” sound is evidence of the caller’s use of a predictive  dialer.   36.  The pre-recorded voice message identified the caller as a telemarketer calling on behalf of “Secure  Lending Incorporated” and directed Plaintiff to “press one” to speak with an SLI representative or to  “press nine” to be placed on SLI’s internal do not call list.   38.  On December 6, 2019, at 9:19 a.m. (CST), Plaintiff received another unsolicited call on his cellular  phone.   39.  The December 6, 2019 call began with a distinctive pause and a “beep” or “click” after Plaintiff  answered. Plaintiff said, “Hello?” and there was a pause and a “beep” or “click” before a pre-recorded  voice message came on the line.     40.  This pause followed by the “click” or “beep” sound is evidence of the caller’s use of a predictive  dialer.   41.  The pre-recorded voice message identified the caller as a telemarketer calling on behalf of “Secure  Lending Incorporated” and directed Plaintiff to “press one” to speak with an SLI representative or to  “press nine” to be placed on SLI’s internal do not call list.   42.  Pursuant to the instructions outlined in the pre-recorded voice message, Plaintiff “pressed nine” to  be placed on SLI’s internal do not call list and the call automatically disconnected.  E.  January 2, 2020 Telemarketing Calls   44.  The January 2, 2020 call began with a distinctive pause and a “beep” or “click” after Plaintiff  answered. Plaintiff said, “Hello?” and there was a pause and a “beep” or “click” before a pre-recorded  voice message came on the line.     45.  This pause followed by the “click” or “beep” sound is evidence of the caller’s use of a predictive  dialer.   46.  The pre-recorded voice message identified the caller as a telemarketer calling on behalf of “Secure  Lending Incorporated” and directed Plaintiff to “press one” to speak with an SLI representative or to  “press nine” to be placed on SLI’s internal do not call list.   47.  This time, however, eager to speak to an SLI representative regarding SLI’s refusal to honor his  request to be placed on the internal do not call list , Plaintiff “pressed one” to speak with an SLI  representative and was connected with an SLI employee named Rick Board.   48.  During his telephone call with Mr. Board, Plaintiff stated that he never provided his consent to be  contacted by SLI and expressly requested, for the fifth time, that he be placed on SLI’s do not call list.   50.  Defendant’s purpose in making the calls was to sell its services to Plaintiff.   51.  Plaintiff has never been a customer of Defendant.   52.  Plaintiff did not provide prior express consent or prior express written consent to receive ATDS- generated calls and/or calls utilizing artificial or prerecorded voice messages from, or on behalf of,  Defendant.   53.  Defendant never disclosed to Plaintiff that it would use an ATDS-generated calls and/or calls  utilizing artificial or prerecorded voice messages to contact him.   54.  Defendant never disclosed to Plaintiff that he need not consent to receiving ATDS-generated calls  and/or calls utilizing artificial or prerecorded voice messages in order to buy its products.   55.  The calls from Defendant were not necessitated by an emergency.   56.  All parties were in the United States during the calls.   58.  SLI’s practice caused actual harm to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in several ways,  including temporarily using their cellular phones and tying up their phone lines, invading their privacy,  causing wear and tear on their cellular phones, consuming battery life, and causing some of them to be  charged for calls they did not want to receive. Moreover, these calls injured Plaintiff and the Class because  they were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying, and a nuisance, and disturbed their solitude.  59.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this action against SLI on behalf of  himself and all other persons similarly situated, as members of two proposed classes or sub-classes.   60.  For the first class, which concerns the receipt of pre-recorded voice message and ATDS telephone  calls transmitted without prior express consent, Plaintiff proposes the following class definition:  All persons in the United States (1) who received one or more advertising telephone calls,  (2) to their mobile or cellular telephone number, (3) placed by or on behalf of SLI using an  automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) on or after four  years before the filing of the complaint, and (5) without their prior express written consent.   62.  Excluded from the class are SLI, any entity in which SLI has a controlling interest, each of their  respective officers or legal representatives, and any Judge assigned to this action, including his or her  immediate family.   63.  The Class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable.  The automated  technology SLI used to call Plaintiffs cell phone is capable of contacting thousands of people a day, which  makes its very likely that the potential class members number in the hundreds or thousands, at least.   Individual joinder of so many persons is impracticable and disposition of the claims of the Class in a single  action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and the Court.   64.  The proposed class members are identifiable through phone records, internal call logs, and phone  number databases.   65.  Plaintiff is a member of the proposed classes or sub-classes.   67.  Plaintiff’s claims are based on the same facts and legal theories as the claims of all class members  and therefore are typical of the claims of class members.  Plaintiff and the other class members all received  telephone calls to their cellular telephone lines through the same or similar dialing system, utilizing the  same artificial or prerecorded voice message, and the same system for receiving, logging, and  implementing requests to be placed on SLI’s internal do not call list.  As such, Plaintiff’s claims are typical  of the claims of the Class, because his claims and those of the Class arise out of the same course of conduct  by Defendant and are based on the same legal and remedial theories.   69.  Defendant has engaged in a common course of conduct toward Plaintiff and members of the Class.   The common issues arising from this conduct that affect Plaintiff and members of the Class predominate  over any individual issues.  For example, the FCPA’s statutory damages obviate the need for mini-trials  on actual damages.  Adjudication of these common issues in a single action has important advantages,  including judicial economy.   70.  Common questions of fact and law predominate over questions affecting only individual class  members, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.   The only individual questions concern identification of class members, which will be ascertainable from  records maintained by SLI or their agents.   72.  The likelihood that individual class members will prosecute separate actions is remote because  individual litigation of the claims of all class members is economically unfeasible and procedurally  impracticable given the expense involved and the small recoveries available through individual actions.   Only one out of every seven million robocalls results in the filing of a federal TCPA lawsuit.  Compare  Herb Weisbaum, It’s Not Just You—Americans Received 30 Billion Robocalls Last Year, NBC News (Feb.  1, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/it-s-not-just-you-americans-received-30-billion- robocalls-n838406 (30.5 billion robocalls), with WebRecon, WebRecon Stats for December 2019 & Year  in Review (last visited Feb. 1, 2020), https://webrecon.com/webrecon-stats-for-dec-2019-and-year-in- review-how-did-your-favorite-statutes-fare/ (3267 TCPA complaints).  Except to the extent TCPA  violations are remedied by class actions, the overwhelming majority of communications made in violation  of the TCPA are done so with impunity.   73.  Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making final injunctive  relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class appropriate on a classwide basis.   75.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein and brings Count I  individually and on behalf of the class.   76.  The foregoing acts and omissions of SLI constitute numerous and multiple violations of the TCPA,  47 U.S.C. § 227, by making non-emergency calls to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and  members of the class using an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice without the prior express  written consent of the call recipients.   77.  As a result of SLI’s violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, Plaintiff and members of the class  are entitled to an award of $500 in damages for each and every call made to their cellular telephone  numbers using an ATDS or artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(3)(B).   78.  Plaintiff and members of the class are also entitled to, and do seek, injunctive relief prohibiting  SLI from violating the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, by making calls, except for emergency purposes, to cellular  telephone numbers using an ATDS or artificial or prerecorded voice.  IX.  79.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein and brings Count  II individually and on behalf of the class.   80.  As a result of knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA by Defendant, its affiliates or agents,  and/or other persons or entities acting on its behalf, Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to  treble damages of up to $1,500 for each and every call made to their cellular phone numbers using an  ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice message in violation of the TCPA.   VIOLATION OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  (47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.)  