10. Defendant called Plaintiff on her cellular telephone with enough frequency to constitute harassment under the circumstance.  11. Defendant’s calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).  12. 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).  13. Defendant’s actions resulted in false and deceptive acts toward the Plaintiff.   Defendant made the Plaintiff, at all relevant times, believe that legal action would be instituted  against Plaintiff and that failure to heed the threats of legal action would result in the taking of  Plaintiff’s property.    14. Defendant never received Plaintiff’s “prior express consent” to receive calls  using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on her cellular  telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).  19. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly  situated, as a member of the proposed class (hereafter “The Class”) defined as follows: All persons within the United States who received any collection  telephone calls from Defendant to said person’s cellular  telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone  dialing system and such person had not previously consented to  receiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing of this  Complaint  6. At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the instant Complaint,  including within the one year preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant contacted  Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt.   7. Beginning in and around 2014, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on her cellular  telephone in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt.  8. Defendant was calling Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number ending in - 0861.  9. 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 the debt allegedly owed.  Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq. � As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1), Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to and request $500 in statutory  damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(B). � Any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper.  Violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment be entered against Defendant for the  following: A. Actual damages; B. Statutory damages for willful and negligent violations; C. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, D. For such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 17th day of December, 2014.