19.  In an effort to gain business, generate revenue and promote product sales,  Defendant runs marketing campaigns by way of mass calling campaigns.  Defendant ran these  marketing campaigns without the prior express written consent of the call recipients as required  by law.  Further, Defendant continued to call those prospective customers even after he or she  revoked consent from future contact.    20.  The TCPA was intended to give individuals control over how and where they  received calls.  When Defendant makes calls to individual’s cellular telephones without their  consent, it fails to address or represent the limitation imposed by the TCPA.  In doing so, it takes  control away from consumers and violations both the spirit and letter of the TCPA     21.  Beginning no later than September 2018, Plaintiff began receiving unsolicited  phone calls on his cellular telephone from Defendant.    22.  On September 19, 2018, Plaintiff received an unsolicited phone call to his cellular  telephone number from 303-756-9500.  The September 19th call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone  was automated and featured a prerecorded voice.     23.  Again, on November 5, 2018, Plaintiff received another unsolicited phone call to  his cellular telephone number from 303-756-9500.     25.  The calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone were automated and/or featured  prerecorded voice messages.    26.  The unsolicited phone calls placed to Plaintiff’s wireless telephone were placed via  and “automatic telephone dialing system,” (“ATDS”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) and by  using “an artificial or prerecorded voice” system as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A), which  had the capacity to produce or store numbers randomly or sequentially, and to dial such numbers,  to place telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.    27.  The telephone number that Defendant, or its agents, called was assigned to a  cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurred a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1).   28.  These telephone calls constitute calls that were not for emergency purposes as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).    29.  Plaintiff did not provide Defendant or its agents prior express consent to receive  unsolicited phone calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A).    30.  These telephone calls by Defendant or its agents therefore violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1).   31.  Plaintiff is not alone in receiving these unsolicited phone call advertisements.  In  fact, numerous consumers have complained of receipt of similar unsolicited phone calls, stating  they never provided their cellphone numbers to the Defendant, or provided any permission, let  alone prior express written consent, to the Defendant to receive the offending phone calls, and yet  continued to receive the phone calls.   34.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and  23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“the Class”).   36.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class.  Plaintiff does  not know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number in the  hundreds of thousands, if not more.  Thus, this matter should be certified as a Class action to assist  in the expeditious litigation of this matter.   37.  Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at least  the following ways: Defendant, either directly or through its agents, illegally contacted Plaintiff  and the Class members via their cellular telephones by using unsolicited phone calls, thereby  causing Plaintiff and the Class members to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce  cellular telephone time for which Plaintiff and the Class members previously paid, and invading  the privacy of said Plaintiff and the Class members.  Plaintiff and the Class members were thereby  damaged through Defendant’s unlawful actions.   38.  This suit seeks only statutory damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the Class  and it expressly is not intended to request any recovery for personal injury and claims related  thereto.  Plaintiff reserves the right to expand the Class definition to seek recovery on behalf of  additional persons as warranted as facts are learned in further investigation and discovery.   39.  The joinder of the Class members is impractical and the disposition of their claims  in the Class action will provide substantial benefits both to the parties and to the Court.  The Class  can be identified through Defendant’s records or Defendant’s agents’ records.   46.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   47 U.S.C. §§ 227 ET SEQ.   47 U.S.C. §§ 227 ET SEQ.   48.  Each such telephone call described herein was made using equipment that, upon  information and belief, had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using  a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.  By using such equipment,  Defendant was able to in effect make hundreds or thousands of phone calls simultaneously to lists  of thousands of consumers’ wireless phone numbers without human intervention.     49.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and its agents 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.   50.  As a result of Defendant’s, and Defendant’s agents’, negligent violations of 47  U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory  damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   51.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.  52.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-51 of this Complaint as though  fully stated herein.     53.  Defendant made unauthorized automated phone calls using an automatic telephone  dialing system or prerecorded voice to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and other  members of the Class without the prior express written consent.    55.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitutes 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.   56.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et  seq., Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to treble damages, as provided by statute, up to $1,500.00,  for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).    57.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.  58.  As a result of Defendant’s, and Defendant’s agents’, negligent violations of 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), Plaintiff seeks for himself and each Class member $500.00 in statutory  damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   59.  Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.  60.  As a result of Defendant’s, and Defendant’s agents’, willful and/or knowing  violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), Plaintiff seeks for himself and each Class member treble  damages, as provided by statute, up to $1,500.00 for each and every violation, pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   62.  An order certifying the Class as defined above, appointing Plaintiff Straczynski as  a Class Representative, and appointing the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as Class Counsel.    63.  An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees (in the event of a class recovery) and costs.    64.  Any other relief the Court may deem reasonable, just and proper.  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA  47 U.S.C. §§ 227 ET SEQ.   NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA  47 U.S.C. §§ 227 ET SEQ.  