14.  In the four year period preceding the filing of this action, WELLS FARGO,  its predecessors in interest and/or vendors have made numerous telephone  calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number, (404) 693-0147, in an attempt  to collect a secured debt on a home equity line of credit.   15.  The telephone calls were made using a predictive dialer.   17.  In other telephone calls, WELLS FARGO left messages from "live"  collection agents which had a pause at the beginning of the message before  the WELLS FARGO representative began speaking.     18.  A pause at the beginning of a message or call is characteristic of predictive  dialer technology where the dialer connects a call to a consumer and then  connects an agent to the call.    19.  WELLS FARGO has historically used and has registered with various  regulatory agencies a dialing system manufactured by Sun Microsystems.    20.  WELLS FARGO also uses software on its dialing system(s) which has the  capacity to predictively dial in its telephone calls to telephone number (404)  693-0147.    21.  WELLS FARGO's call center(s) and dialing infrastructure have the capacity  to store a database of telephone numbers.   22.  WELLS FARGO's call center(s) and dialing infrastructure have the capacity  to dial telephone numbers from a stored list either at random or in some  sequence.     24.  WELLS FARGO's dialing system(s) has the capacity to dial from a list of  telephone numbers without human intervention.    25.  The telephone calls to Plaintiff were initiated by Defendant WELLS  FARGO using an automatic telephone dialing system.      26.  Plaintiff did not initiate the loan with WELLS FARGO, but rather initiated it  with Wachovia Bank, N.A. and never provided express permission or  consent for either Wachovia Bank, N.A. or WELLS FARGO to make the  telephone calls to his cellular telephone number.     27.  Plaintiff was specifically requested to authorize "Automated Dialing System  Calls" by a Wells Fargo employee, to which he unequivocally declined to  give such authorization.     28.  Plaintiff has orally advised more than one WELLS FARGO employee that  he did not want WELLS FARGO to contact him on his cellular telephone  number after expressly declining to consent to autodialed calls.   29.  WELLS FARGO employees specifically advised that they would not honor  a verbal request to cease calling Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number and  that they would continue to call his cellular telephone number.     31.  Upon information and belief, WELLS FARGO’s practice was to make  computerized notations regarding oral requests to cease and desist, including  but not limited to (a) hand-typed notes and (b) placement of a brief (e.g.  three-day) “hold” on calls, for alleged purposes of allowing the consumer to  request that calls cease and desist in writing. However, if Wells Fargo did  not receive a written cease and desist, then it would automatically load the  cellular telephone number back into its autodialer. There were likely other  computerized methodologies for keeping track of do not call requests as  well.    32.  WELLS FARGO continued calling Plaintiff after one or more clear requests  not to call his cellular telephone number by leaving unattended and pre- recorded messages.    33.  WELLS FARGO continued calling Plaintiff after one or more clear requests  not to call his cellular telephone number by leaving live messages that  utilized automated and predictive dialing technology.    35.  WELLS FARGO was a defendant in the case of Breslow v. Wells Fargo  Bank, N.A., 755 F. 3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2014) in which the Eleventh Circuit  cited Osorio v. State Farm Bank, FSB, 746 F. 3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014).    36.  By virtue of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Breslow, WELLS FARGO  was made aware of the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Osorio that it must  honor verbal requests to cease calling using automated dialers and  prerecorded voice messages.    37.  WELLS FARGO has continued calling Plaintiff and other consumers’  cellular telephone numbers using a predictive dialer and leaving unattended  and prerecorded messages after requests to cease calling despite its  knowledge of the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Osorio.       38.  WELLS FARGO had previously settled multiple TCPA class actions  involving millions of class members who received TCPA violative calls to  their cell phones in regard to collection calls on primary home mortgages in  the case of Alberto Malta, et al. v. The Federal Loan Mortgage Corporation  A/K/A Freddie Mac; and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 3:10- cv-01290-BEN-NLS, USDC SDCA.    40.  The telephone calls were not initiated by accident or mistake.  41.  Plaintiff is a member of and seeks to bring this action on behalf of himself  and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals (hereinafter the  "Class" as well as "Subclass One").    43.  Plaintiff also seeks to represent, and is a member of, Subclass One,  consisting of all persons within the Class, who Wells Fargo called after it  had received notification that it did not have permission to call.   44.  Excluded from the class are claims related to any calls released as part of  prior settlements, including but not limited to Malta v. Wells Fargo Home  Mortgage, Inc., 3:10-cv-1290-BEN-NLS (S.D.Cal.), or Franklin v. Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A., 14-cv-2349-MMA (BGS)  (S.D.Cal.). Defendant is in  exclusive possession, custody and control of the list of persons who were  class members in those, and any other, cases. And while there are other  cases pending against Wells Fargo, for example, McLean v. CBV Collection  Services, LTD et al, 1:14-cv-7789 (N.D.Ill.) and Luster v. Wells Fargo  Dealer Services, Inc., 1:15-cv-01058-MHC (N.D. Ga.), counsel does not  believe the proposed class members’ claims in this matter overlaps with  those cases. It is not Counsel’s intent to have overlapping classes, and any  overlap will be ameliorated through amendment if facts show that they do  overlap.   46.  The class and subclass are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impractical.     47.  The allegation of the previous paragraph is likely to have evidentiary support  after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.  This  allegation is based upon the following information: 1) Plaintiff himself  received such calls to his cellular telephone from multiple collection agents  of WELLS FARGO indicating Defendant did not scrub to remove cellular  telephone numbers; 2) the very purpose of automated dialers is to call  numerous persons in a short amount of time; and 3) the sheer size and  national scope of WELLS FARGO.   49.  The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of those of the class members.  All are  based on the same facts and legal theories.    50.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.  He has  retained counsel experienced in handling TCPA robocall actions and class  actions.  Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel have any interests which might  cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.    51.  Certification of the class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure is appropriate in that the Defendants have acted on grounds that  apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief is appropriate  respecting the class as a whole.   53.  Plaintiff requests certification of a hybrid class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(2) and (3) for monetary damages and injunctive relief.  54.  The acts of Defendants constitute violations of the Telephone Consumer  Protection Act.   56.  As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff and the members of the class are  entitled to an award of actual damages or $500.00, whichever is greater, for  each such violation and an injunction prohibiting future conduct in violation  of the TCPA.   57.  Defendants’ violations were committed willfully and knowingly.    58.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the class, requests the court treble  damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).  