30.  NCWC invites third-party companies to sign-up on its website  ncwcinc.com to become marketers of NCWC’s extended car warranty plans.15   31.  In addition, NCWC does telemarketing using its own staff.   32.  In 2010, a Twitter user named Michael Shaftel who had previously posted  about vehicle protection services put up a post about being in the Dominican Republic to  check out call centers:  16   34.  Shaftel himself can be seen on the NCWC Philippines Facebook posing  with different employees that he gave presents to, presumably for sales performance:  18   35.  Based on the above, it is clear that Shaftel is directly involved in the  management of the NCWC Philippines call center that places outbound sales calls to  consumers.   37.  Shaftel and Freiberg should be aware of the unlawful telemarketing that is  being done on behalf of US DEALER SERVICES.    38.  The US DEALER SERVICES Better Business Bureau (“BBB”) is filled  with complaints from consumers about unsolicited calls they received. This is a small  sampling of those BBB complaints, including some direct responses from US DEALER  43.  For months prior to July 2020, Plaintiff received many unsolicited,  unwanted calls from telemarketers regarding extended car warranties.    44.  The calls were pre-recorded, featuring a message about the impending  expiry of Plaintiff’s vehicle.   45.  Plaintiff would press ‘2’ to stop the calls, or whichever number the pre- recorded message would indicate to stop the calls.   46.  Despite these efforts that Plaintiff Gay made to stop the calls, the calls still  continued.   47.  On July 14, 2020 at 9:55 AM, Plaintiff received an unsolicited, pre- recorded call to his cell phone from, or on behalf of US Dealer Services using phone  number 505-336-5396.    48.  The call featured the exact same pre-recorded message that Plaintiff had  heard in the past calls.    49.  This time, to find out who was harassing him with unsolicited calls to his  cell phone, Plaintiff pressed ‘1’ to speak to an agent.    50.  Plaintiff acted like he was interested in getting a quote.    52.  Plaintiff then asked what the company website is and was told he could  visit USDealerServices.com, which is the website for Defendant US Dealer Services    53.  Plaintiff visited this website and confirmed that it was functional and  correct. He then put an end to the call.    54.  Plaintiff Gay never consented to receiving solicitation calls from any of the  Defendants.   55.  Plaintiff was not looking to solicit the services of any extended car  warranty companies.   56.  The unauthorized telephone calls made by and on behalf of the Defendants,  as alleged herein, have harmed Plaintiff Gay in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and  invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his phone, in addition to the  wear and tear on the phones’ hardware (including the phones’ battery) and the  consumption of memory on the phone.   57.  Seeking redress for these injuries, Plaintiff Gay, on behalf of himself and  Classes of similarly situated individuals, bring suit under the Telephone Consumer  Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits unsolicited pre-recorded phone  calls to cellular telephones.  59.  The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, their  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which any Defendant or  its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and  directors; (3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely  request for exclusion from the Classes; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns  of any such excluded persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendants have  been fully and finally adjudicated and/or released. Plaintiff Gay anticipates the need to  amend the Class definitions following appropriate discovery.   60.  Numerosity: On information and belief, there are thousands of members of  the Classes such that joinder of all members is impracticable.    63.  Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification  because the Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to  the Classes as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to  ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Classes and making  final class-wide injunctive relief appropriate. Defendants’ business practices apply to and  affect the members of the Classes uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices  hinges on Defendants’ conduct with respect to the Classes as a whole, not on facts or law  applicable only to Plaintiff. Additionally, the damages suffered by individual members of  the Classes will likely be small relative to the burden and expense of individual  prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendants’ actions. Thus, it would  be virtually impossible for the members of the Classes to obtain effective relief from  Defendants’ misconduct on an individual basis. A class action provides the benefits of  single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.   64.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 63 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference.   65.  Defendants and/or their agents transmitted unwanted solicitation telephone calls  to Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class using a pre-recorded  voice message.    67.  The Defendants have, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). As a result of  Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class are  each entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages, and up to $1,500 in damages, for each violation.  68.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 63 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference.   69.  Defendants and/or their agents made unwanted solicitation telephone calls to  telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded Stop Call  Class after being told to stop calling.    70.  These solicitation telephone calls were made en masse.   71.  The Defendants have, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(b)(1)(B). As a result  of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded Stop Call Class are  each entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages, and up to $1,500 in damages, for each violation.  Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiff’s TCPA Claim   Consistent with Direction Provided by Shaftel and Freiberg, US Dealer Services’  Agents Cold Called Plaintiff’s Cell Phone Number Using a Pre-Recorded message to  Solicit His Business   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Pre-recorded Stop Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Pre-recorded No Consent Class)  