15. Defendant, a large national bank, services millions of credit card accounts for  consumers throughout the United States.     16. Defendant calls consumers at the various telephone numbers that it associates  with these accounts.  It places these calls with equipment that has the capacity to  store or produce telephone numbers using random or sequential number  generators and to dial such numbers, en masse.     17. Defendant places many of these calls without having prior express consent from  the call recipients to do so.  Not surprisingly, consumers complain.   18. On information and belief, Defendant also uses skip tracing, number trapping  and other methods to acquire additional phone numbers to contact.  As these  numbers are not obtained directly from the call recipients, Defendant does not  obtain prior express consent to make calls to them.    19. Defendant knowingly places telephone calls to cell phone numbers without the  prior express consent of the call recipients, and knowingly continues to have  such calls placed after receiving requests to stop.  As such, Defendant not only  invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of the putative Class, but  also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.   21. Plaintiff does not owe Defendant any money and there is no reason for  Defendant to call him.     22. Plaintiff never gave Defendant his cellular telephone number ending in 7814, the  number called.  Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express consent to call his  cellular telephone with the use of an autodialer and/or an artificial voice or  prerecorded message pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A).    23. On information and belief Defendant obtained Plaintiff’s cellular telephone  number from a third party.  Defendant did not receive that number from  Plaintiff.    24. Defendant called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone with a prerecorded or artificial  voice and left multiple automated voicemails asking for Plaintiff’s mother.   25. From October 26, 2015 to December 4, 2015, Defendant called Plaintiff’s  cellular telephone and left at least eleven times and left approximately five  automated voicemails apparently intended for Plaintiff’s mother.     26. From December 28, 2015 to February 4, 2016, Defendant called Plaintiff’s  cellular telephone no less than forty-four times.   27. Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with his 7814  cellular number at any time, Defendant, or their agents, have called Plaintiff on  his cellular telephone via an “automatic telephone dialing system,” (“ATDS”) as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a)(1) and by using “an artificial or prerecorded  voice” as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A).  This ATDS has the capacity  to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential  number generator.     28. Such calls were by prerecorded or artificial voice, for the most part from 866- 546-0677, 866-408-4070 and 866-740-4298.   30. These telephone calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).   31. These telephone calls by Defendant and/or their agents violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1).   32. Under the TCPA and pursuant to the FCC’s January, 2008 Declaratory Ruling,  the burden is on Defendant to demonstrate that Plaintiff provided prior express  consent within the meaning of the statute.   33. At all relevant times, Defendant knew it was using an automatic telephone  dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice, knew it was placing calls to  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number, and knew it was doing so without his prior  express consent.   35. Numerosity:  The exact size of the Class is unknown and not available to  Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable.  On  information and belief, Defendant placed telephone calls to hundreds or  thousands of individuals that fit into the definition of the Class.  Members of the  Class can be easily identified through Defendant’s own records.    36. Commonality and Predominance:  There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions  predominate over any questions that may affect individual Class members.   Common questions for the Class include, but are not necessarily limited to, the  following:  (a)  Whether Defendant systematically placed telephone calls to  consumers without their prior express consent;   (b)  Whether Defendant’s calls were made to consumers’ cellular  telephones utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system or with  an artificial or prerecorded voice;   (c)  Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA and;   (d)  Whether Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to treble  damages based on the willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.   37. Typicality:  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members.  Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages as a result of Defendant’s  uniform wrongful conduct toward them.    38. Adequate Representation:  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class members and has retained counsel competent  and experienced in complex class actions.  Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic  to those of the Class members, and Defendant has no defenses unique to  Plaintiff.    40. Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because class  proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy given that joinder of all parties is impracticable.  The damages suffered by the individual Class members will likely be relatively  small, especially given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the  complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions.  Thus, it would be  virtually impossible for the individual Class members to obtain effective relief  from Defendant’s misconduct.  Even if the Class members could sustain such  individual litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action, because  individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to  the complex legal and factual controversies presented in this Complaint.  By  contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides  the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive  supervision by a single court.  Economies of time, effort, and expense will be  fostered and uniformity of decisions will be ensured.  41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this  Complaint as though fully stated herein.   42. 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.   44. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.   45. Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF   THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  (PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS)  