10.  For some or all of the calls, ANTHEM used an auto-dialing mechanism wherein  there was no caller on the line when Plaintiff answered. After a pause on each of these calls, the  call was connected to a person by Anthem.    11.  These phone calls were, according to the callers, for marketing purposes.    12.  When one calls 877-268-9170, a prerecorded message says that the caller has  reached the “direct sales team” at Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield.    13.  Plaintiff did not consent to these calls.   14.  Plaintiff asked that the calls stop and told the representatives on the line that there  was no interest, but ANTHEM continued to dial his cell phone using its autodialer.    15.  Plaintiff and the class have been substantially damaged by Defendant’s calls.  Their privacy was improperly invaded, they were charged for the calls and they were annoyed.  Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 740 (Jan. 18, 2012) (discussing congressional  findings of consumer “outrage” as to autodialed and prerecorded calls); Soppet v. Enhanced  3  Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2012) (stating that unwanted cell phone robocall  recipients are damaged because they are charged “out of pocket” cellular airtime minutes).     16.  Plaintiff’s cell phone plan is “pay by the minute.”   17.  Defendant’s violations were willful, or alternatively they were knowing;  particularly calls that occurred after Plaintiff asked that they stop and indicated that he was not  interested.   18.  Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs.   19.  ANTHEM violated the TCPA by placing automated calls to Plaintiff and the class  members’ cell phones using its predictive dialer and/or prerecorded or artificial voice without the  consent of the called party.    20.  ANTHEM has a policy, practice or procedure of placing calls to cell phones  regarding the collection of an alleged debt without the prior consent of the called parties.   21.  ANTHEM’s violations were negligent, or alternatively, they were willful or  knowing. 47 U.S.C. §312(f)(1).  22.  Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of a class and a subclass, consisting of:  All persons who, on or after July 15, 2009, defendant called a cell phone number using  predictive dialing equipment and/or a prerecorded or artificial voice where defendant did  not obtain the phone number called from the called party, with respect to the subject  matter of the alleged debt being collected. Plaintiff alleges a subclass of persons who  received calls after a demand that calls stop.    23.  The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.  Upon  information and belief Plaintiff alleges that there are more than 40 members of the class.  4   24.  There are questions of law and fact common to the class which predominate any  questions affecting an individual class member. The predominant common questions include:  a. Whether ANTHEM used an automatic telephone dialing system as is used in  the TCPA and applicable FCC regulations and orders to place the calls at  issue;   b. Damages, including whether the violations were negligent, willful or  knowing.     25.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.  Plaintiff has  retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business  practices.  Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff's counsel have any interests which might cause them not  to vigorously pursue this action.    26.  A class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy.  The interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of  separate claims is small because it is not economically feasible to bring individual actions.    27.  Management of this class action is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties  than those presented in many class actions, e.g. for securities fraud.   28.  Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of  similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously,  efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions  would entail.    29.  Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making  relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.  Prosecution of separate actions by  5  individual members of the class, should they realize their rights have been violated, would likely  create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the  class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and         the class and against ANTHEM for:  A.   Statutory damages of $500 per violation, and up to $1,500 per violation if  proven to be willful;  B.  An injunction against further violations;  C.  A declaration that the equipment used by ANTHEM is regulated by   the TCPA;   D.   Costs of suit;  E.  Reasonable attorney’s fees as part of a common fund, if any;  F.  Such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.    7.  ANTHEM has called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone numerous times within the four  years immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.    8.  For example, ANTHEM called Plaintiff’s cell phone on July 1, 2013 at 3:10 p.m.,  and then an hour later, at 4:10 p.m.   9.  The caller ID for these calls was 877-268-9170.   