(Invasion of Privacy)   (TCPA Violations)  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as if   ) CASE NO:  SAADIA BOLDEN  on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated  )  consumers  20551 Naumann Avenue  10.  Ms. Bolden believes this to be true, because she could hear delay when she would pick up  a call before an agent came on the line and because of the sheer volume of calls placed to  her.   11.  Credit One was calling Ms. Bolden to collect on an alleged account.   12.  However, Ms. Bolden does not have an account with Credit One.   13.  Moreover, Ms. Bolden never authorized Credit One to call her on her cell phone.   14.  Ms. Bolden requested the calls to cease.  Electronically Filed 01/08/2019 13:40 / / CV 19 909283 / Confirmation Nbr. 1592801 / CLSLP  Nonetheless, Credit One continued to call her at a rate of four to six calls per day (4-6   15.  calls/day), often back-to-back.  For example, on Monday, November 12, 2018, Credit One called Ms. Bolden at   16.  approximately, 4:08 p.m., 4:40 p.m., 5:11 p.m., and 5:45 p.m.  Credit One placed its calls to Ms. Bolden using various different numbers to shield its   17.  identity.  For example, Credit One called Ms. Bolden from lines identified on caller ID as 216-666-  18.  7211, 216-666-7150, 216-666-7180, and 877-825-3242, among other numbers.  During the telephone calls, which Ms. Bolden answered, the callers were always evasive.   19.  Although they might identify themselves as calling from Credit One, they would not  identify the person they were trying to reach and they would provide no information about  the account they were attempting to collect from Ms. Bolden. Moreover, when Ms. Bolden  would try to elicit information, Credit One's representatives would abruptly end the call.  Calls would come back-to-back despite requests for the calls to cease during the   20.  immediately preceding call.  In this manner, Credit One placed well-over 100 unwanted, unauthorized, and harassing   21.  calls to Ms. Bolden over a span of about a month.  Credit One's callers were rude and harassing, and Ms. Bolden felt harassed, annoyed, and   22.  invaded by the calls.  As a result, Ms. Bolden sustained emotional and related physical injury, including, without   23.  limitation, anxiety, frustration, annoyance, inconvenience, and nervousness.  Credit One did not send Ms. Bolden anything in writing.   24.  Electronically Filed 01/08/2019 13:40 / / CV 19 909283 / Confirmation Nbr. 1592801 / CLSLP  25.  their attempt to collect on accounts alleged owed to them in Ohio and nationally.  Credit One does so by using the telephone.   26.  Credit One initiates telephone calls to consumers by an automatic telephone dialing system   27.  and/or using a prerecorded voice.  Credit One fails to properly identify itself and the purposes of its calls to the call recipients.   28.  Credit One makes these calls without the express consent of call recipients.   29.  Even if Credit One received consent at one time, it regularly fails to honor the requests of   30.  recipients to cease the calls.  In connection with the facts, events, and averments herein, Credit One acted willfully and   31.  maliciously, with spite and ill will, and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of call  recipients in general, and Ms. Bolden in particular.  32.  on behalf of herself and two classes of other persons similarly-situated, to remedy the on­ going unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive business practices alleged herein, and to seek  redress on behalf of all those persons who have been harmed thereby.  The first class, the "TCPA Class" shall be defined as all persons, who   33.  a. Credit One called, or caused to be called, on a cell phone in the four  years preceding the filing of the original complaint in this matter; and  b. Where the calls were placed using an automated telephone system or  employed the use of an electronic or prerecorded voice; and  c. Where Credit One did not previously obtain the individual's express  consent to receive the call; or, where such consent was previously  received, but Credit One failed to honor a request to stop calling.  Electronically Filed 01/08/2019 13:40 / / CV 19 909283 / Confirmation Nbr. 1592801 / CLSLP  The second class, the "Invasion of Privacy Class" shall be defined as all persons in Ohio,   34.  who  a. Credit One called, or caused to be called, on a telephone in the two years  preceding the filing of the original complaint in this matter; and  b. Where the Credit One did not previously obtain the individual's express  consent to receive the call; or, where such consent was previously  received, but Credit One failed to honor a request to stop calling.   62.  The class members are so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable.  The exact size of the proposed classes and the identity of the members, believed to be in  the hundreds or thousands, thereof, is readily ascertainable from Credit One's business  records.  There is a community of interest among the members of the proposed classes in that there   63.  are questions of law and fact common to the proposed classes that predominate over  questions affecting only individual members. These questions include but are not limited  to whether, inter alia:  a.  Credit One placed the calls using an automated telephone system or  employ the use of an electronic or prerecorded voice;  b.  Credit One placed calls to cell phones without first obtaining the  express consent of call recipients;  Credit One failed to stop calling consumers upon their requests to  stop;  d.  The conduct described herein violated the TCPA;  e.  The conduct described herein constitutes an invasion of privacy.   64.  Ms. Bolden's claims are typical of those of the classes she seeks to represent, and she will  fairly and adequately represent the interests of the classes. Ms. Bolden is represented by  counsel competent and experienced in both consumer protection and class action litigation.  Electronically Filed 01/08/2019 13:40 / / CV 19 909283 / Confirmation Nbr. 1592801 / CLSLP  A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this   65.  controversy. Because the damages suffered by individual class members may be relatively  small compared to the expense and burden of litigation, it would be impracticable and  economically infeasible for class members to seek redress individually. The prosecution  of separate actions by the individual class members, even if possible, would create a risk  of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members against  Credit One.  66.  fully rewritten herein.  As described above, within the last four years, Credit One called Ms. Bolden and members   67.  of the TCPA Class on their cellular telephones using an ATDS or predictive dialer and/or  by using a prerecorded or artificial voice.  Credit One placed these calls to Ms. Bolden and members of the TCPA Class without their   68.  express permission and/or continued to place these calls after being directed to cease  calling and knowing there was no consent to continue the calls.  As such, each call placed to Ms. Bolden and members of the TCPA Class was made in   69.  violation of the TCPA and is a separate violation thereof.  Ms. Bolden and members of the TCPA Class are entitled to an award of $500 in statutory   70.  damages for each call placed in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(B).  Moreover, because Credit One knowingly placed the calls to the cell phones of Ms. Bolden   71.  and members of the TCPA Class without permission, Ms. Bolden and members of the  Electronically Filed 01/08/2019 13:40 / / CV 19 909283 / Confirmation Nbr. 1592801 / CLSLP  TCPA Class are entitled to treble damages, i.e. $1,500, for each call pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(3)(C).   72.  Credit One's violations of the TCPA were willful and malicious, with spite and ill will,  and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of Ms. Bolden and the Class.  Thus, under the TCPA, Credit One is liable to the Ms. Bolden and the TCPA Class for a   73.  minimum of $500 per phone call and up to $1,500 per call since the calls were made  knowingly.  74.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as if  fully rewritten herein.   75.  By calling Ms. Bolden and members of the Invasion of Privacy Class incessantly and by  calling their telephones without permission as described herein, Credit One intruded into  private lives and activities of Mr. Bolden and class members of the Invasion of Privacy  Class in an outrageous manner and in a manner that would cause (and did cause) mental  suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.   76.  Resultingly, Credit One is liable to Mr. Bolden and members of each class for damages,  punitive damages, and attorney's fees.  On information and belief, Credit One regularly calls consumers and other individuals in   Pursuant to Civ. R. 23 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Ms. Bolden brings this action   Within the past few months, Ms. Bolden received calls on her cell telephone from Credit  One and/or its agents, demanding money in connection with an allegedly-outstanding debt.  Credit One initiated these calls using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or by  9  employing the use of an electronic or prerecorded voice.  