22.  Defendant operates a technology services company that purportedly offers payment  technology services and other services. Unfortunately for consumers, Defendant utilized (and  continues to utilize) a sophisticated telephone dialing system to call individuals en masse  promoting its goods and services. Defendant is believed to have obtained these telephone numbers  (i.e., leads) by purchasing marketing lists containing consumers’ telephone numbers.   23.  In Defendant’s overzealous attempt to market its services, it placed (and continues  to place) phone calls to consumers who never provided consent to call and to consumers having  no relationship with Defendant. Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) these  telemarketing calls without the prior express written consent of the call recipients, and continued  to make calls after requests that the calls stop. As such, Defendant not only invaded the personal  privacy of Plaintiff and members of the Classes, but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the  24.  On June 30, 2003, Plaintiff registered on the NDNC his cellular telephone assigned  a number ending in 8313.    25.  During March and June of 2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular  telephone number using an ATDS, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), multiple times without  first obtaining Plaintiff’s written consent and in violation of the NDNC.    26.  Plaintiff received all calls as described above on his cellular telephone assigned a  number ending in 8313.   27.  On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff	received on his cellular telephone a telemarketing call  made by or on behalf of Defendant.  In making that call, the caller used an artificial or pre-recorded  voice.  Plaintiff’s caller ID showed “513-434-1902”; however, Plaintiff believes that the caller ID  may have been “spoofed” to conceal the identification of the actual caller.   28.  On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff received on his cellular telephone a telemarketing call  made by or on behalf of Defendant. During that call, Plaintiff spoke with a live operator who  identified the name of the company calling as TranzVia and who sought to market the goods and  services of TranzVia. Plaintiff then disconnected the call. Plaintiff’s caller ID showed “202-818- 8629”; however, Plaintiff believes that the caller ID may have been “spoofed” to conceal the  identification of the actual caller.   29.  On June 6, 2017, Plaintiff received additional follow up telemarketing calls from  TranzVia on his cellular telephone. During the first call, Plaintiff could not hear anything and hung  up. A second call followed minutes later. During the second call, Plaintiff spoke with a live  operator who identified himself as Preston Seaton and the company calling as TranzVia. At  Plaintiff’s request, the caller also confirmed the name of TranzVia’s CEO as Paul Nee. Plaintiff  then disconnected.    8   30.  Several minutes after disconnecting the call from TranzVia, Plaintiff received an  email from Preston Seaton, an Account Executive at TranzVia, purporting to thank Plaintiff for  “considering opening up [a] new account.”    31.  Several minutes after Plaintiff received that email, he received another call from  TranzVia’s agent, Preston Seaton. Mr. Seaton seemed frustrated with Plaintiff. Mr. Seaton then  made a cryptic reference to a real estate business in which Plaintiff is involved and stated, “You  look like you have really good Google reviews ….”  Plaintiff promptly disconnected the call.     32.  For the calls received on June 6, 2017, Plaintiff’s caller ID showed “202-818- 8629”; however, Plaintiff believes that the caller ID may have been “spoofed” to conceal the  identification of the actual caller.   33.  On information and belief, and based on the circumstances of the calls as described  above, Defendant called Plaintiff using an ATDS.     34.  Plaintiff understood the purpose of Defendant’s calls was to market Defendant’s  services and solicit business from him.   35.  Plaintiff did not have a prior business relationship with Defendant, nor was Plaintiff  interested in Defendant’s services.   36.  Plaintiff did not consent to being called by Defendant for telemarketing purposes  and the calls received from Defendant were an intrusion into Plaintiff’s privacy and caused  Plaintiff annoyance and an unnecessary expenditure of his time and efforts.       37.  Plaintiff is the exclusive user of the cellular telephone assigned the number ending  in 8313 and the account holder of record for that Verizon account.  9  45.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3)  of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure individually and on behalf of the Classes, which include:  a.  The “ATDS Class,” consisting of all individuals in the United States  who received a call made by or on behalf of TranzVia LLC to the  individual’s cellular telephone through the use of an automatic  telephone dialing system, or pre-recorded or artificial voice, or any  other device having the capacity to dial numbers without human  intervention, from October 16, 2013 to the date that class notice is  disseminated, where Defendant’s records fail to indicate prior  express written consent from the recipient to make such call; and   b.  The “NDNC Class,” consisting of all persons in the United States  who, within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation,  received two or more calls during a twelve month period made by  or on behalf of TranzVia LLC on their telephone number that had  been registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.   46.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the Class definitions as warranted as facts are  learned in further investigation and discovery.   47.  