1. A declaration that Defendants practices described herein violate the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227;   10. Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; and   11. Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.  2. An injunction requiring Defendants not to call any third parties or numbers that  were skip traced to insure that Plaintiff is not called now or when Plaintiff  obtains additional telephone numbers in the future;   20.  On or about January 28, 2016, Plaintiff began receiving telephone calls to his  cellphone from Medicredit regarding debts allegedly owed to Wentworth and Portsmouth  Regional by someone other than himself. At no time leading up to these calls had Plaintiff  provided either Defendant with his cellphone number or otherwise given either Defendant his  consent to call it.   21.  Upon answering the calls, Plaintiff was met with the various pauses, clicks,  automated prompts, and so-called "dead air" that form the hallmarks of automatic telephone  dialer use..   22.   On several other occasions, Medicredit left the following pre-recorded voice  message on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone:  6  “Hello, we are calling from Medicredit on behalf of Portsmouth Regional Hospital. This is  a call from a debt collector. Please return our call at 800-823-2318, Monday through  Friday during normal business hours. Thank You.”   23.  On several other occasions, Medicredit’s automated prompts would play into  Plaintiff’s cell phone voice mail, indicating that even if Plaintiff were to answer the calls he  would be greeted by an automated and pre-recorded voice system:  “Para recibir este mensaje en Español, oprima el 2. If you are “Shannon Dian” press the  number 1 on your telephone to receive the message. If that person is home, and you  can request for them to come to the phone, press 2. If they are not home and  unavailable to receive this message, press 3. If I have the wrong number, press 4. To  repeat these choices, press the Star key. Please have “Shannon Dian” come to phone  and press 1 to receive an important message regarding personal business. I will wait up  to 45 seconds.”   24.  On several occasions, upon answering Medicredit’s telephone calls, Plaintiff  waited on hold until a live agent of Medicredit picked up, at which time he would inform the  agent to stop calling him. Despite Plaintiff’s requests, Medicredit continued to call him.   25.  Upon information and belief, Medicredit obtained Plaintiff’s number from  Wentworth or Portsmouth Regional, or through a third-party electronic database during a skip- tracing process.   26.  By effectuating these unlawful phone calls, Medicredit has caused Plaintiff the  very harm that Congress sought to prevent - a "nuisance and invasion of privacy."   7   27.  Defendant’s aggravating and annoying phone calls trespassed upon and  interfered with Plaintiff’s rights and interests in his cellular telephone and cellular telephone  line, by intruding upon Plaintiff’s seclusion.    28.   Defendant’s phone calls harmed Plaintiff by wasting his time.    29.  Moreover, "wireless customers [like Plaintiff] are charged for incoming calls  whether they pay in advance or after the minutes are used." In re Rules Implementing the TCPA  of 1991, 23 FCC Rcd 559, 562 (2007). Defendant’s phone calls harmed Plaintiff by depleting the  battery life on his cellular telephone, and by using minutes allocated to Plaintiff by his cellular  telephone service provider.     3. An injunction requiring Defendants to file quarterly reports of third party audits  with the Court on its system and procedures not to call any third parties or  numbers that were skip traced to insure that Plaintiff is not called in the future;   30.  Medicredit’s unlawful acts, as described above, were committed knowingly and  willfully in light of the fact that Medicredit has been sued on numerous prior occasions for the  very same conduct.   31.  In addition, both Portsmouth Regional and Wentworth knew or should have  known Medicredit’s history as a serial TCPA violator. In fact, Medicredit has been sued  previously for violations of the TCPA and recently settled a class action.  See Prater v.  Medicredit, Inc. et al., No. 4:14-cv-00159-ERW (E.D. Mo. Filed Jan. 28, 2014) and Doc 89 (Final  Approval Granted 12/07/15).   32.  Despite this knowledge, Portsmouth Regional and Wentworth continue to use  Medicredit’s services and, in doing so, continues to accept and retain the pecuniary benefits  derived from Medicredit’s unlawful activities.   33.  In addition to being strictly liable for Medicredit’s violations of the TCPA  pursuant to the FCC 2008 Order, Portsmouth Regional’s and Wentworth’s ratification of  8  Medicredit’s continued and habitual TCPA violations subject both Portsmouth Regional and  Wentworth to vicarious liability under common law agency principles. See Restatement (Third)  of Agency § 4.01(1) (2006) ("Ratification is the affirmance of a prior act done by another,  whereby the act is given effect as if done by an agent acting with actual authority.").   34.  Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of several classes of other similarly  situated individuals, seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies  resulting from the illegal actions of Medicredit in negligently, knowingly, or willfully contacting  them on their cellular telephones in violation of the TCPA.   35.  Accordingly, the proposed class is defined as follows:   All persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular  telephone number (3) Medicredit placed a non-emergency  telephone call (4) between July 14, 2015 and the date of  certification, (5) through the use of any automatic telephone  dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6) where such  person’s number was obtained from a source other than the  person himself.   36.  The proposed Revocation is defined as follows:  All persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular  telephone number (3) Medicredit placed a non-emergency  telephone call (4) between July 14, 2015 and the date of  certification, (5) through the use of any automatic telephone  dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6) after such  person informed Medicredit to stop calling.   37.   The proposed Wentworth sub-class is defined as follows:  All persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular  telephone number (3) Medicredit placed a non-emergency  telephone call (4) between July 14, 2015 and the date of  certification, (5) through the use of any automatic telephone  9  dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6) in an attempt  to collect a debt owed or allegedly owed to Wentworth (7) where  such person’s number was obtained from a source other than the  person himself or after such person informed Medicredit to stop  calling.   38.  