28.  On January 22, 2019, Defendant initiated an unsolicited call to Plaintiff’s Phone  Number using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”), as defined by 47 U.S.C. §  227(a)(1). Defendant contacted Plaintiff from phone number (402) 836-3870 (“Defendant’s ATDS  Phone Number”). See Exhibit A.2    29.  Plaintiff had not, prior to this initial call from Defendant, expressly consented in  any manner to allow Defendant to contact him.   30.  On January 22, 2019, Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant at Defendant’s  ATDS Phone Number for the purpose of demanding Defendant cease its attempts to contact and  solicit Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s Phone Number, but was unable to speak with a human being.   32.  Defendant’s unsolicited call to Plaintiff sought to encourage him to provide or  update contact information related to his chiropractic business so Defendant could include it within  one or more database(s) Defendant may sell to its subscribers, and so its subscribers could advertise  and tele-market to Plaintiff to sell Plaintiff their goods and services. Expressupdate,  www.expressupdate.com (“Make Sure Your Customers Can Find You” … “Build Your Profile”  and “Grow Your Business”) (last visited May 12, 2019).   33.  Defendant uses its autodialed calls to Plaintiff and class members in order to  encourage and induce the use of its “Express Update” services. Defendant advertises “Express  Update makes it easier for customers to find and reach your business on the internet – and it’s all  FREE! It’s simple: Search Express Update for your business listing and make sure the information  is correct. Then we will automatically send your correct information to our partners….” Why Use  Express Update?, Expressupdate, https://www.expressupdate.com/why_express_update (last  visited May 12, 2019).   35.  Defendant’s autodialed calls were a pretext to obtain recipients’ participation in  Defendant’s proprietary database, access to which Defendant makes available to consumers and  other businesses. Embedded within the https://www.expressupdate.com/why_express_update  website is the weblink: https://www.infousa.com/lists/mailing-lists/, which states: “Find and reach  new customers using our targeted mailing lists. Need mailing lists for your next marketing  campaign? InfoUSA makes finding new customers a snap. Plus, once you’ve identified your target  audience, we have everything you need in order to design, print, and deliver your customized  mailer.” InfoUSA, https://www.infousa.com/lists/mailing-lists/ (last visited May 12, 2019).    36.  Defendant’s website declares: “Infogroup proudly . . . Contacts over 100,000  businesses every day to verify our quality information and augment our data sets further . . . [and]  leverages our proprietary platforms and technology to manage over 25 billion records in support  of  thousands  of  marketing  campaigns.”  About  Infogroup,  Infogroup,  https://www.infogroup.com/about-infogroup (last visited May 12, 2019).    38.  Defendant’s autodialed calls promote Defendant’s commercially available  proprietary databases by offering its services and supposed benefits to called parties while  Defendant is collecting valuable data to provide to their paying customers. In other words, there  was a clear profit motive behind Defendant’s autodialed calls.  B.  Defendant’s multiple contacts with Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s repeated efforts to end the  harassment.    39.  On January 29, 2019, January 31, 2019, February 14, 2019, and February 21, 2019,  Defendant further attempted to contact Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s Phone Number. During each attempt  Defendant contacted Plaintiff using the exact same ATDS number Defendant had used previously.  See Exhibit A.   41.  On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter demanding Defendant cease  its continued attempts to contact Plaintiff. In this letter Plaintiff also informed Defendant that its  calls to Plaintiff violated the TCPA. See Exhibit C.    42.  Despite Plaintiff’s written demands, Defendant again attempted to contact Plaintiff  on February 26, 2019, and again on March 1, 2019. See Exhibit A. During each attempt, Defendant  contacted Plaintiff using the exact same ATDS number Defendant had used previously. See id.     43.  After Defendant’s March 1, 2019, phone call, Plaintiff contacted Infogroup via e- mail at the e-mail address “Corporate.Communications@infogroup.com” for the purposes of  further demanding Defendant cease its attempts to contact and solicit Plaintiff. See Exhibit D.   44.  On March 1, 2019, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s e-mail communication from  e-mail address “DoNotReply@infogroup.com” with the following response:  We do apologize, but this was in our business database, and the violations you are  indicating only apply to consumer data. We have removed your business from our  business database and you will receive no additional calls.   See Exhibit D.   45.  The TCPA has no “business exception” for calls to cellular phones. See 47 U.S.C.  § 227.    46.  On March 5, 2019, four days after promising that it had removed Plaintiff’s Phone  Number from its database, Defendant attempted to contact Plaintiff a seventh time. See Exhibit A.  During this attempt Defendant again contacted Plaintiff from Defendant’s ATDS Phone Number.  See id.      48.  Each of Defendant’s unsolicited phone calls to Plaintiff’s Phone Number were  made via an ATDS.    49.  Each of Defendant’s seven unsolicited phone calls to Plaintiff’s Phone Number  violated the TCPA.  C.  Defendant’s conduct was knowing or willful; Defendant has previously been sued for  violating the TCPA.    50.  As a self-described “big data, analytics and marketing services provider” Defendant  knew the TCPA regulated its conduct and that the TCPA does not provide a business-to-business  exception. Notwithstanding this fact, Defendant systematically contacted Plaintiff even after it  promised to stop.    51.  Additionally, this is not the first time Defendant has been sued for violations of the  Telephone Consumer Protection Act. See Complaint, Alves v. Infogroup Inc., No. 2:16-cv-09328  (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2016), attached hereto as Exhibit E. For example, on December 16, 2016, Terri  Alves, a resident of California, filed a proposed Class Action suit against Defendant in United  States District Court for the Central District of California alleging Defendant violated the TCPA.  See id. Approximately 11 days after the Complaint was filed, the Complaint was voluntarily  dismissed by the named plaintiff, as to prejudice against the named Plaintiff only, and without  prejudice as to the rest of the class.   52.  At minimum, Defendant became aware that its practices violated the TCPA on or  around December 16, 2016.   54.  At the very least Plaintiff’s letters to Defendant on January 22, 2019, and February  21, 2019, land his e-mail communication to Defendant on March 1, 2019, complaining of  Defendant’s unconsented autodialed calls put Defendant on notice that its calls violated the TCPA.   55.  