Plaintiff and the Class members were harmed by Defendant’s acts in at least the  following ways: Defendant, either directly or through its agents, illegally contacted Plaintiff and  the Class via their cellular telephones by using an ATDS, thereby causing Plaintiff and the Class  to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular telephone time for which Plaintiff and  the Class members previously paid; and Plaintiff and Class members’ privacy was invaded.   48.  The exact size of each of the Classes is presently unknown but can be ascertained  through a review of Defendant’s records and the NDNC, and it is clear that individual joinder is  impracticable.  Defendant made telephone calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the  definition of each of the Classes.  11   49.  There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the  Classes, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual members  of the Classes.    50.  Common questions for the Classes include, without limitation:  a.  Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA;  b.  Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to consumers who  did not previously provide Defendant and/or its agents with prior express  written consent to receive such phone calls after October 16, 2013, and/or  continued to make calls after being requested to stop;  c.  Whether Class members are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendant’s conduct;  d.  Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to consumers after  October 16, 2013 (other than calls made for emergency purposes or made  with the prior express written consent of the called party) using any  automatic dialing system or pre-recorded voice to any telephone number  assigned to a cellular phone service;  e.  Whether Defendant violated the TCPA by making telemarketing calls to  telephone numbers that had been registered on the NDNC; and  f.  Whether Defendant and its agents should be enjoined from engaging in such  conduct in the future.   51.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Classes.   Plaintiff and the Classes sustained damages as a result of Defendant’s uniform wrongful conduct  during transactions with Plaintiff and the Classes.  12   52.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Classes,  and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions.    53.  Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff.   54.  This class action is appropriate for class certification because Defendant has acted  or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Classes as a whole, thereby requiring the  Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the Classes,  and making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Classes as a whole.    55.  Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to and affect the Class members  uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with respect  to the Classes as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.   56.  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.    57.  The damages suffered by the individual members of the Classes will likely be  relatively small, especially given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex  litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions.    58.  Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Classes to  obtain effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct.    59.  Even if members of the Classes 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.   13   60.  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 ensured.  61.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as  though fully set forth herein.   62.  Defendant, either directly or through its agents, made unsolicited and unauthorized  calls using an ATDS or pre-recorded/artificial voice to Plaintiff’s and the ATDS Class members’  cellular telephones for the purpose of marketing Defendant’s products and/or services.   63.  Defendant, either directly or through its agents, made the calls without obtaining  prior express written consent from Plaintiff and the ATDS Class.     64.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple  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.   65.  Defendant’s conduct invaded the privacy and cause annoyance to Plaintiff and the  ATDS Class.   66.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the ATDS Class  are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).     67.  Plaintiff and the ATDS Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future.  14  68.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as  though fully set forth herein.    69.   As a result of knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(1)(A), by Defendant, Plaintiff and members of the ATDS Class are entitled to treble  damages of up to $1,500 for each and every call made to their cellular telephone numbers using  an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(3).  70.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as  though fully set forth herein.   71.  Defendant made telemarketing calls without obtaining prior express written  consent and in violation of the NDNC.     72.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple  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.   73.  Defendant’s conduct invaded Plaintiff’s privacy.   74.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the NDNC Class  are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B).     75.  Plaintiff and the NDNC Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future.  15  76.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as  though fully set forth herein.    77.   As a result of knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C.  § 227(c), by Defendant, Plaintiff and members of the NDNC Class are entitled to treble damages  of up to $1,500 for each and every call made to their cellular telephone numbers in violation of the  statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B).  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)   VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)   VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)  