32.  Any necessary conditions precedent to the filing of this action occurred or have been  waived by Defendant.  33.  Plaintiff purchased property by obtaining a mortgage on August 30, 2018 and signing  Promissory Note on the same date.   34.  Plaintiff stopped paying on the mortgage and note obligations.   35.   Subsequently, Defendant obtained servicing of the loan.   36.   On January 10, 2020, Defendant filed a foreclosure action against Plaintiff.   37.  Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a Notice of Appearance in the Foreclosure case.               38.  On or around December 10, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel faxed a letter to Defendant that  it cease contact with Plaintiff.   39.   Regardless, Defendant continued to call multiple times               40.   Defendant’s telephone calls were made to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone numbers  ending in 8928 (Cellular Telephone) using  an artificial or pre-recorded voice (hereinafter,  52.  Plaintiff brings Counts One and Two under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure on behalf of the Classes defined as follows:  Count One TCPA Class:    Subclass (i): All persons in the United States who within the last four years (i) received  calls from  Defendant with an artificial or pre-recorded voice without their prior express  consent;  Subclass (ii) All persons in the United States who within the last four years requested  to be placed on Defendants’ internal do not call lists and continued to receive more than  one call in a twelve-month period starting 30 days after the request.  Subclass (iii)  All persons in the United States who within the last four years had their  telephone numbers registered on the National Do Not Call list and received two or more  calls from Defendant within a twelve month period.  Count Two FCCPA Class:  All Florida residents to whom Defendants conveyed debt  collection information within the last two years after being advised of their  representation by counsel.   53.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the Class definitions as he obtains further  information, including telemarketing call records, through discovery.     55.  The proposed Class can be identified through the business and telephone records of  Defendant.   56.  The number of Class Members is so numerous that individual joinder of all Class  Members is impracticable.   57.  Plaintiff is a member of the proposed Classes.   58.   There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and to the proposed Class,  including but not limited to the following:  a.  Did Defendant call the cell phones of Plaintiff and Class Members through the use  of an artificial or per-recorded voice without their prior express consent?  b.  Did Defendant initiate calls to Plaintiffs and Class Members after being requested  by Plaintiff and Class Members to be placed on an internal do not call list?  c.  Did Defendant call numbers that were registered on the National Do Not Call List?  d.  Did the aforesaid conduct violate the TCPA?  e.  Did Defendants continue to communicate with Plaintiff and Class Members concerning  debt collection after being advised of their representation by counsel?  f.  Did the aforesaid conduct violate the FCCPA?  g.   Did Defendants act willfully so as to entitle Plaintiffs and the Class Members to treble  damages?  h.  Should Defendants be enjoined from further unlawful conduct?   60.  Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with those of Class Members.   He will fairly and  adequately protect interests of Class Members.  He is represented by counsel experienced in class  action litigation.   61.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only  individual Class Members, and a class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.   62.  The interest of Class Members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate  claims against Defendants is small due to the time and expense necessary to pursue individual  litigation.  Management of these claims in a class action poses no significant impediments.    63.  Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making  final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Classes as a whole  appropriate.   Plaintiff is informed and believe that the TCPA, FDCPA and FCCPA violations  complained of herein are likely to continue unless an injunction is entered.    65.  Defendant used an artificial or pre-recorded voice to call Plaintiff’s Cellular Telephone  multiple  times in its attempt to collect the Debt.   66.  Plaintiff is informed and believes that multiple such calls were made to Class Members.   67.  At no time did Defendant possess Plaintiff’s prior express consent to call Plaintiff on  his Cellular Telephone.  Similarly, Defendant had no consent to call Class Members.   68.   Additionally, if Defendant contends these phone calls were made for “informational  purposes only,” it nonetheless lacked the required prior express written consent necessary to make  such informational calls to Plaintiff’s or Class Members’ phones using an APV.   69.  In addition, Defendants violated the TCPA by ignoring the request of Plaintiff and  Class Members that calls cease.  They should have been placed on an internal do not call list.    70.   Further, regardless of any alleged prior consent, that consent was revoked when instant  the Plaintiff and the Class Members requested that calls cease.     72.  Defendant is subject to, and violated the provisions of, Florida Statutes,  Section 559.72(18) that they should not communicate with a debtor if they know that the debtor is  represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain,  such attorney’s name and address, unless the debtor’s attorney fails to respond within 30 days to a  communication from the person, unless the debtor’s attorney consents to a direct communication  with the debtor, or unless the debtor initiates the communication.    73.   Specifically, at no time did Defendant have authority to call Plaintiff after the letter  of December 10, 2020 and anytime thereafter.    Similarly, Defendant had no authority to  communicate with Class Members after they were advised that they were represented by counsel.    75.  At all material times herein, Defendant knew of Plaintiff’s counsel representation and  Class Member’s representation when communicated to them.    76.  As such, Defendant knowingly called Plaintiff and Class Members who were  represented by counsel.    77.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff and Class Members  sustained damages as defined by Florida Statutes, Section 559.77.  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT-  VIOLATION OF 47 UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 227(b)(1)(A)  Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs one (1) through sixty-four (64) as if fully restated herein and  further states as follows:   UNLAWFUL DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICE –  VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 559.72(18)  Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs one (1) through seventy-one (71) as if fully restated herein  and further states as follows:  