(Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,   47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) – Cellular Telephone Calls – Cell Phone Class)   (Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) – Cellular  Telephone Calls – Cell Phone Class)   (Violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) & 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) – Internal Do-Not-Call List –  Internal Do-Not-Call Class)   12.  TruGreen is a national lawn care service provider headquartered in Memphis,  Tennessee.     13.  Part of TruGreen’s strategy for increasing the volume of lawn care customers  involves the use of an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) and/or automated or  prerecorded messages to solicit business.   14.  Defendant uses ATDS equipment and software that has the capacity to store or  produce telephone numbers to be called and which includes auto-dialers and predictive dialers.   16.  TruGreen has previously been the subject of litigation for its unlawful  telemarketing practices in Chapa v. TruGreen Inc., No. 1-13-CV-3957 (N.D. Ill.).  Judge  Leinenweber granted final approval of a $4,450,000 settlement on January 27, 2015.   17.  However, TruGreen has continued its unlawful conduct.  A.  Factual Allegations Regarding Plaintiff    18.  Since January 27, 2015, Plaintiff has received more than ten telemarketing calls  on her cellular telephone, (501) 802-XXXX, from, or on behalf of, Defendant.   19.  Whenever Plaintiff answered the calls, there was a lengthy pause and a click.    Plaintiff had to say “hello” multiple times before a person came on the line, which indicated to  her that the call was made using an ATDS.     20.  The caller stated that they were calling on behalf of TruGreen and attempted to  persuade Plaintiff to purchase lawn care services such as weed killing and frost protection.     21.  Plaintiff was not in the market for lawn care and directly requested on several  different calls that Defendant stop calling her.   22.  Notwithstanding her request, Plaintiff continued to receive calls on her cellular  telephone from, or on behalf, of Defendant.   23.  Some of these calls were received thirty or more days after she explicitly  instructed Defendant to stop calling.   24.  Plaintiff registered her cellular telephone number with the National Do-Not-Call  Registry on November 9, 2013.   25.  Each of the above-described calls occurred after Plaintiff registered her cellular  telephone number with the National Do-Not-Call Registry.   27.  Plaintiff never provided prior express consent to receive ATDS generated and/or  automated or prerecorded calls on her cellular telephone from, or on behalf of, Defendant.   28.  Plaintiff’s privacy has been violated by the above-described calls from, or on  behalf of, Defendant and they constitute a nuisance as they are annoying and harassing.     29.  Defendant is responsible for making the above-described ATDS-generated and/or  automated or prerecorded calls.   30.  Defendant has made a significant number of ATDS-generated and/or automated  or prerecorded calls to persons on their cellular telephones in Tennessee, Arkansas, and  throughout the entire United States.   31.  Defendant has made a significant number of telemarketing calls to persons who  have registered their telephone numbers with the National Do-Not-Call Registry in Tennessee,  Arkansas, and throughout the entire United States.   32.  Defendant has made a significant number of telemarketing calls to persons who  have explicitly requested that Defendant stop calling them in Tennessee, Arkansas, and  throughout the entire United States.   33.  Defendant intends to continue to make similar ATDS-generated and/or automated  or prerecorded calls to persons on their cellular telephones in Tennessee, Arkansas, and  throughout the entire United States.   35.  Defendant intends to continue to make similar ATDS-generated and/or automated  or prerecorded calls to persons who have explicitly requested that Defendant stop calling them in  Tennessee, Arkansas, and throughout the entire United States.   36.  Plaintiff and all members of the Classes, defined in paragraph 37, below, have  been harmed by the acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated, they were subject  to annoying and harassing calls that constitute a nuisance, and they were charged for incoming  calls.  38.  Numerosity.  The Classes are each so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.  On information and belief, the Classes each have more than 1,000 members.   Moreover, the disposition of the claims of the Classes in a single action will provide substantial  benefits to all parties and the Court.   40.  Typicality.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Classes.  Plaintiff’s  claims, like the claims of the Classes, arise out of the same common course of conduct by  Defendant and are based on the same legal and remedial theories.   41.  Adequacy.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes.   Plaintiff has retained competent and capable attorneys with significant experience in complex  and class action litigation, including consumer class actions and TCPA class actions.  Plaintiff  and her counsel are committed to prosecuting this action vigorously on behalf of the Classes and  have the financial resources to do so.  Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel have interests that are  contrary to or that conflict with those of the proposed Classes.   42.  Predominance.  Defendant has engaged in a common course of conduct toward  Plaintiff and members of the Classes.  The common issues arising from this conduct that affect  Plaintiff and members of the Classes predominate over any individual issues.  Adjudication of  these common issues in a single action has important and desirable advantages of judicial  economy.   44.  Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Appropriate.  Defendant has acted on grounds  generally applicable to the Classes, thereby making final injunctive relief and corresponding  declaratory relief with respect to the Classes appropriate on a classwide basis.  Moreover, on  information and belief, and based on her experience, Plaintiff alleges that the automated calls  made by Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on  Defendant’s behalf that are complained of herein are substantially likely to continue in the future  if an injunction is not entered.  45.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set  forth in the preceding paragraphs.   46.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or  other persons or entities acting on Defendant’s behalf constitute numerous and multiple  violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), by making calls, except for emergency  purposes, to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the Cell Phone Class  using an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice.   48.  Plaintiff and members of the Cell Phone Class are also entitled to and do seek  injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or  entities acting on Defendant’s behalf from violating the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), by  making calls, except for emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers using an ATDS  and/or artificial or prerecorded voice in the future.  49.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set  forth in the preceding paragraphs.   50.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or  other persons or entities acting on Defendant’s behalf constitute numerous and multiple knowing  and/or willful violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), by making calls, except for  emergency purposes, to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the Cell  Phone Class using an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice.   52.  Plaintiff and members of the Cell Phone Class are also entitled to and do seek  injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or  entities acting on Defendant’s behalf from violating the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), by  making calls, except for emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers using an ATDS  and/or artificial or prerecorded voice in the future.  53.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set  forth in the preceding paragraphs.   54.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or  other persons or entities acting on Defendant’s behalf constitute numerous and multiple  violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), by initiating any call for telemarketing purposes to Plaintiff  and members of the Internal Do-Not-Call Class, without following procedures for maintaining a  list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls (“internal do-not-call list”).  This  includes Defendant’s failure to properly record do-not-call requests, failure to maintain a record  of do-not-call requests, and failure to honor do-not-call requests.   55.  As a result of Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or  entities acting on Defendant’s behalf, violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), Plaintiff and  members of the Internal Do-Not-Call Class are entitled to an award of $500 in statutory damages  for each and every call in violation of the internal do-not-call list regulation, pursuant to  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B).  