As such, Defendant knowingly or willfully violated the TCPA no less than seven  times with respect to Plaintiff.    56.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has attempted to contact hundreds or  thousands of additional individuals in knowing or willful violation of the TCPA.   57.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated on behalf  of the following Class:   All persons in the United States (1) to whom one or more telemarking or advertising  calls were initiated, (2) to their cellular telephone number, (3) placed by or on  behalf of Infogroup (4) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial  or prerecorded voice, (5) on or after May 22, 2015; and (6) without their prior  express written consent.   58.  Not included in the Class is Defendant or any of its members, affiliates, parents,  subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, successors, or assigns; or the Judge assigned to this  case, including his or her immediate family, or his or her staff.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify  or amend the Class definition during the course of this litigation.    59.  This action has been brought, and may be properly maintained, under Federal Rule  of Civil Procedure Rule 23.  The proposed Class and Class Representative satisfy the criteria of  Rule 23 as outlined below.   61.  Numerosity—Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1).  Defendant used  automated technology that is capable of contacting thousands of people per day, so the potential  class members number in the hundreds or thousands, at least. Individual joinder of all members in  the case would be impracticable, and the disposition of their claims as a Class will benefit the  parties and the Court. The proposed class members should be identifiable from a review of  Defendant’s marketing documents, phone records, contact lists, and other internal documents.     62.  Commonality and Predominance—Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2)  and 23(b)(3).  This action involves common questions of law and fact which predominate over  any questions which may affect individual Class members, including, but not limited to:  a.  Whether Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system to call the cellular  phones of Plaintiff and others;   b.  Whether Defendant initiated telemarketing calls to cellular phones without the prior  express written consent of the called parties;   c.  Whether Defendant’s alleged conduct violated the Telephone Consumer Protection  Act;   d.  Whether Defendant’s actions were knowing or willful and, if so, whether the Court  should treble the statutory damages awarded to Plaintiff and other members of the  class;   e.  Whether Class members are entitled to statutory damages, equitable relief,  exemplary damages, and/or other relief; and   f.  The amount and nature of relief to be awarded to Plaintiff and Class members.   64.  Adequacy of Representation—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).  The  above-named Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative because Plaintiff’s interests do not  conflict with the interests of the Class he seeks to represent.  Plaintiff has retained counsel who are  well-versed and experienced in complex litigation and class action litigation, and Plaintiff and  counsel intend to vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class.  Plaintiff  and his attorneys will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.    65.  Declaratory and Injunctive Relief—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).   Injunctive and declaratory relief are appropriate because Defendant has acted or refused to act on  grounds which are generally applicable to Plaintiff and Class members.  Thus, final injunctive and  declaratory relief, as described below, are appropriate with respect to the Class.    66.  Superiority—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  A class action is  superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this action; no  unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management and litigation of this class  action.  When compared to the burden and expense required to litigate each Class member’s  claims, each individual Class member’s claims are relatively small; thus, it would be impracticable  for individual Class members to seek redress for Defendant’s wrongful conduct.  Even if individual  Class members could afford individual suits, the court system could not. Adjudication of this  matter by means of a class action ensures the most efficient and time- and cost-effective resolution  by providing economy of scale, presents fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefit  of a comprehensive supervision and a final adjudication by a single court.    68.  Class Action Maintainable Under Rule 23(b)(2).  By continuing to contact  individuals and businesses in violation of the TCPA, Defendant has acted or refused to act on  grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making declaratory relief an appropriate remedy  for Plaintiff and the Class.   69.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein, and brings Count I on behalf of himself and the entire Class.     70.  Defendant’s acts and omissions alleged herein constitute numerous and multiple  violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §227, as Defendant called the cellular telephone numbers of  Plaintiff and the other Class members using an ATDS.   71.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are entitled to an award of $500 in  damages for each and every call Defendant made to their cellular telephone numbers using an  ATDS or artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(B).   73.  Defendant’s violations were knowing or willful.   74.  If the Court determines that Defendant’s actions were knowing or willful, then  Plaintiff requests that the Court increase the statutory damages up to three times the amount. 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, for himself and all class members, requests the following relief:  A.  Certification of the proposed class;  B.  Appointment of Plaintiff as representative of the class;  C.  Appointment of Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for the class;  D.  An order awarding statutory damages of $500 per phone call at issue pursuant to  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B);  E.  An order increasing those statutory damages up to three times ($1,500 per call at  issue) pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C);   F.  An order enjoining Defendant from engaging in the same or similar unlawful  practices alleged herein;  G.  An order awarding costs of suit;  H.  Leave to amend this Complaint to conform to the evidence presented at trial; and  Orders granting any other relief this Honorable Court deems equitable, proper, and  just.  Respectfully submitted,  CLARK & McCREA  By: /s/ Collen A. Clark  A.  Defendant routinely initiates autodialed calls as part of its ongoing advertising and  telemarketing campaigns.    CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227, ET SEQ.  