10. Likewise, the TCPA prohibits the placement of calls to a recipient’s cell phone using an artificial or prerecorded voice and without the recipient’s prior express written consent.  11. According to findings by the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”), the agency Congress vested with authority to issue regulations implementing the TCPA, such calls are prohibited because, as Congress found, these calls can be costly and inconvenient.  The FCC also recognized that wireless customers are charged for incoming calls whether they pay in advance or after the minutes are used.   13. Thus, telephone calls made to wireless phone numbers placed using equipment with the capacity to meet the definition of an ATDS or made with an artificial or prerecorded voice  are expressly prohibited in the absence of the prior express consent of the subscriber.  14. Under the TCPA and pursuant to the FCC’s January 2008 Declaratory Ruling, the burden is on DirecTV to demonstrate that Plaintiff provided express consent within the meaning of the statute. Placing and Receipt of the Calls  15. At all relevant times Plaintiff was an individual residing in the state of Louisiana. Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(32).  16. In early 2014, Plaintiff orally agreed to purchase television services from DirecTV.  At that time, Plaintiff provided DirecTV with his contact information, including his cellular telephone number.  At no time did Plaintiff give his consent for Defendant to use his phone number for the purpose of making telephonic solicitations.  18. All telephone calls made by Defendant to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone occurred with the use of an ATDS, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), and all calls included in this suit occurred within four years of the filing of this Complaint.  19. The telephone number that Defendant used to contact Plaintiff, made by an ATDS, was assigned to a cellular telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).  20. The subject telephone calls were not made for an emergency purpose as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).  22. Identical telephone calls made by an ATDS from telephone number 800-531-500 were similarly placed on repeated occasions to other cellular phone numbers belonging to the other members of the class over the past four years.  None of those subscribers gave Defendant their prior express consent to receive the calls and they were not made for emergency purposes.  Upon information and belief, Defendant placed these phone calls multiple times a week to the members of the Class.    23. Upon information and belief, Defendant placed numerous calls to Plaintiff and the class members weekly.  As a result, thousands of  telephone calls were placed by Defendant on a weekly basis to the class members, resulting in thousands of calls made by Defendant to the Plaintiff and the class members over the past four years.  These telephone calls were placed for the commercial purpose of selling Defendant’s cable television services.  25. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) on behalf of himself and the following class (“The Class”): All persons or legal entities domiciled within the United States who, within the last four years, received a telephone call on their cellular telephone (or to a telephone number assigned to a service for which the called party is charged for the call) from phone number 800-531-5000 placed by or on behalf of DirecTV with an automatic telephone dialing system without the subscriber’s prior express consent.  Excluded from the Class are all judges and Court personnel employed by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana and all officers, directors and employees of Defendant.   26. The Class consists of thousands of individuals and legal entities who are geographically dispensed making joinder impractical, in satisfaction of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1).  The exact size of the respective classes and identities of the individual members thereof are ascertainable through Defendant’s records, or the records of its representatives, including but not limited to the transmission logs.  28. The class members have a well-defined community of interest.  The Defendant acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff and the respective class members, requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the respective class members.  29. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect only individual class members within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3).  30. Absent a class action, most of the respective class members would find the cost of litigating their claims to be prohibitive, and will have no effective remedy.   The class treatment of common questions of law and fact is also superior to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that it conserves the resources of the courts and the litigants, and promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication.  33. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of these statutory provisions and the jurisprudence of the courts. 34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  36. These calls were made en masse without the prior express consent of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.  37. Thus, Defendant violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), which makes it “unlawful for any person within the United States...to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice...to any telephone number assigned to a...cellular telephone.”  38. Plaintiff received, on May 28, 2014 at 3:58 PM CST, a call transmitted and/or placed by or on behalf of DirecTV on his cellular telephone.  39. This call was sent without Plaintiff’s prior express consent and in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.  41. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of statutory damages as provided for by 47 U.S.C.A. § 227 et seq., specifically including 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(A).  42. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), a person or entity may bring a private action to recover for actual monetary loss from a violation of the TCPA, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater.  43. Accordingly, as a proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff Class has incurred actual damages associated with the cost of the receipt of the phone calls, usage of cellular phone minutes and plan allowances, inconvenience, and the invasion of the recipient’s privacy.  44. Further, in the alternative, the plaintiff Class is entitled to recover statutory damages under the Act, as set forth above, based on the placing of the phone calls by Defendant.  46. In this regard, the United States of America filed suit against DirecTV twice in 2005 and 2009 in connection with its failure to comply with the requirements of the TCPA.  In both instances, DirecTV entered into a Stipulated Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction and DirecTV agreed to pay multi-million dollar penalties.  47. Additionally, the Class seeks injunctive relief requiring that Defendant be enjoined from placing or transmitting additional phone calls in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A). 48. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  49. By sending Plaintiff and the class members unsolicited phone calls, Defendant deprived plaintiffs and class members of the use of, and converted to their own use, the cellular telephones belonging to plaintiff and the class members.  51. By sending the unsolicited calls, Defendant appropriated to its own use, and deprived plaintiff and the class members of the use of, the cellular telephones used to receive the calls, such that they could not be used for the receipt of any other data or calls.  Such appropriation was wrongful and without authorization.  52. Defendant knew or should have known that such appropriation of the cellular telephones was wrongful and without authorization.  53. Plaintiff and the class members were deprived of their cellular telephones, which could no longer be used for any other purpose. Plaintiff and each class member thereby suffered damages as a result of receipt of the unsolicited calls.  54. Defendant should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the future. 56. Among other duties, Defendant owed a duty not to damage plaintiffs.  However, Defendant and/or its agents, by error and neglect, permitted, suffered, required, ratified, directed, and/or otherwise proximately caused the acts and omissions that have damaged plaintiffs as referenced herein.  57. If Defendant and/or its agents had not been negligent in their acts or omissions, or their supervision, management, direction, instruction, training, guidance, assistance, and/or control of each other, their agents, or themselves, then the marketing practices and/or phone calls referenced herein would have comported with all applicable law, and none of the inherently injurious calls referenced herein would have been transmitted to the telephonic devices of plaintiffs.  58. In this regard, by transmitting the unsolicited calls to plaintiffs, the Defendant violated its duty or duties to plaintiffs.   60. Defendant should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the future. 61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  62. Defendant, by its acts and omissions described herein, has invaded plaintiff and the class members’ privacy and/or committed an unauthorized intrusion for prying into plaintiff and the class members’ seclusion.  63. The invasion of privacy and/or intrusion committed by the Defendant has been highly offensive and/or objectionable to plaintiff and the class members.  64. The invasion of privacy and/or intrusion committed by the Defendant would be highly offensive and/or objectionable to any reasonable person.  66. The invasions of privacy and/or intrusion committed by Defendant has caused plaintiff and the class members anguish and suffering, as well as additional damages as described herein. 67. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  68. Defendant, by its acts and omissions described herein, has invaded the plaintiff and the class members’ interest in the use and enjoyment of their property.  69. Defendant’s invasions have been substantial, negligent and unreasonable, and have constituted a nuisance with respect to plaintiff and the class members.  70. Defendant’s invasions would constitute a nuisance with respect to any reasonable person.  72. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  73. Plaintiff, the class members, and the rest of the public, have a right to be free from the inconvenience and annoyance of unsolicited calls placed to their cellular telephones.  74. Defendant, by its acts and omissions as described herein, has substantially and unreasonably interfered with these rights.  75. Defendant, by its acts and omissions as described herein, has proximately caused plaintiff and the class members, in particular, actual damages as described herein. 76. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  78. The consumer protection and/or unfair trade laws of the state in which each of the plaintiffs resides and received an unsolicited phone call from Defendant declares that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce are unlawful.  79. The states where these plaintiffs reside, including the state of Louisiana, have enacted statutes designed to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, and unconscionable trade and business practices and false advertising that further allow consumers to bring private and/or class actions.  8. In 1991, Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA), in response to a growing number of consumer complaints regarding certain telemarketing practices.  80. Plaintiff and the class members have suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of another person's willful use or employment of a method, act or practice declared unlawful.  In particular, Defendant has placed phone calls without the consent of the recipients and in violation of these various consumer protection and/or unfair trade laws.   82. The plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to actual compensatory and/or statutory damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, to the fullest extent permitted pursuant to the various state laws implicated by this claim.  General Overview of the TCPA  UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES LAWS 