15. Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant to this action, the regular and sole  user of his cellular telephone number—(802) 238-XXXX.   16. Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant, nor has Plaintiff ever done business with  Defendant. Plaintiff never sought Defendant’s business and did not authorize any  pre-recorded or automated robotic calls or text messages to his cellular number.   17. Nonetheless, on or about July 13, 2020 at approximately 1:35 PM, Defendant  contacted Plaintiff through an unsolicited, automated phone call to Plaintiff’s  cellular telephone number from the number (802) 318-4993.    18. Defendant called Plaintiff again the next day, July 14, 2020, at 4:06 PM from the  same cellular telephone number.    20. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s call history log is reproduced below:   21. Defendant initiated telephonic communications to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.  Plaintiff found these communications excessive, inconvenient, harassing, and  placed in complete disregard of Plaintiff’s privacy.    22. Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express written consent to call his cellphone  using an automatic telephone dialing system.    23. In fact, Plaintiff registered his cellular number with the National Do Not Call  Registry since November 4, 2004.   25. The phone calls Defendant placed to Plaintiff solicited home project services  through Defendant.   26. Defendant utilized (and continues to utilize) a sophisticated telephone dialing  system to call cellular telephone users en masse for the purpose of promoting its  services and products, often calling consumers on their cellular phones.   27. The telephone system Defendant used to place the automated robocall constitutes  an ATDS as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).   28. Upon information and good faith belief, and in light of the nature and character  of the phone calls at issue—standardized, impersonal, and consistent in structure  and format—the advertisement and marketing phone calls at issue were sent by  using “equipment which has the capacity—(1) to store numbers to be called or  (2) to produce numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number  generator—and to dial such numbers automatically (even if the system must be  turned on or triggered by a person).” Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d  1041, 1053 (9th Cir. 2018).    29. Upon information and belief, no human placed the multiple phone calls to  Plaintiff’s number.   30. In addition, upon information and belief, the hardware and software combination  utilized by Defendant has the capacity to store and dial sequentially generated  numbers, randomly generated numbers or numbers from a database of numbers.   31. Defendant did not have Plaintiff’s prior express consent to place automated  phone calls to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone.   32. Receipt of Defendant’s unauthorized phone call drained Plaintiff’s phone battery  and caused Plaintiff additional electricity expenses and wear and tear on his  phone and battery. Additionally, the receipt of the unauthorized call caused  Plaintiff annoyance, aggravation, and invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy.    34. Through the aforementioned conduct, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(iii).  45. Excluded from the class are Defendant, its officers and directors, members of  their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or  assigns, and any entity in which Defendant has or had a controlling interest.   46. Plaintiff reserves the right to redefine the classes and to add subclasses as  appropriate based on discovery and specific theories of liability.   47. Numerosity: Upon information and belief, the members of the class are so  numerous that joinder of all of them is impracticable.    48. The exact number of the members of the classes are unknown to Plaintiff at this  time but can (and will) be determined through appropriate discovery. However,  given that, on information and belief, Defendant called thousands of class  members nationwide during the class period, it is reasonable to presume that the  members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable. The disposition of the claims in a class action will provide  substantial benefits to the parties and the Court.   49. Ascertainability: The members of the class are ascertainable because the class is  defined by reference to objective criteria.    50. In addition, the members of the class are identifiable in that, upon information  and belief, their cellular telephone numbers, names and addresses can be  identified in business records maintained by Defendant and by third parties.    52. Plaintiff’s claims, and the claims of the members of the class, originate from the  same conduct, practice and procedure on the part of Defendant.   53. Plaintiff’s claims are based on the same theories, as are the claims of the members  of the class.   54. Plaintiff and the class members were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at least  the following ways: Defendant harassed Plaintiff and the class members by  illegally calling their cellular phones using an ATDS. Plaintiff and the class were  damaged thereby.    55. Adequacy: Plaintiff is qualified to, and will fairly and adequately protect the  interests of the members of the class with whom he is similarly situated, as  demonstrated herein. Plaintiff acknowledges that he has an obligation to make  known to the Court any relationships, conflicts, or differences with any class  member.    56. Plaintiff’s interests in this matter are not directly or irrevocably antagonistic to  the interests of the members of the class.    57. Plaintiff will vigorously pursue the claims of the members of the class.   58. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced and competent in class action  litigation. Plaintiff’s attorneys, the proposed class counsel, are versed in the rules  governing class action discovery, certification, and settlement. In addition, the  proposed class counsel is experienced in handling clams involving consumer  actions and violations of the TCPA.   59. Plaintiff’s counsel will vigorously pursue this matter.   61. Plaintiff has incurred, and throughout the duration of this action, will continue to  incur costs and attorneys’ fees that have been, are, and will be, necessarily  expended for the prosecution of this action for the substantial benefit of each class  member.   62. Predominance: The questions of law and fact common to the members of the  class predominate over questions that may affect individual members of the class.  The elements of the legal claims brought by Plaintiff and the class members are  capable of proof at trial through evidence that is common to the class rather than  to its individual members.   63. Commonality: There are common questions of law and fact as to all members of  the class, including but not limited to the following:  a.  What is Defendant’s conduct, pattern, and practice as it pertains to  placing unsolicited advertisement and telemarketing calls;  b.  Whether Defendant places calls to the telephone numbers listed on  the Do-Not-Call Registry;  b.   Whether, within the statutory period, Defendant used an ATDS as  defined by the TCPA to call the cellular numbers of Plaintiff and  the class members;  c.   Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA;   d.  Whether Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such  conduct in the future; and  e.   The availability of statutory penalties.   65. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  members of the class, making final declaratory or injunctive relief appropriate.   66. Plaintiff and the class members have all suffered and will continue to suffer harm  and damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct.   68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully stated herein.   69. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant 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.   70. As a result of Defendant’s 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).   71. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.  72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully stated herein.   73. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute 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.   74. 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 an award of $1,500.00 in statutory  damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   76. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the above paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.    77. Plaintiff and members of the DNC class received more than one telephone call  within a 12-month period, by or on behalf of Defendant, for the express purpose  of marketing Defendant’s goods and/or services without their written prior  express consent.    78. Defendant’s call caused Plaintiff and members of the DNC class actual harm  including, but not limited to, invasion of their personal privacy, aggravation,  nuisance and disruption in their daily lives, reduction in cellular telephone battery  life, data, and loss of use of their cellular telephones.    79.  As a result of the aforementioned violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the DNC  class are entitled to an award of up to $1,500.00 for each call in violation of the  TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).    80. Additionally, Plaintiff and members of the DNC class are entitled to and seek  injunctive relief prohibiting such future conduct.   Do Not Call Registry  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)    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.  