15. On or about January 16, 2014 at 12:44 pm, Defendant or its agent/s began  contacting Plaintiff Martinez on Plaintiff Martinez’s cellular telephone  number ending in 5779 via an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”)  as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) using an “artificial or prerecorded voice”  as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) in order to collect an alleged debt.   16. This ATDS has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be  called, using a random or sequential number generator.  17. Defendant placed calls to Plaintiff Martinez using the telephone number (480)  719-2570.  18. This January 16, 2014 call used a pre-recorded voice.   20. Plaintiff Martinez obtained his current cell phone number after the alleged  debt was incurred; therefore he did not provide any consent to the alleged  original creditor.   21. The telephone number Defendant or its agent/s called was assigned to a  cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff Martinez incurs a charge for  incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).  22. These telephone calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes  as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).  23. Plaintiff Martinez did not provide Defendant prior express consent to receive  calls to his cellular telephone utilizing an ATDS, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227  (b)(1)(A).    24. This telephone call by Defendants or its agent(s), violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) (1). 25. On or about June 12, 2014 at 7:04 pm, Defendant or its agent/s began  contacting Plaintiff Ortiz on Plaintiff Ortiz’s cellular telephone number  ending in 7846 via an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) using an “artificial or prerecorded voice” as  prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) in order to collect an alleged debt of a  third party.   26. This ATDS has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be  called, using a random or sequential number generator.  27. Defendant placed calls to Plaintiff Ortiz using the telephone number (480)  719-2568.  29. This June 30, 2014 call used a pre-recorded voice.  30. At no time did Plaintiff Ortiz provide her cellular phone number to Defendant  through any medium.   31. The telephone number Defendant or its agent/s called was assigned to a  cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff Ortiz incurs a charge for  incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).  32. These telephone calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes  as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).  33. Plaintiff Ortiz did not provide Defendant prior express consent to receive calls  to his cellular telephone utilizing an ATDS, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1) 35. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others  similarly situated (“the Class”).  36. Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the Class, consisting of all persons  within the United States who received any telephone call from Defendant or  their agent/s and/or employee/s to said person’s cellular telephone made  through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or with an artificial  or prerecorded voice, which call was not made for emergency purposes within  the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.  38. Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at  least the following ways: Defendants, either directly or through its agents,  illegally contacted Plaintiff and the Class members via their cellular  telephones by using an ATDS, thereby causing Plaintiff and the Class  members to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular  telephone time for which Plaintiff and the Class members previously paid,  and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and the Class members.  Plaintiff  and the Class members were damaged thereby.  39. This suit seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of economic  injury on behalf of the Class, and it expressly is not intended to request any  recovery for personal injury and claims related thereto.  Plaintiff reserves the  right to expand the Class definition to seek recovery on behalf of additional  persons as warranted as facts are learned in further investigation and  discovery.  40. The joinder of the Class members is impractical and the disposition of their  claims in the Class action will provide substantial benefits both to the parties  and to the court.  The Class can be identified through Defendants’ records or  Defendants’ agents’ records.  42. As a person that received at least one telephonic communication from  Defendant’s ATDS without Plaintiff’s prior express consent, Plaintiff is  asserting claims that are typical of the Class.  Plaintiff will fairly and  adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class in that Plaintiff has  no interests antagonistic to any member of the Class.    43. Plaintiff and the members of the Class have all suffered irreparable harm as a  result of the Defendants’ unlawful and wrongful conduct.  Absent a class  action, the Class will continue to face the potential for irreparable harm.  In  addition, these violations of law will be allowed to proceed without remedy  and Defendants will likely continue such illegal conduct.  Because of the size  of the individual Class member’s claims, few, if any, Class members could  afford to seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of herein.  44. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims and  claims involving violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  46. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby  making appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief  with respect to the Class as a whole. 47. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference, all other paragraphs.  48. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations  of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the above- cited provisions of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. 227 et. seq.  49. As a result of Defendant's negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq,  Plaintiffs 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).  50. Plaintiffs and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future. 51. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference, all other paragraphs.  52. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and  multiple knowing and/or willful 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.  54. Plaintiffs and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future. KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA) 47 U.S.C. 227  NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA) 47 U.S.C. 227 