13.  These telemarketing practices are symptomatic of an industry where the culture is  “to enroll students at any costs.”2 For-profit colleges “are basically marketing machines . . .  [t]hey’re not really educational providers.” Id.    14.  Keiser University is one of the higher education industry’s telemarketing success  stories. Founded in 1977 by Arthur Keiser as a for-profit “career college,”3 Keiser has  successfully marketed itself into an educational behemoth with more than 20 campuses and over  20,000 actively enrolled students, many of whom will pay tens of thousands of dollars before  leaving without degrees.   16.  In response, just three months later, Defendant Keiser University sold itself to  Everglades College, Inc., a “nonprofit” entity created by the Keiser family, using a loan from  Arthur Keiser himself. According to the Miami Herald:  “Keiser’s nonprofit conversion was achieved by Arthur Keiser selling the for- profit Keiser University to a smaller nonprofit controlled by the Keiser family,  Everglades College Inc.   Essentially, Keiser sold the left hand of his empire to the right hand. To pay for it  all, Keiser made a $300 million loan to himself, and he’s now paying it back with  college revenue—with interest.  Records show that Keiser’s 2012 compensation as college president for the  combined Everglades/Keiser schools was $855,842. The records also show that  10 of the nonprofit’s campuses are paying rent to companies in which Arthur  Keiser has an ownership interest.  The combined rent for those properties: about $14.6 million.”5   25.  Plaintiff registered his private cellphone number with the National Do Not Call  Registry on March 9, 2014, for the specific purpose of avoiding unwanted telemarketing calls  like those alleged in this Complaint.    26.  Nonetheless, starting in 2014 and continuing for years, Defendant Keiser has  called Plaintiff, without his consent, multiple times per week (and as many as three times per  day), using the phone number (561) 471-6000.    27.  Each time Plaintiff received one of Defendant’s calls, he would say “hello”  multiple times before being connected with one of Defendant’s “admissions counselors.”   28.  Defendant’s admission counselors would then attempt to entice Plaintiff to enroll  at Keiser University.    29.  Plaintiff was not then, nor is he now, interested in pursuing any secondary  education, let alone pursuing such an education at Keiser University.    30.  Plaintiff repeatedly told Defendant’s admissions counselors that he was 50 years  old and not at all interested in enrolling in any school, let alone Keiser University, and repeatedly  demanded that Defendant stop placing calls to his private cellular telephone.    31.  Despite Plaintiff’s repeated demands, Defendant continued to place telephone  calls to Plaintiff’s private cellular telephone.    32.  As a result of Defendant’s intrusive calls, Plaintiff suffered harms, including the  violation of his statutory rights as well as the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that  necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing commercial telephone calls.   34.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and two classes defined as follows  (the “Classes”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):  Autodialer Class: All individuals in the United States who (1) received a  call placed by or on behalf of Defendant; (2) on his or his cellular  telephone number; (3) that was placed using an automated or  computerized dialing system; and (4) where Defendant had no record of  express consent to place such call.  Do-Not-Call Class: All individuals in the United States who (1) received  a call placed by or on behalf of Defendant; (2) on his or his cellular  telephone number; (3) that was placed using an automated or  computerized dialing system; and (4) that was placed after Defendant  created a record reflecting a do-not-call request for that called cellular  telephone number.  The following people are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or Magistrate  presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its  parents have a controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3)  persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Classes; (4)  persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise  released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives,  successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.   36.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Classes, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes  include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:  (a)  Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to the  cellular telephone numbers of the members of the Classes;   (b)  Whether Defendant systematically placed these calls through the  use of an automatic telephone dialing system;  (c)  Whether Defendant had express consent to make these telephone  calls at the times such calls were made;  (d)  Whether Defendant’s conduct violated TCPA; and  (e)   Whether the willfulness of Defendant’s conduct entitles members  of the Classes to treble damages.   37.  Typicality and Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff’s claims are virtually  identical to those of the other members of the Classes. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately  represent and protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and  experienced in complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the  Classes, and Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel are  committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Classes, and  have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel have any interest adverse  to the Classes.   39.  Plaintiff restates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 38.   40.  Defendant and/or its agents, in efforts to promote Defendant’s institution, placed  unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff  and the other members of the Autodialer Class.   41.  Defendant placed these calls using equipment that had the capacity to store or  produce telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator and/or the capacity  to receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, without any  need for human intervention.    43.  By placing such calls to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and the  Autodialer Class members without first having prior express consent to do so, and by placing  such calls while using equipment with the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers using  a random or sequential number generator and/or with the capacity to receive and store lists of  phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   44.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Autodialer Class suffered actual damages in the forms of invasions of their privacy and of  monies paid or minutes lost to receive the unsolicited telephone calls on their cellular phones.  Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), Plaintiff and the members of the Autodialer Class are each entitled  to, inter alia, a minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.   45.  To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing,  the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialer Class.  46.  Plaintiff restates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 38.   47.  Defendant and/or its agents, in efforts to promote Defendant’s institution, placed  unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff  and the other members of the Do-Not-Call Class.   49.  Defendant placed these telemarketing calls despite having records showing do- not-call requests made by Plaintiff and the members of the Do-Not-Call Class.    50.  By placing such calls to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and the Do- Not-Call Class members without having their express consent to do so, and by placing such calls  while using equipment with the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers using a random  or sequential number generator and/or with the capacity to receive and store lists of phone  numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   51.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the Do- Not-Call Class suffered actual damages in the forms of invasions of their privacy and of monies  paid or minutes lost to receive the unsolicited telephone calls on their cellular phones. Under 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), Plaintiff and the members of the Do-Not-Call Class are each entitled to, inter  alia, a minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.   52.  To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing,  the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Do-Not-Call Class.  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Do-Not-Call Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Autodialer Class)  