26.  Defendant owns and operates a telecommunication company that specializes in selling  minutes for overseas phone calls.    28.  Plaintiff himself was sent at least two marketing text messages without his express  written consent.   29.  Below is a depiction of an actual text message received by Plaintiff from Defendant:   30.  Defendant’s text messages constitute telemarketing because they encourage the future  purchase of Defendant’s products by consumers.   31.  Plaintiff received the subject text messages within this judicial district and, therefore,  Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district. Upon information and belief,  Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district.   32.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to  be contacted by text for marketing purposes.   33.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the ***-***-5833 phone number.   34.  Some, if not all of the messages originated from “305-520-7863.”    36.  Specifically, upon information and belief, Defendant, through their direction, utilized a  combination of hardware and software systems to send the text messages at issue in this case. The  systems utilized by Defendant have the current capacity or present ability to generate or store random or  sequential numbers or to dial sequentially or randomly at the time the call is made, and to dial such  numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention.   37.  Defendant’s unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion  of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendant’s  text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life. See Patriotic  Veterans, Inc. v. Zoeller, No. 16-2059, 2017 WL 25482, at *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 3, 2017) (“Every call uses  some of the phone owner’s time and mental energy, both of which are precious.”). Plaintiff received the  subject text message while he was at work, causing him to stop his work activities to check his phone.  38.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  himself and all others similarly situated.   40.  Defendant and their employees or agents, Plaintiff’s attorneys and their employees, the  Judge to whom this action is assigned and any member of the Judge’s staff and immediate family, and  claims for personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress are excluded from the Class.  Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number  in the several thousands, if not more.  44.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s  claim that Defendant routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers assigned to cellular  telephone services is accurate, Plaintiffs and the Class members will have identical claims capable of  being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  49.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-48 as if fully set forth herein.   50.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  automatic telephone dialing system . . .  to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone  service ….” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   51.  “Automatic telephone dialing system” refers to any equipment that has the  “capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.” See, e.g., Hicks v. Client Servs., Inc., No.  07-61822, 2009 WL 2365637, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2009) (citing FCC, In re: Rules and  Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991: Request of ACA  International for Clarification and Declaratory Ruling, 07–232, ¶ 12, n.23 (2007)).   52.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant– used equipment having the  capacity to dial numbers without human intervention to make marketing telephone calls to the  cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class defined above.   54.  Defendant therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  automatic telephone dialing system to make marketing telephone calls to the cell phones of  Plaintiff and Class Members without their prior express written consent.   55.  All possible Defendants are directly, jointly, or vicariously liable for each such  violation of the TCPA.   56.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an  injunction against future calls.  57.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-48 as if fully set forth herein.    58.  At all times relevant, Defendant knew or should have known that their conduct as  alleged herein violated the TCPA.   59.  Defendant knew that they did not have prior express written consent to send these  text messages.   60.  Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members  had not given prior express consent to receive its autodialed calls to their cellular telephones, the  Court should treble the amount of statutory damages available to Plaintiff and the other members  of the putative Class pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.   62.  As a result of Defendant violations, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to  an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MARIO GUERRA, on behalf of herself and the other members  of the Class, prays for the following relief:  a.  A declaration that Defendant practices described herein violate the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227;  b.  A declaration that Defendant violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,  47 U.S.C. § 227, were willful and knowing;  c.  An injunction prohibiting Defendant from using an automatic telephone dialing  system to call and text message telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephones without the  prior express consent of the called party;  d.  An award of actual, statutory damages, and/or trebled statutory damages; and  e.  Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.  Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   PROPOSED CLASS   Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  