10.  Defendant is an accounts receivable management company.   11.  Defendant’s regular business practices include contacting alleged  debtors and third parties by telephone in connection with collecting alleged debts.    12.  Within the four years prior to the filing of this action, Defendant  initiated telephone calls to cellular telephones using an artificial or pre-recorded  voice to deliver a message.  On information and belief, Defendant caused dialing  Case3:14-cv-03866-JCS   Document1   Filed08/26/14   Page4 of 12 16.  Beginning in or around January of 2014, Defendant contacted  Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number ending in 3186, in an attempt to collect  an outstanding debt allegedly owed by another person.    17.  Defendant placed several collection calls a week to Plaintiff’s   cellular telephone seeking to collect an outstanding debt allegedly owed by a  person other than Plaintiff and not known by Plaintiff.  Case3:14-cv-03866-JCS   Document1   Filed08/26/14   Page5 of 12 26.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all others  similarly situated, as members of the proposed class (the “Class”) defined as  follows:  All persons within the United States who, within the  four years prior to the filing of the complaint in this  action, through the date of certification, Defendant  or  its agent/s or employee/s caused to be made any  telephone calls to said person’s cellular telephone  through the use of any automatic telephone dialing  system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, where such  person had not previously consented to receiving such  call.   27.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the Class, having been  called by Defendant on her cell phone through the use of an automatic telephone  dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice without her prior express  consent.   28.   Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Class, but  believe the Class members number in the thousands, if not more.  Thus, this  matter should be certified as a Class Action to assist in the expeditious litigation  of the matter.   29.  The Class is so numerous that the individual joinder of all of its  Case3:14-cv-03866-JCS   Document1   Filed08/26/14   Page7 of 12 37.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.   38.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call  made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the  called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or  prerecorded voice … to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone  service….”  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   39.  “Automatic telephone dialing system” refers to any equipment that  has “the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.”  See 2003 FCC  Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd. at 14092, para. 132.   40.  Defendant caused equipment having the capacity to dial numbers  without human intervention to be used to make non-emergency telephone calls to  the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class defined  above.     41.  Some, if not all, of Defendant’s calls also utilized an artificial and/or  prerecorded voice.   42.  These calls were made without regard to whether or not Defendant  had first obtained express permission from the called party to make such calls.  In  fact, Defendant did not have prior express consent to call the cell phone of  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class when the autodialed and/or artificial  or prerecorded voice calls were made.   43.  As such, Defendant’s calls were willful or, at a minimum, negligent.   See 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).   44.  Defendant has, therefore, violated Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the  TCPA by causing an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or  Case3:14-cv-03866-JCS   Document1   Filed08/26/14   Page10 of 12 Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (Against All Defendants)  