26.  On or about June 18, 2019, Defendant sent the following telemarketing text  messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 4155 (the “4155 Number”):   27.  Defendant’s text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, and  within the time frame relevant to this action.   29.  The information contained in the text messages advertises Defendant’s “free real  estate app to search properties,” which Defendant sends to promote its business.   30.  Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial district and, therefore,  Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district. Upon information and belief,  Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district.   31.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent  to be contacted using an ATDS.   32.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 4155 Number, and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 4155 Number.   33.  Additionally, Plaintiff was on the National Do Not Call Registry at the time that  he received Defendant’s text messages.    34.  The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text messages demonstrates that  Defendant utilized an ATDS in transmitting the messages.    35.  The text messages originated from telephone number 954-945-7909, a number  which upon information and belief is owned and operated by Defendant.   36.  The number used by Defendant (954-945-7909) is known as a “long code,” a  standard 10-digit phone number that enabled Defendant to send SMS text messages en masse, while  deceiving recipients into believing that the messages were personalized and sent from a telephone  number operated by an individual.   38.  To send the text messages, Defendant used a messaging platform (the  “Platform”) that permitted Defendant to transmit thousands of automated text messages  without any human involvement.    39.  The Platform has the capacity to store telephone numbers.   40.  The Platform has the capacity to generate sequential numbers.   41.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers in sequential order.   42.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers from a list of numbers.   43.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.   45.  The above execution these instructions occurred seamlessly, with no human  intervention, and almost instantaneously.  Indeed, the Platform is capable of transmitting  thousands of text messages following the above steps in minutes, if not less.   46.  Further, upon information and belief, the Platform “throttles” the transmission  of the text messages depending on feedback it receives from the mobile carrier networks.  In  other words, the platform controls how quickly messages are transmitted depending on  network congestion.  The platform performs this throttling function automatically and does not  allow a human to control the function.   47.  The following graphic summarizes the above steps and demonstrates that the  dialing of the text messages at issue was done by the Platform automatically and without any  human intervention:    49.  Also, Plaintiff estimates that he has wasted approximately 10 seconds reading  Defendant’s unwanted messages, and another 10 seconds clicking the hyperlinks in the  messages and reviewing the information contained within those hyperlinks.     50.  Plaintiff wasted an additional 30 seconds attempting to determine how  Defendant had obtained his cellular telephone number.    51.  Plaintiff also spent time consulting with counsel for the purposes of filing this  suit.    52.  In all, Defendant’s violations of the TCPA caused Plaintiff to waste at least 50  seconds of his time.  This time was spent that Plaintiff could have used to pursue other  personal activities.   53.  Furthermore, Defendant’s text messages took up memory space on Plaintiff’s  cellular telephone, with each message taking up approximately 190 bytes.  The cumulative  effect of unsolicited text messages like Defendant’s poses a real risk of ultimately rendering  the phone unusable for text messaging purposes as a result of the phone’s memory being taken  up.   54.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf  of himself and all others similarly situated.   56.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does  not know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number in the  several thousands, if not more.  60.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If  Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers assigned to  cellular telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims  capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  66.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set  forth herein.   67.  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 … to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular  telephone service ….” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   68.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment having the  capacity to dial numbers without human intervention to make non-emergency telephone calls  to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class defined below.   69.  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 phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the  putative Class when its calls were made.   70.  Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  automatic telephone dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones  of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express written  consent.   72.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to  a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to  an injunction against future calls. Id.  73.  Plaintiff re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-65 as if fully set forth herein.   74.  At all times relevant, Defendant, having been previously sued for violating the  TCPA, knew or should have known that its conduct as alleged herein violated the TCPA.   75.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these calls,  and knew or should have known that its conduct was a violation of the TCPA.   76.  Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class  Members had not given prior express consent to receive its autodialed calls, the Court should  treble the amount of statutory damages available to Plaintiff and the other members of the  putative Class pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.   77.  As a result of Defendant’s violations, Plaintiff and the Class Members are  entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  