18.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly  situated (“The Class”).   19.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, “The Class” defined as follows:   “All persons in  California whose inbound and outbound telephone conversations were monitored,  recorded, eavesdropped upon and/or wiretapped without their consent by Defendant  within the four years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in this action.”     20.  Defendant, and its employees and agents are excluded from The Class.    Plaintiff does  not know the number of members in The Class, but believe this number to be in the tens  of thousands, if not more.  Thus, this matter should be certified as a Class action to assist  in the expeditious litigation of this matter.   21.  This suit seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury on  behalf of The Class and it expressly is not intended to request any recovery for personal  injury and claims related thereto.  Plaintiff reserves the right to expand The Class  definition to seek recovery on behalf of additional persons as warranted as facts are  learned in further investigation and discovery.   22.  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’s records.   29.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   30.  Californians have a constitutional right to privacy.  Moreover, the California Supreme  Court has definitively linked the constitutionally protected right to privacy within the  purpose, intent and specific protections of the Privacy Act, including specifically, Penal  Code § 632.  “In addition, California’s explicit constitutional privacy provision (Cal.  Const., 1 § 1) was enacted in part specifically to protect California from overly intrusive  business practices that were seen to pose a significant and increasing threat to personal  privacy. (Citations omitted).  Thus, Plaintiff believes that California must be viewed as  having a strong and continuing interest in the full and vigorous application of the  provisions of section 632 prohibiting the recording of telephone conversations without  the knowledge or consent of all parties to the conversation.   39.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   40.  Defendant invaded Plaintiff and the members of The Class’ right to privacy by  intentionally allowing the unauthorized eavesdropping, wiretapping, recording, and  listening of the telephone conversation with Plaintiff and the members of The Class and  negligently maintaining the confidentiality of the information of Plaintiff and the  members of The Class, as set for above.   41.  The intrusion through the unauthorized eavesdropping, wiretapping, recording, and  listening of the telephone conversations with Plaintiff and the members of The Class and  the negligently maintaining of the confidentiality of the information of Plaintiff and The  Class, was offensive and objectionable to Plaintiff, the Class, and to a reasonable person  of ordinary sensibilities.    42.  The intrusion was into a place or thing which was private and which is entitled to be  private, in that Plaintiff and The Class’ personal conversations and information provided  to Defendant were made privately, were intended not to be recorded, and were intended  to be kept confidential and protected from unauthorized disclosure.   46.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   47.  Defendant, as aforesaid herein, has various statutory and common law duties not to  engage in the aforementioned wire-tapping, eavesdropping, recording, and listening  conduct such that Plaintiff and The Class’ rights to privacy were invaded and breached.   48.  Defendant negligently and recklessly engages in the aforementioned eavesdropping,  wiretapping, recording, and listening conduct of Plaintiff and The Class.   49.  These activities of Defendant as aforesaid in this cause of action and in this Complaint,  legally caused actual, statutorily-imposed and/or demonstrable damages to Plaintiff and  The Class.   7.  Defendant is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a professional corporation.  Plaintiff  is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges, that at all  times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants were the agents and employees of their  co-defendants, and in doing the things alleged in this Complaint, were acting within the  course and scope of that agency and employment.    8.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was an individual residing within the State of California.     INVASION OF PRIVACY: COMMON LAW   INVASION OF PRIVACY: VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE § 630 ET SEQ.   NEGLIGENCE   PAGE 12 OF 12  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28 