10. Despite attempting to opt out receiving these pre-recorded unsolicsated telephone  calls from Defendant on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, the calls continued,  unabatted.   11. Plaintiff has no knowledge of how Defendant obtained his cellular telephone  number and did not give Defendant, express or implied permission to contact him  with pre-recorded sales solicitations to his cellular telephone.   12. Plaintiff never gave prior express consent to receive the calls and had never  spoken to Defendant prior to the first call received from Defendant.   13. Defendant initiated calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone utilizing an artificial or  prerecorded voice as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   14. Defendant’s calls to Plaintiff were made with an “automatic telephone dialing  system” (“ATDS”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).  This ATDS has the  capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or  sequential number generator without human intervention.     15. The telephone number Defendant and/or its agents called was assigned to a  cellular telephone service in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(iii).   17. These telephone calls made by Defendant and/or its agents violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(iii).  18. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of Class Members  of the proposed Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and  (b)(3) and/or (b)(2).   19. Plaintiff proposes to represent the following Class consisting of and defined as  follows:  All persons within the United States who have received an  automated and/or prerecorded message placed to their cellular  telephone soliciting Defendant’s credit card and/or credit  products, within the four years prior to the filing of this  Complaint.   20. 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 several thousands, if not more. Thus, this matter should be certified  as a Class action to assist in the expeditious litigation of this matter.   21. 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 by making calls to their cellular  telephones with a prerecorded or artificial voice for the purposes of soliciting  Plaintiff and the Class members a credit card and/or credit prodcuts, 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 damaged thereby.   23. 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’ records or Defendant’  agents’ records.   24. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact  involved affecting the parties to be represented. The questions of law and fact to  the Class predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members,  including the following:  a. Whether, within the last four years, Defendant or its agent(s) placed any  artificial or prerecorded voice messages to the Class (other than a message  made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of  the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system to any  telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service;  b. Whether Plaintiff and the Class members were damaged thereby, and the  extent of damages for such violation; and   c. Whether Defendant and its agents should be enjoined from engaging in  such conduct in the future.   25. As a person that received at least one alleged solicitation call containing an  artificial or prerecorded voice message to their cell phones, Plaintiff is asserting  claims that are typical of the Class. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent  and protect the interests of the Class in that Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic  to any member of the Class.   27. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims and  claims involving violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.   28. A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy. Class-wide damages are essential to induce Defendant to comply  with federal and Nevada law. The interest of Class members in individually  controlling the prosecution of separate claims against Defendant is small because  the maximum statutory damages in an individual action for violation of privacy  are minimal. Management of these claims is likely to present significantly fewer  difficulties than those presented in many class claims.    29. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making  appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with  respect to the Class as a whole.  33.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully stated herein.   34.  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.   35.  As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq, Plaintiff,  and each member if the class, is entitled to an award of $500 in statutory damages,  for each and every violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).     38.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   39.  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.   40.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227  et seq, Plaintiff and each Class member is entitled to treble damages, as provided  by statute, up to $1,500, for each and every violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).    41.  Plaintiff and each Class member is entitled to seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A).     42.  Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.  56.  As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), Plaintiff  seeks for himself and each Class member $500 in statutory damages, for each and  every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B);   58.  An award of attorney fees and costs to counsel for Plaintiff;   59.  Any other relief the Court may deem just and proper including interest.  60.  As a result of Defendant’s 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 for each and every violation pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C);   61.  Injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(A);   62.  An award of attorney fees and costs to counsel for Plaintiff;   63.  Any other relief the Court may deem just and proper including interest.  7.  As early as Feburary 10, 2020,  Plaintiff began receiving pre-recorded, artificial  voice phone calls from Defendant on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, soliciting  Plaintiff to open a new credit card with Defendant.   8.  Plaintiff continued to received a large number of calls in similar fashion,  sometimes two to three times per day.  All these calls were automated,  prerecorded voicemessages that would begin with the recorded message,  “Congratulatsion you have been approved for a Credit One credit card.”   9.  In frustration, Plaintiff was forced listen these messages and opt out of receiving  any more telephone calls from Defendant.   FOR NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF  THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT   47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.   FOR KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF  THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT   47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF   THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.   NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF   THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  