21.  State Farm placed automated text messages and prerecorded voice message calls  to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number, XXX-XXX-9200.  State Farm’s automated text  messages came from telephone number 788-36.   22.  Plaintiff did not sign up or ask to receive text messages from State Farm.   24.  Moreover, State Farm placed calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone featuring   prerecorded voice messages.  The prerecorded voice messages asked Plaintiff to return State  Farm’s call.   25.  Plaintiff was annoyed and inconvenienced by the repeated text messages to his  cellular telephone.  Accordingly, Plaintiff responded “Stop” to get the text messages to stop.   26.  State Farm responded: “State Farm Alerts is canceled.  You will receive no more  msgs.”  However Plaintiff did receive more messages. See images supra.     27.  Plaintiff called State Farm at 800-440-0098, spoke to a female representative, and  requested that State Farm cease sending text messages and prerecorded voice messages to his  cellular phone.  Plaintiff requested that State Farm contact him only by mail.  State Farm’s  representative stated that State Farm would comply with Plaintiff’s request.   28.  However, State Farm continued to place automated text messages and  prerecorded voice messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.   29.  The continued automated text and prerecorded voice messages were annoying and  frustrating to Plaintiff, and an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy.   30.  The text messages and prerecorded voice messages placed to Plaintiff’s cellular  phone by Defendant were made with an autodialer as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) and the  35.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf  of himself and all others similarly situated.   36.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the following classes (the “Classes”):  Class 1: All persons within the United States who received on their cellular  telephone at least one text message from Defendant, responded via text  message commanding that Defendant cease sending text messages, and, from  June 10, 2012 to the present, received at least one additional text message to  the same cellular telephone number other than a text message confirming  that Defendant would cease placing text messages.  Class 2: All persons within the United States who received on their cellular  telephone at least one prerecorded voice message call from Defendant,  instructed Defendant to cease placing prerecorded voice message calls to  their cellular telephone, and, from June 10, 2012 to the present, received at  least one additional prerecorded voice message call from Defendant to their  cellular telephone.   38.  Upon information and belief, Defendant placed automated text and prerecorded  voice messages to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers throughout  the United States without their prior express consent.  The members of the Classes, therefore, are  believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   39.  The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time  and can only be ascertained through discovery.  Identification of the Class members is a matter  capable of ministerial determination from Defendant’s records.   C. Common Questions of Law and Fact    40.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Classes that predominate over  any questions affecting only individual Class members.  These questions include:  (A) Whether Defendant sent non-emergency text messages to Plaintiff and Class  members’ cellular telephones using an autodialer;  (B) Whether Defendant placed non-emergency prerecorded voice message calls to  Plaintiff and Class members’ cellular telephones;  (C) Whether Defendant placed non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Class members’  cellular telephones using an autodialer;  (D) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior express  consent to place each call;  (E) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and/or willful;  (F) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  (G) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   42.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all  based on the same factual and legal theories.  E. Protecting the Interests of the Class Members    43.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes and has  retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business  practices.  Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interests which might cause them not to  vigorously pursue this action.  F. Proceeding via Class Action is Superior and Advisable    44.  A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecutions of  separate claims against Defendant is small because it is not economically feasible for Class  members to bring individual actions.   45.  Management of this class action is unlikely to present any difficulties.  Several  courts have certified classes in TCPA actions.  These cases include, but are not limited to:  Mitchem v. Ill. Collection Serv., 271 F.R.D. 617 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Sadowski v. Med1 Online, LLC,  2008 WL 2224892 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2008); CE Design Ltd. V. Cy’s Crabhouse North, Inc., 259  F.R.D. 135 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC, 2012 WL 1932283 (S.D. Cal.  May 29, 2012).  46.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   47.  Defendant sent multiple automated text and prerecorded voice messages to  cellular numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes without their prior  express consent.   48.  Each of the aforementioned messages by Defendant constitutes a violation of the  52.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   54.  Each of the aforementioned messages by Defendant constitutes a knowing and/or  willful violation of the TCPA.   55.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to an award of treble damages up to $1,500.00 pursuant to  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   56.  Additionally, Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.    57.  Plaintiff and the Classes are also entitled to and do seek a declaration that:  • Defendant knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA;  • Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed automated text and prerecorded  voice messages to Plaintiff and the Classes;  • Defendant willfully disregarded consumers’ requests that Defendant cease  placing automated text and prerecorded voice messages to their cellular  telephones;  • It is Defendant’s practice and history to place automated text and prerecorded  voice messages to consumers without prior express consent.   A. The Class   Dated: June 10, 2016  Respectfully submitted,  PLAINTIFF, ANDY AGUILAR        By:  /s/ Sergei Lemberg  Sergei Lemberg, Esq.   Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the   Telephone Consumer Protection Act,   47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  