18.  Defendant Interstate Brokers is a “person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C.  § 153(39).   19.  At no point have the Plaintiff sought out or solicited information regarding  Defendant Interstate Brokers services or provide them his prior express written consent to  receive telemarketing calls.  Calls to Plaintiff   20.  Plaintiff’s telephone number, 508-XXX-8565, is registered to a cellular telephone  service.   21.  Plaintiff’s telephone number is used for residential, non-commercial purposes.   23.  Plaintiff’s telephone number was on the National Do Not Call Registry for more  than 31 days prior to the receipt of the first call advertising Interstate Broker’s goods or services,  and was placed on the National Do Not Call Registry in 2008.   24.  Plaintiff received several telemarketing calls from Interstate Brokers, including on  August 20, 2020, September 16, 21, 25, 28 2020 and October 12, 2020.   25.  The calls played a pre-recorded message.   26.  The pre-recorded message was substantially the same for each call.    27.  On October 12, 2020, the pre-recorded message stated:  Good afternoon I hope your day is going well, this is Nicole with Interstate  Brokers. Due to recent changes in the structure of Healthcare reform many  individuals are qualifying for better coverage with lower monthly premiums.    28.  The pre-recorded message invited the call recipient to call 844-790-2700.   29.  This is a phone number for the Defendant.   30.  The Plaintiff contacted the Defendant and asked for the calls to cease, yet they  continued.   31.  Other individuals have complained about receiving the same calls referencing the  same call back number:  "Nicole" left voice messages twice on my phone so far this morning.  They went directly  to voice mail without ringing.  So annoying.  Robo-call said to call back at 844-790-2700.  See https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-844-790-2700.   33.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the following classes (the  “Classes”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.   34.  Plaintiff proposes the following Class definitions, subject to amendment as  appropriate:   Pre-Record Class: All persons in the United States who, (1) within four years prior  to the commencement of this litigation until the class is certified, (2) received one  or more calls on their cellular telephone (3) from or on behalf of the Interstate  Brokers, (4) sent using the same, or substantially similar, pre-recorded message  used to contact the Plaintiff.  National Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States whose, (1)  telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days,  (2) but received more than one telephone solicitation telemarketing call from or on  behalf of the Interstate Brokers, (3) within a 12-month period, (4) from four years  prior the filing of the Complaint.   35.  The Plaintiff is a member of and will fairly and adequately represent and protect  the interests of these Classes as they have no interests that conflict with any of the class  members.   36.  Excluded from the Classes are counsel, the Defendant, and any entities in which  the Defendant has a controlling interest, the Defendant’s agents and employees, any judge to  whom this action is assigned, and any member of such judge’s staff and immediate family.   38.  This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and money damages.   39.  The Classes as defined above are identifiable through dialer records, other phone  records, and phone number databases.     40.  Plaintiff do not know the exact number of members in the Classes, but Plaintiff  reasonably believes Class members number, at minimum, in the hundreds in each class.     41.  The joinder of all Class members is impracticable due to the size and relatively  modest value of each individual claim.   42.  Additionally, the disposition of the claims in a class action will provide substantial  benefit to the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits.   43.  There are well defined, nearly identical, questions of law and fact affecting all  parties. The questions of law and fact, referred to above, involving the class claims predominate  over questions which may affect individual Class members.    45.  Further, Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of  the Classes.  Plaintiff has no interests which are antagonistic to any member of the Classes.   46.  Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex  litigation and class actions, and especially TCPA class actions.  Plaintiff and his counsel are  committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the other members of the Classes  and have the financial resources to do so.   47.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only  individual class members, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy.  The only individual question concerns identification of class  members, which will be ascertainable from records maintained by Defendant and/or their agents.   48.  The likelihood that individual members of the Classes will prosecute separate  actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual case.   49.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   51.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and  Robocall Class members are entitled to an award of $500 in statutory damages for each and  every violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   52.  The Plaintiff and Robocall Class Members are entitled to an award of treble  damages if their actions are found to have been knowing or willful.     53.  Plaintiff and Robocall Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive  relief prohibiting the Defendant from using a pre-recorded voice to make outbound calls in the  future, except for emergency purposes.  54.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   55.  Defendant violated the TCPA and the Regulations by making, or having its agent  make, two or more telemarketing pre-recorded calls within a 12-month period on Defendant’s  behalf to Plaintiff and the members of the National Do Not Call Registry Class while those  persons’ phone numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.   56.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and  National Do Not Call Registry Class members are entitled to an award of up to $500 in statutory  damages for each and every violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   58.  Plaintiff and National Do Not Call Registry Class members are also entitled to  and do seek injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from advertising their goods or services,  except for emergency purposes, to any number on the National Do Not Call Registry in the  future.  Statutory Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (47 U.S.C. 227, et seq.) on behalf of the Robocall Classes   Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. and 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200(d))   on behalf of the National Do Not Call Registry Classes  