10.  On information and belief, part of Defendant’s strategy for increasing its sales is  to engage in telemarketing.  In their zeal to market though, they systematically called consumers  who did not consent to receive telemarketing calls and who were registered on the do not call  registry.   11.  Defendant made (and continues to make) these telemarketing calls to consumers  nationwide without their prior express consent to do so. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that  Defendant does not crosscheck or scrub its calling list for numbers registered on the National  Do Not Call Registry.   13.  Likewise, Defendant places repeated and unwanted calls to consumers whose  phone numbers are registered with the National Do Not Call Registry. Consumers register their  phone numbers on the Do Not Call list for the express purpose of avoiding unwanted  telemarketing calls like those alleged here.   15.  Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) these telemarketing calls  without the prior express consent of the call recipients and knowingly continues to call them  after requests to stop. In so doing, Defendant not only invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff  and members of the putative Class, but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.   16.  Starting in or around July 2014, Plaintiff Vebell began receiving multiple calls on  her landline telephone from the phone number (860) 359-4133.   17.  Plaintiff did not answer the calls that rang to her residential telephone but rather  called the phone number back to figure out who was calling.  The voice message on the call back  number stated “Thank you for calling Verde Energy, we’ve been trying to reach you for  marketing purposes, we’ll try you again later.”  Since Plaintiff had never consented to receive  marketing calls from Verde she continued to ignore their intrusive calls.   18.  Plaintiff Vebell does not have a relationship with Defendant, has never submitted  her telephone number to Defendant, or requested that Defendant call her or offer her their  services. Simply put, Plaintiff has never provided her prior express consent to Defendant to place  calls to her.     19.  Plaintiff’s landline telephone number XXX-XXX-5031 has been registered with  the National Do Not Call Registry since June 18, 2010, for the explicit purpose of avoiding  telemarketing calls just like those alleged in this case.   21.  Defendant was and is aware that the above-described telephone calls were and are  being made to consumers like Plaintiff who had not consented to receive them and whose  telephone numbers were registered with the National Do Not Call Registry.  22.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  and 23(b)(3) on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals and entities defined  as follows (the “Class”):  All individuals in the United States (1) who had his or her telephone number(s)  registered with the National Do Not Call Registry; (2) for whom Defendant have  no record of consent to place telemarketing calls promoting Defendant's products  or services to him or her; (3) who received more than one telephone call  promoting Defendant's products or services; (4) within any 12-month period.  Excluded from the Class are (1) Defendant, Defendant's agents, subsidiaries, parents,  successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or their parents have a  controlling interest and their current and former employees, officers, and directors, (2) the Judge  or Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s or Magistrate Judge’s  immediate family, (3) persons who execute and file a timely request for exclusion, (4) the legal  representatives, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person; and (5) Plaintiff’s counsel  and Defendant's counsel.   23.  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 have made telephone calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of  the Class. Members of the Class can be identified through Defendant's records.   25.  Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification because  Defendant have 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 practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls apply to and affect  the members of the Class uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge to those practices hinges on  Defendant's conduct with respect to each of the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable  only to Plaintiff. 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. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be  fostered and uniformity of decisions will be ensured.   27.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   28.  47 U.S.C. §227(c) provides that any “person who has received more than one  telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the  regulations prescribed under this subsection may” bring a private action based on a violation of  said regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to  avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object.   30.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (e), provides that § 64.1200 (c) and (d) “are applicable to any  person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone  numbers to the extent described in the Commission’s Report and Order, CG Docket No. 02-278,  FCC 03-153, ‘Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of  1991,’” which the Report and Order, in turn, provides as follows:  The Commission’s rules provide that companies making telephone solicitations to  residential telephone subscribers must comply with time of day restrictions and must  institute procedures for maintaining do-not-call lists. For the reasons described above, we  conclude that these rules apply to calls made to wireless telephone numbers. We believe  that wireless subscribers should be afforded the same protections as wireline subscribers.   32.  Defendant violated § 64.1200 (c) by initiating telephone solicitations to wireless  and residential telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Class members who registered  their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, a listing of persons  who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.  These consumers requested not to receive calls from Defendant, as set forth in § 64.l200 (d)(3).    33.  Defendant and/or their agents made more than one unsolicited telephone call to  Plaintiff and members of the Class within a 12-month period without their prior express consent  to receive such calls. Plaintiff and members of the Class never provided any form of consent to  receive telephone calls from Defendant.    34.  Defendant violated § 64.1200 (d) by initiating calls for telemarketing purposes to  residential and wireless telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff and the Class, without instituting  procedures that comply with the regulatory minimum standards for maintaining a list of persons  who request not to receive telemarketing calls from them.   36. To the extent Defendant's misconduct is determined to be wilful and knowing, the Court should, pursuant to § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by the  members of the Class.  64.1200.   9.  Defendant Verde sells energy products to consumers.2   Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  