The proposed Portland Regional class is defined as follows:  All persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular  telephone number (3) Medicredit placed a non-emergency  telephone call (4) between July 14, 2015 and the date of  certification, (5) through the use of any automatic telephone  dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6) in an attempt  to collect a debt owed or allegedly owed to Portsmouth Regional  (7) where such person’s phone number was obtained from a  source other than the person himself or after such person  informed Medicredit to stop calling.   39.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the Classes, having himself been called  by Medicredit on his cellular telephone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing  system or artificial or prerecorded voice without his prior express consent.   4. An injunction requiring Defendants not to call any third parties or numbers that  were skip traced to insure that class members are not called if they obtain  additional telephone numbers in the future;   40.  Defendants and their employees and agents are excluded from the Classes.    41.  Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Classes, but believes the  Class members number in the thousands. Thus, this matter should be certified as a Class Action  to assist in the expeditious litigation of the matter.    42.  The Classes is so numerous that the individual joinder of all its members is  impractical. While the exact number and identities of the Class members are known only to  Defendant at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff is  informed and believes that the Classes include thousands of members. Plaintiff alleges that the  Class members may only be ascertained through the records maintained by Defendants.  10   43.  Common questions of fact and law exist as to all members of the Classes which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Classes. These  common legal and factual questions, which do not vary between Class members, and which  may be determined without reference to the individual circumstances of any Class members,  include, but are not limited to, the following:  a.  Whether, within the class period , Medicredit made any call (other than a call  made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the  called party) to a Class member using any automatic telephone dialing system or  an artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a cellular  telephone service;  b.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class members were damaged thereby, and the extent  of damages for such violation;  c.  Whether Portsmouth Regional and/or Wentworth is vicariously liable for the  class placed on its behalf; and  d.  Whether Medicredit should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the  future.   44.  As a person who received calls from Medicredit using an automatic telephone  dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without their prior express consent, Plaintiff  is asserting claims that are typical of the Classes.   45.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the  Classes.  Plaintiff has retained attorneys experienced in the prosecution of class actions.  11   46.  A class action is superior to other available methods of fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy, since individual litigation of the claims of all Class members is  impracticable.  Even if every Class member could afford individual litigation, it would be unduly  burdensome to the courts in which individual litigation of numerous issues would proceed.   Individualized litigation would also present the potential for varying, inconsistent, or  contradictory judgments and would magnify the delay and expense to all parties and to the  court system resulting from multiple trials of the same complex factual issues.  By contrast, the  conduct of this action as a class action presents fewer management difficulties, conserves the  resources of the parties and of the court system, and protects the rights of each Class member.   47.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create a  risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of  the interests of the this Class members not parties to such adjudications or that would  substantially impair or impede the ability of such non-party Class members to protect their  interests.   48.  Defendants have acted or refused to act in respects generally applicable to the  Classes, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief with regard to the members of  the Classes as a whole.  49.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully  herein.    12   5. An injunction requiring Defendants to file quarterly reports of third party audits  with the Court on its system and procedures not to call any third parties or  numbers that were skip traced to insure that class members are not called in the  future;   50.  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).   51.  Medicredit 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.    52.  Medicredit’s calls also utilized an artificial and/or prerecorded voice.   53.  These calls were made without regard to whether or not Defendants had first  obtained express permission from the called party to make such calls or after any consent was  revoked.     54.  As such, the calls at issue were willful or, at a minimum, negligent.   55.  Defendants have, therefore, violated Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by  causing an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice to be used  to make non-emergency telephone calls to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class without  their prior express consent.   56.  Wentworth is strictly liable for Medicredit’s violations for the calls placed on  Wentworth’s behalf.   57.  Portsmouth Regional is strictly liable for Medicredit’s violations for the calls  placed on Portsmouth Regional’s behalf.   58.  As a result of Defendants’ conduct and pursuant to Section 227(b)(3)(B) of the  TCPA, Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class are each entitled to a minimum of  13  $500.00 in damages for each violation and if willfulness is proven up to $1,500 for each  violation.   59.  Plaintiff and the Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A).  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Martin, on behalf of himself and the other members of the  Class, respectfully request the following relief against Defendant:    6. An award of actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;   14   7. An award of statutory damages for Plaintiff and each Class member in the  amount of $500.00 for each and every call that violated the TCPA;   8. An award of treble damages, as provided by statute, of up to $1,500.00 for  Plaintiff and each Class member for each and every call that violated the TCPA;   9. An order certifying this action to be a proper class action pursuant to the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure 23, establishing the appropriate Classes and any Sub- classes the Court deems appropriate, finding that Plaintiff is a proper  representative of the Classes, and appointing the lawyers and law firms  representing Plaintiff as counsel for the Classes;    Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  