12.  As part of just such an advertising campaign, CPP has placed and continues to  place unsolicited calls to Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ telephones without prior express  written consent and in violation of the DNC List.   13.  Plaintiff has been a subscriber of the telephone number ending in 8391 since at  least 2007 and registered that number on the DNC List on October 23, 2007.   14.  From June 2015 to the date of this filing, CPP placed approximately 100 phone  calls to Plaintiff’s telephone number in an attempt to market and promote its payment processing  products and services.     15.  For example, from late August 2015 to late September 2015 alone, Plaintiff  received twenty six (26) unsolicited calls from CPP.   16.  For each of these twenty six calls, Plaintiff’s caller ID displayed the calling  number as “(972) 301-3798” in Richardson, Texas, and the calling party as “CPP.”  The calls  occurred on the following dates and times:   August 28, 2015 at 8:52 a.m. CDT   August 31, 2015 at 9:48 a.m. CDT   September 1, 2015 at 10:59 a.m. CDT   September 1, 2015 at 12:47 p.m. CDT   September 2, 2015 at 9:11 a.m. CDT   September 3, 2015 at 10:10 a.m. CDT  2 Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies, Loyola University Chicago School of Law, THE  25.  Plaintiff brings this action, as set forth below, on behalf of himself and as a class  action pursuant  to the provisions of Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure on behalf of a class (the “Class”) defined as:  All individuals and entities in the United States who, within a 12- month period, received two or more telemarketing phone calls  from or on behalf of Defendant Certified Payment Processing, L.P.  soliciting its products and services at a time when the called  number was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.   Excluded from the Class are Defendant and its subsidiaries and  affiliates; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded  from the Class; governmental entities; and the judge to whom this  case is assigned and any immediate family members thereof.   26.  Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because  Plaintiff can prove the elements of his claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as  would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims.   27.  Numerosity – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1).  The members of the  Class are so numerous that individual joinder of all Class members is impracticable.  On  information and belief, there are thousands of consumers who have been damaged by CPP’s  wrongful conduct as alleged herein.  The precise number of Class members and their addresses is  presently unknown to Plaintiff, but may be ascertained from CPP’s books and records.  Class  members may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice  dissemination methods, which may include U.S. mail, electronic mail, Internet postings, and/or  published notice.   29.  Typicality – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3).  Plaintiff’s claim is  typical of the other Class members’ claims because, among other things, all Class members were  comparably injured through the uniform prohibited conduct described above.   30.  Adequacy of Representation – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).   Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests do not conflict with the  interests of the other Class members he seeks to represent; he has retained counsel competent  and experienced in complex commercial and class action litigation; and Plaintiff intends to  prosecute this action vigorously.  The interests of the Class members will be fairly and  adequately protected by the Plaintiff and his counsel.   31.  Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).   CPP has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and the other Class  members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory relief, as described  below, with respect to the Class as a whole.   33.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   35.  The Commission did in fact implement such regulations establishing the DNC  List.  See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.    36.  Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any  telephone solicitation to . . . [a] residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her  telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive  telephone solicitations that is maintained by the Federal Government [i.e., the DNC List]. Such  do-not-call registrations must be honored indefinitely, or until the registration is cancelled by the  consumer or the telephone number is removed by the database administrator.”   37.  Upon information and belief, and based on the approximately 100 phone calls  CPP placed to Plaintiff after he instructed CPP that his number was registered with the DNC  List, as well as the numerous consumer complaints regarding similar unwanted telemarketing  calls received from CPP, CPP does not maintain the proper standards – including written  procedures, personnel training, recording of numbers not to be contacted, and access to the DNC  List – required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(i).   38.  CPP did not obtain the Plaintiff’s or Class members’ prior express invitation or  permission, evidenced by a signed written agreement, to place these telemarketing calls to  Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ residential telephones.   40.  CPP and/or its agents placed unauthorized telephone calls to the telephone  number of Plaintiff and the other Class members en masse without their prior express, written  consent.    41.   CPP placed the calls, or had them placed on its behalf, using equipment that had  the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential  number generator, and to dial such numbers.    42.  CPP utilized equipment that placed the calls to Plaintiff and other Class members  simultaneously and without human intervention.   43.  By placing the unauthorized calls to Plaintiff and the Class, CPP has violated 47  U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). As a result of CPP’s unlawful conduct, the Class members suffered actual  damages in the form of monies paid to their telephone carriers and under section 227(c)(5) are  each entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each such violation of the  TCPA.  Under that same subsection, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to injunctive relief  enjoining CPP from placing such unauthorized, illegal calls in the future.   44.  Should the Court determine that CPP’s conduct was willful or knowing, the Court  may, pursuant to section 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by  Plaintiff and the other Class members.  VI.  Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of the Class)  