14.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Florida, and at all times  mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (39).    15.  Defendant is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation and “persons,”  as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (39).    16.  At all times relevant Defendant conducted business in the State of Florida and in  Palm Beach County, within this judicial district.    17.  Defendant utilizes prerecorded telemarketing calls (ie: calls using an artificial or  prerecorded voice) to market and advertise Defendant’s business and services, including at least  four (4) calls to Plaintiff, on January 1, 5 and 15, 2021.   19.  On January 5, 2021 at 9:33 AM, Kimberly DeSocio, called Plaintiff’s cellular  telephone number ending in “4600”.  Plaintiff answered this call and spoke with Ms. DeSocio,  who inquired if Plaintiff wanted to sell his house.  Plaintiff advised Ms. DeSocio that his telephone  number was on the DNC list.  Ms. DeSocio apologized. Ms. DeSocio is a Coldwell Banker real  estate agent.   20.  On January 15, 2021, at 9:37 AM and 9:38 AM, Kimberly DeSocio, called  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in “4600.” One call went to voicemail, but Ms.  DeSocio did not leave a message.  Ms. DeSocio then sent an email to Plaintiff’s work email  address, introducing herself as a Coldwell Banker agent.  She attached her Coldwell Banker Bio  and a flyer for 2019 Total Sales Volume, identifying Coldwell Banker as “#1 in $1 Million+ Sales  in Florida”.   21.  The calls that Plaintiff received from or on behalf of Defendant, resulted in  Plaintiff’s telephone being unavailable to place or receive other calls and depleted the phone’s  battery. Plaintiff also spent time investigating the source of the calls.   22.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiff received additional telephone calls to his  cellular telephone which he believes were made by Defendant.  The telemarketing calls were made  to Plaintiff’s 4600 Number, and within the time period that is relevant to this action.   23.  At no time did Plaintiff provide Plaintiff’s cellular number to Defendant through  any medium, nor did Plaintiff consent to receive such unsolicited calls.    25.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 4600 Number and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 4600 Number, including the cellular costs and data usage  incurred as a result of the unlawful calls made to Plaintiff by Defendant.   26.  Additionally, Plaintiff’s 4600 Number has been registered on the National Do Not  Call Registry since February 7, 2008.   27.  The content of the calls made to Plaintiff and the Class Members show that they  were for the purpose of marketing, advertising, and promoting Defendant’s business and services  to Plaintiff as part of an overall telemarketing strategy.   28.  These calls were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(i).    29.  Plaintiff did not provide Defendant or its agents prior express consent to receive  calls, including unsolicited calls, to his cellular telephone, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.   30.  The unsolicited calls by Defendant, or its agents, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).   31.  Defendant is and was aware that it is placing unsolicited robocalls to Plaintiff and  other consumers without their prior express consent.   33.  Plaintiff brings this class action under rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) & (b)(3) of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of itself and of a similarly situated “Class” or “Class  Members” defined as:  Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who  from four years prior to the filing of this action (1) were called  by or on behalf of Defendant; (2) more than one time within any  12-month period; (3) where the person’s telephone number had  been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least  thirty days; (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant’s products  and/or services; and (5) for whom Defendant claims (a) it did  not obtain prior express written consent, or (b) it obtained prior  express written consent in the same manner as Defendant claims  it supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call the  Plaintiff.   34.  Excluded from the Class are: any Defendant, and any subsidiary or affiliate of that  Defendant, and the directors, officers and employees of that Defendant or its subsidiaries or  affiliates, and members of the federal judiciary.   35.  This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action  against Defendant pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because there is a  well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definition if discovery and further investigation  reveal that any Class should be expanded or otherwise modified.   37.  Upon information and belief, a more precise Class size and the identities of the  individual members thereof are ascertainable through Defendant’s records, including, but not  limited to Defendant’s calls and marketing records.   38.  Members of the Class may additionally or alternatively be notified of the pendency  of this action by techniques and forms commonly used in class actions, such as by published notice,  e-mail notice, website notice, fax notice, first class mail, or combinations thereof, or by other  methods suitable to this class and deemed necessary and/or appropriate by the Court.   40.  One or more questions or issues of law and/or fact regarding Defendant’s liability  are common to all Class Members and predominate over any individual issues that may exist and  may serve as a basis for class certification under Rule 23(c)(4).   41.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class.  The claims of the Plaintiff and members of the Class are based on the same legal theories and arise  from the same course of conduct that violates the TCPA.   42.  Plaintiff and members of the Class each received at least two telephone calls within  a twelve month period, promoting the Defendant’s real estate broker services, which Defendant  placed or caused to be placed to Plaintiff and the members of the Class.   44.  Superiority: A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and  efficient adjudication of the claims of the Class. While the aggregate damages which may be  awarded to the members of the Class are likely to be substantial, the damages suffered by  individual members of the Class are relatively small. As a result, the expense and burden of  individual litigation makes it economically infeasible and procedurally impracticable for each  member of the Class to individually seek redress for the wrongs done to them. Plaintiff does not  know of any other litigation concerning this controversy already commenced against Defendant  by any member of the Class. The likelihood of the individual members of the Class prosecuting  separate claims is remote. Individualized litigation would also present the potential for varying,  inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and would increase the delay and expense to all parties  and the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same factual issues. In contrast, the  conduct of this matter as a class action presents fewer management difficulties, conserves the  resources of the parties and the court system, and would protect the rights of each member of the  Class. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of this action that  would preclude its maintenance as a class action.   46.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in all of the above  paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.    47.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o  person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber  who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who  do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”   48.  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.” 2   49.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any  call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity  has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing  calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity.”   50.  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” may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were   51.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated,  telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry  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.   52.  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class received more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf  of Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of Defendant’s  conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class suffered actual damages  and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled, inter alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for  such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.   53.  To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, the  Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant Plaintiff and the Class relief  against Defendant, individually and jointly, as set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.  VIOLATION OF THE TCPA  47 U.S.C. § 227  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class  