12.  On Whitepages alone, just on one spoofed phone number that Zip Capital Group  uses 954-204-0916, there are over 500 spam reports.   13.  On October 16, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Plaintiff received a phone call to his cell  phone number from Defendant using phone number 480-653-8635.  Phone number 480-653- 8635 is a spoofed phone number that Defendant uses to place telemarketing calls, and when  called back it is not in service.   14.  On October 17, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Plaintiff received another phone call to his cell  phone number from Defendant, this time using phone number 480-343-2033.  Phone number  480-343-2033 appears to be another spoofed phone number that Defendant uses to place  telemarketing calls. When 480-343-2033 is dialed, it doesn’t ring at all. An automated messages  states, “The wireless customer you are calling is not available.”    15.  On October 18, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Plaintiff received a prerecorded call to his cell  phone number from Defendant, again using phone number 480-653-8635. When Plaintiff  answered the call, he heard a recorded voice message.    16.  On October 19, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Plaintiff received a second prerecorded call to  his cell phone number from Defendant, this time using phone number 480-462-5153. When  Plaintiff answered the call, he heard the same prerecorded voice message he had heard the  previous day. When he finally got through to a live agent, Plaintiff confirmed that the  telemarketer is Zip Capital Group and was given the callback phone number 949-396-1159.    18.  Plaintiff has never had a relationship with Zip Capital Group and has never  consented to any contact from Defendant.  Simply put, Zip Capital Group did not obtain  Plaintiff’s prior express written consent to place prerecorded solicitation telephone calls to him  on his cell phone number.    19.  The unauthorized telephone calls made by Zip Capital Group, as alleged herein,  have harmed Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed  Kempton’s use and enjoyment of his phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phones’  hardware (including the phones’ battery) and the consumption of memory on the phone.    20.  Seeking redress for these injuries, Kempton, on behalf of himself and Class of  similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47  U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits prerecorded telephone calls to cellular telephones.  22.  The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents  have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors; (3)  Plaintiff’s attorneys; (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 and/or  released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following appropriate  discovery.   23.  Numerosity: On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands of  members of the Class such that joinder of all members is impracticable.   25.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting  this action on behalf of the members of the Class, and have the financial resources to do so.  Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interest adverse to the Class.   26.  Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification because  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class and as a  whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards  of conduct toward the members of the Class and making final class-wide injunctive relief  appropriate. Defendant’s business practices apply to and affect the members of the Class  uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with  respect to the Class as wholes, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiffs. Additionally, the  damages suffered by individual members of the Class will likely be small relative to the burden  and expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s  actions. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the members of the Class to obtain effective  relief from Defendant’s misconduct on an individual basis. A class action provides the benefits  of single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Prerecorded No Consent Class)   27.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference.   29.  These prerecorded voice calls were made en masse without the prior express  written consent of Plaintiff and the other members of the Prerecorded No Consent Class.   30.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Prerecorded No Consent Class are  each entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages, and up to $1,500 in damages, for each violation.  9.  As explained by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) in its 2012  order, the TCPA requires “prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded  [solicitation] calls to wireless numbers and residential lines.” In the Matter of Rules and  Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG No. 02-278,  FCC 12-21, 27 FCC Rcd. 1830 ¶ 2 (Feb. 15, 2012).    Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiff’s TCPA Claims Arising   From Prerecorded Voice Solicitation Calls Made by Zip Capital Group    Zip Capital Group Markets its Services by Placing Prerecorded Calls to Consumers’  Cellular Phone Numbers Without Consent   Zip Capital Group Repeatedly Called Plaintiff’s  Cell Phone Number Without Plaintiff’s Consent  