(Invasion of Privacy and Wrongful Intrusion upon the Seclusion and  Solitude of the Plaintiff)   (Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.)   (Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act  15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.)   (Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.)   23.  Plaintiff, William Lamey (“Mr. Lamey” or “Plaintiff”), is a natural person  residing in Los Angeles County in the state of California, and is a “consumer” as defined by  the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3).   25.  Navient acted through its agents, employees, officers, members, directors,  heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and  insurers in connection with the facts pleaded in this Complaint.   26.  Navient has violated the above federal consumer protection laws (the FDCPA  and the TCPA) as relates to Plaintiff, and the Class Members, as follows: repeated unlawful  debt-collection telephone calls to telephone numbers that were never provided to Navient,  nor in which Navient was authorized by the borrowers to contact them at said telephone  numbers (in the case of Plaintiff, Mr. Lamey, more than 80 unauthorized and unlawful  collection-calls were made to multiple cellular telephones of Mr. Lamey’s that were never  provided to Navient at the time of these more than 80 unlawful collection-calls); other  unauthorized and unlawful collection activities and communications from Navient to  Plaintiff and Class Members in violation of the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection  Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Factual Allegations - TCPA   27.  Beginning on or about May/June 2015, Navient contacted Plaintiff on his  cellular telephone number ending in -4199, in an effort to collect an alleged debt owed from  Plaintiff.    29.  Then, also beginning in early July 2015, Navient began to contact Plaintiff on  his other new cellular telephone number(s) ending in -8033, and -2475, respectively, in an  effort to collect an alleged debt owed from Plaintiff.  The purpose for the Plaintiff obtaining  new cellular telephone numbers was, in large part, to avoid telephonic automated-dialing- system harassment on the part of Navient, the servicer/collector of Mr. Lamey’s private  student loans.   30.  In its efforts to collect the alleged debt owed from Plaintiff, Defendant used  an “automatic telephone dialing system”, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) to place its daily  calls to Plaintiff seeking to collect an alleged debt owed.   31.  Defendant’s calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   32.  Defendant’s calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular  telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(1).   33.  During all relevant times, Defendant did not possess Plaintiff’s “prior express  consent” to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or  prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).  Furthermore, Plaintiff orally revoked any and all consent to be contacted using an automated  telephone dialing system, to the extent any ever existed.   35.  Without waiving any attorney-client privilege, Plaintiff did not discover the  Fair Debt Collection Practice Act violations pleaded in this Complaint until he learned of  them, from (current) counsel, on May on or about May 5, 2017. Thus, the FDCPA claims  pleaded in this Complaint are not time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations until  May 5, 2018.   36.  In addition to the facts pleaded above, at various times prior to the filing of  the instant Complaint, Defendant, Navient, contacted Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an  alleged outstanding debt.   37.  Prior to receiving the harassing and unlawful telephone calls to multiple  cellular telephones owned by Plaintiff that serve as the basis for this TCPA and FDCPA  lawsuit, Plaintiff had disputed his alleged debt with Navient and had requested Navient’s  assistance in getting these private student loans on the best possible repayment plan(s) to  avoid the telephonic collection-harassment, and destruction of his credit history, that  ultimately occurred. Instead of informing Mr. Lamey about available income-based- repayment (IBR) repayment plans, Navient instead engaged in “Rambo” style collection, and  telephonic harassment, activities.   39.  These calls continued well into 2015, and, upon information and belief, well  into year 2016. Navient’s own records are expected to prove these details.   40.  On several of these occasions, Mr. Lamey told Navient to stop calling him  (and his mother; and his stepfather at his place of employment; and especially, to stop calling  Mr. Lamey’s ex-girlfriend – all whose telephone numbers Navient never should have  possessed in the first place).   41.  Each of the calls referenced, above, is a violation of the FDCPA. Contacting  parents, stepparents at their place of employment, and contacting ex-girlfriends from when  the Plaintiff was in college constitute egregious violations of the FDCPA (and the TCPA).   43.  As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff suffered and  continues to suffer injury to his feelings, personal humiliation, embarrassment, mental  anguish and emotional distress, and Navient is liable to Mr. Lamey, and the classes he seeks  to represent under the TCPA and the FDCPA, for all actual damages, statutory damages,  and costs and attorney’s fees.  44.  Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself, individually,  and all others similarly situated as members of the proposed Classes pursuant to Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). This action satisfies the numerosity,  commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of those  provisions.    46.  Excluded from the Classes and Sub-Classes are: (1) Defendant, any entity or  division in which Defendant has a controlling interest, and their legal representatives,  officers, directors, assigns, and successors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and  the Judge’s staff; and (3) those persons who have suffered personal injuries as a result of the  facts alleged herein. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class and Sub-Class definitions  if discovery and further investigation reveal that the Class and Sub-Class should be expanded  or otherwise modified.    48.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class in that  Plaintiff, like all Class Members, has suffered the telephonic and collection abuses that nearly  identical to claims of the Class Members. The claims of the members of the proposed classes  in this lawsuit are each typical of one another due to the fact that they are common, and  similar, losses that have occurred as a result Defendants’ various, and consistent, patterns of  misconduct.   49.  Commonality: There are numerous questions of law and fact common to  Plaintiff and the Class that predominate over any question affecting only individual Class  Members. These common legal and factual issues have been pleaded, above, in this  Complaint.   50.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the  interests of the Class Members of each of the proposed Classes in this Complaint. Plaintiff  has retained attorney(s) experienced in the prosecution of class actions, including consumer  class actions, and Plaintiff, and his counsel, intend to prosecute this action vigorously, and  through trial and appeal(s), if necessary.   52.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts pleaded in the preceding  paragraphs of this Complaint.   53.  The above-referenced acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous  and multiple negligent violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every  one of the above cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   54.  As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.,  Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for  each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   55.  Plaintiff and the TCPA Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive  relief prohibiting such conduct in the future.  57.  The above-referenced acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous  and multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to  each and every one of the above cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   58.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. §  227 et seq., Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled an award of $1,500.00 in statutory  damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(C).   59.  Plaintiff and the TCPA Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive  relief prohibiting such conduct in the future.  60.  Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all of the facts pleaded in the preceding  Paragraphs of this Complaint.   61.  For all relevant periods to this Complaint, Navient was covered as a “debt  collector” under the FDCPA.   62.  Likewise, Plaintiff, and FDCPA Class Members, for all relevant periods to this  Complaint, were covered under the FDCPA “persons” protected by the FDCPA.   63.  For all relevant periods to this Complaint, Navient was engaged in collection  activities for third-party debts.   65.  The Defendant, Navient is liable to Plaintiff, and the FDCPA Class Members  for all: statutory damages under the FDCPA, punitive (treble) damages, economic damages,  hedonic damages, attorney’s fees, and all costs of litigation.  66.  Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all of the facts pleaded in the preceding  Paragraphs of this Complaint, and, in particular, Paragraph 42.   67.  The unreasonable and malicious telephonic harassment of the Plaintiff, his  family, and even his ex-girlfriend, over debts allegedly owed to the federal government  and/or private investors, but serviced by Navient, as detailed in this Complaint, constitutes  the tort of invasion of privacy (and wrongful intrusion upon the protected interest of  seclusion and solitude of the Plaintiff) under Mississippi law. This Court has pendant  subject-matter jurisdiction over this state intentional tort claim.   68.  As a direct and proximate result of the Navient’s repeated and knowing  violations of the Plaintiff’s protected interest of privacy (and not to have allegations of non- payment broadcast to his family, stepfather, and ex-girlfriend, etc.), the Plaintiff, Mr. Lamey,  has suffered damages, emotional distress, humiliation, undue annoyance, and other injuries  to be determined by the finder-of-fact at trial.   Navient’s (Repeated and Knowing) Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices  Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  