19.  SignPost offers customer relationship management software for businesses.   20.  To generate new customers, SignPost relies on telemarketing.   21.  One of SignPost’s strategies for telemarketing involves the use of automatic  telephone dialing system to solicit business.   22.  This includes using a pre-loaded list of telephone numbers.   23.  The list of telephone numbers is then automatically dialed in sequence.   24.  When an individual answers the phone, they are then transferred to a customer  service representative of the Defendant.    25.  Defendant use these technologies because they allow Defendant to deliver  thousands of telemarketing messages in a short period of time, but its sales representatives only  talk to individuals who affirmatively respond.   27.  Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C.  § 153(39).   28.  The Plaintiff’s telephone number, (805) 405-XXXX, is registered to a wireless,  cellular telephone service.   29.  On July 3, 2019, the Plaintiff received automated calls from the Defendant.   30.  When Plaintiff answered one of the calls, there was a lengthy pause and a click  followed by silence before a live person came on the line.   31.  The Caller ID number for the call was  (805) 779-4025.   32.  This Caller ID number was “spoofed,” as that number is not in service.   33.  In other words, the Defendant manipulated the dialing system to use a Caller ID  number that was local to the Plaintiff in hopes that he would answer.    34.  This is also consistent with the use of an ATDS, as it takes computerized dialing  software to manipulate a Caller ID.   35.  The dialing system has the capacity to store telephone numbers in a database and  dial them automatically with no human intervention.   36.  Loading a list of telephone numbers into the dialing system and pressing a single  command does this.   37.  On information and belief, the dialing system can also produce numbers using a  sequential number generator and dial them automatically.   38.  The dialing system can do this by inputting a straightforward computer command.    40.  First, it would dial a number such as (555) 000-0001, then (555) 000-0002, and so  on.   41.  This would be done without any human intervention or further effort.   42.  These facts, as well as the generic content of the call, which was not personalized  to Mr. Loftus, indicate that the calls were made with an ATDS as defined in 47 U.S.C.  § 227(a)(1).   43.  Other individuals have complained about receiving spam calls from this number,  including complaints about calls from SignPost:  “Telemarketer”  “Sales Call”  “SignPost Telemarketing (Call centre) reported by Eva   Answered the phone, they  asked "can you hear me" I said yes, but later I thought about the scam that went  around about that, she then proceeded to ask me if I had a minute for her to talk to  me about why she called. I said if its a sales call I'm not interested, she said it's only  a sales call if you want to buy something from me. I then hung up.”  See https://www.shouldianswer.com/phone-number/8057794025 (Last Visited July 31, 2019).   44.  During the call, Plaintiff learned that the purpose of the call was to sell SignPost’s  services.   45.  Confirming that fact, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff an e-mail regarding their  services.   46.  The e-mail came from “kcollins@signpost.com“.   48.  Plaintiff and the other call recipients were harmed by these calls. They were  temporarily deprived of legitimate use of their phones because the phone line was tied up, their  time was wasted with unsolicited communications, and their privacy was improperly invaded.    49.  Moreover, these calls injured the Plaintiff and the other call recipients because  they were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying, were a nuisance, and disturbed the solitude of the  Plaintiff and the Class.    50.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if  fully stated herein.   51.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly  situated (hereinafter referred to as “the Class”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  23(b)(2) or (3).   52.  Plaintiff proposes the following class definition, subject to amendment as  appropriate:  Automated Telemarketing Call Class  All persons within the United States to whom: (a) Defendant or a third party  acting on their behalf made one or more calls using the same or similar dialing  system used to call the Plaintiff; (b) to a cellular telephone number; (c) within the  four years before the date of the filing of this Complaint.    54.  The Class defined above is identifiable through phone records and phone number  databases and Defendant’s internal records.    55.  The potential class members number at least in the thousands, since automated  and pre-recorded telemarketing campaigns make calls to hundreds or thousands of individuals a  day. Individual joinder of these persons is impracticable.   56.  Plaintiff is a member of the proposed Class.   57.  There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and to the proposed  Class, including but not limited to the following:  ▪ Whether Defendant placed calls using an ATDS;  ▪ Whether Defendant placed calls without obtaining the recipients’ prior express  written consent for the call;  ▪ Whether the Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to statutory damages  because of Defendant’ actions;  ▪ Whether the actions of the Defendant were knowing or willful.   58.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of members of the Class. Plaintiff’s  claims, like the claims of the Class arise out of the same common course of conduct by  Defendant and are based on the same legal and remedial theories.   60.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only  individual class members. The only individual question concerns identification of class  members, which will be ascertainable from records maintained by Defendant and/or its agents.   61.  Management of these claims is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties  than are presented in many class claims because the calls at issue are all automated.     62.  Class treatment is superior to multiple individual suits or piecemeal litigation  because it conserves judicial resources, promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication,  provides a forum for small claimants, and deters illegal activities.  There will be no significant  difficulty in the management of this case as a class action.   63.  The likelihood that individual members of the Class will prosecute separate  actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual case.    64.  Plaintiff is not aware of any litigation concerning this controversy already  commenced by others who meet the criteria for class membership described above.    64.1200(a)(1)(iii) & 64.1200(a)(2).     65.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as  if fully set forth herein.   67.  As a result of the Defendant’s violations, Plaintiff and Class members are entitled  to an award of $500 in statutory damages for each and every violation of the statute, or up to  $1,500 in statutory damages for each willfully or knowingly made violation, pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).     68.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive relief  prohibiting Defendant from engaging in the use of an automatic telephone dialing system.  AUTOMATED CALL VIOLATIONS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS) OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER  PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227  