21.  Defendant operates a consumer finance corporate website that connects consumers  interested in mortgage and other lending opportunities to commercial lenders.   22.  Unfortunately for consumers, Defendant utilized (and continued to utilize) a  sophisticated telephone dialing system to call individuals en masse promoting its services.   23.  Defendant obtained these telephone numbers (i.e., leads) by purchasing marketing  lists containing consumers’ telephone numbers and by capturing numbers used to call or submit  web inquiries to Defendant.   24.  Unfortunately, in Defendant’s overzealous attempt to market its services, it placed  (and continues to place) phone calls to consumers who never provided consent to call and to  consumers having no relationship with Defendant. Worse yet, Defendant placed (and continues to  place) repeated and unwanted calls to consumers whose phone numbers are listed on the National  Do Not Call Registry.  Consumers place their phone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry for the  express purpose of avoiding unwanted telemarketing calls like those alleged here.  26.  Over six years ago on or about June 11, 2008, Plaintiff registered her cellular phone  number ending in 6312 with the National Do Not Call Registry.   27.  Between April 14, 2015 and April 16, 2015, Plaintiff received three calls on her  cellular telephone from the phone number (801) 994-7833.   28.  Plaintiff received all calls described above on her cellular telephone assigned a  number ending in 6312.   29.  Defendant and/or third parties on Defendant’s behalf, placed all the calls described  above using an ATDS, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) without first obtaining Plaintiff’s prior  express written consent.   30.  Plaintiff was able to answer two of these calls and interact with the caller’s live  representative after being transferred by the dialing system.   31.  After Plaintiff answered the first call at 11:29 a.m. on April 15, 2015, Plaintiff was  greeted by “Zeina” who proceeded to promote mortgage lending services.     32.  Plaintiff asked Zeina which company she was calling from and how the company  obtained her phone number, but Zeina refused to tell her.  Plaintiff asked Zeina to remove her  number from the call list.  55.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2),  and (b)(3) on behalf of herself and the following classes defined as follows (the “Class”):  “Robocall Class”: All individuals in the United States who received a call  made by or on behalf of Defendant to the individual’s cellular telephone  through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system, or pre-recorded  voice, or any other device having the capacity to dial numbers without  human intervention, from October 16, 2013 to the date the Class is certified,  where Defendant’s records fail to indicate prior express written consent  from the recipient to make such call.  “DNC2 Class”: All individuals in the United States who: (1) received more  than one telephone call made by or on behalf of Defendant within a 12- month period; (2) to a telephone number that had been registered with the  National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days; and (3) for whom  Defendant has no record of consent to place such calls.    56.  The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate  presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries,  parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a  controlling interest, and its current or former employees, officers, and directors; (3) Plaintiff’s  counsel and Defendant’s counsel; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for  exclusion from the Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded  persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated  2 “DNC” referenced herein refers to the National Do Not Call Registry, established pursuant to 47  U.S.C. 227(c) and the regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”).  75.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as  though set forth at length herein.   76.  Defendant made unsolicited and unauthorized calls using an ATDS or pre-recorded  voice to Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ cellular telephones for the purpose of marketing  products and/or services to Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class Members.   77.  Defendant made the calls without prior express written consent of the Plaintiff and  Plaintiff Class Members.     78.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitutes numerous and multiple  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.   79.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et. seq., Plaintiff and the  Plaintiff Class Members 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).     80.  Because Defendant had knowledge that Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class Members  did not consent to the receipt of the aforementioned telephone solicitations, the Court should,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by the  Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class Members.     81.  Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class Members are also entitled to and seek injunctive  relief prohibiting such conduct in the future.  82.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as  though set forth at length herein.   83.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c) provides that any “person who has received more than one  telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the  regulations prescribed under this subsection may” bring a private action based on a violation of  said regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid  receiving telephone solicitations to which they object.    84.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation—47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)—provides that  “[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.” See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c).   85.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200(c) and (d) “are  applicable to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless  telephone numbers to the extent described in the Commission’s Report and Order, CG Docket No.  02-278, FCC 03-153, ‘Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection  Act of 1991,’” which the Report and Order, in turn, provides as follows:  The Commission’s rules provide that companies making telephone solicitations to  residential telephone subscribers must comply with time of day restrictions and  must institute procedures for maintaining do-not-call lists. For the reasons  described above, we conclude that these rules apply to calls made to wireless  telephone numbers. We believe that wireless subscribers should be afforded the  same protections as wireline subscribers.  A.  CLASS ALLEGATIONS   VIOLATION OF TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (“Robocall Claim” On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   VIOLATION OF TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (“DNC Claim” On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  