10.  Unfortunately for consumers, Defendant utilized (and continues to utilize) a  sophisticated telephone dialing system to call homeowners en masse promoting its services.   11.  Unfortunately, in Defendant’s overzealous attempts to market its services, it  placed (and continues to place) phone calls to consumers who never provided it with consent to  call and to consumers with whom it had no relationship. Worse yet, Defendant placed (and  continues to place) repeated and unwanted calls to consumers whose phone numbers are listed on  the National Do Not Call Registry. Consumers place their phone numbers on the National Do  Not Call Registry for the express purpose of avoiding unwanted telemarketing calls like those  alleged here.   12.  Not surprisingly, Defendant’s practices have led to significant backlash from  4  consumers:1  • Yep someone called me at 730 this morning and stated they were Slomins  Alarm.. I called them back to remove my # & was told that someone added my  # on their account # which I don't know who it is and they can't remove your#  unless you know who the person who has the acct to take you off  • We get many calls from Slomins on several numbers.  This is one of them.  • These people call everyday and do not know how to take no for an answer. The  gentleman most recently was very rude and pushy to the point Im ready to  contact the Attorney General and file suit against them  • Constantly getting calls on a number that I never even signed up for anything  with.  • Never answer the calls but frankly, it's getting annoying at this point.  • Number has called later in the evening (8, 830, and 930) and when picked up  the other side hangs up.  • Slomins oil heating company keeps calling my cell phone continuosly! I told  them i dont own a home and im not interested and they still keep calling!!!!  21.  Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on  behalf of himself and a Class of similarly situated individuals, defined as follows:  All individuals in the United States who: (1) received more than one telephone  call made by or on behalf of Defendant within a 12-month period; (2) promoting  Defendant’s products or services; (3) to a telephone number that had been  registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days; and (4)  for whom Defendant has no record of consent to place such calls.  The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over  this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant; Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents,  successors, and predecessors; any entity in which Slomin’s or its parents have a controlling  6  interest; and the current or former employees, officers, and directors of Defendant, its parents, or  any entity in which Slomin’s or its parents have a controlling interest; (3) persons who properly  execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this  matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel  and Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any  such excluded persons.   22.  Numerosity: The exact size of the Class is unknown and not available to Plaintiff  at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief,  Defendant made telephone calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the  Class. Members of the Class can be easily identified through Defendant’s records.    23.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class  include, but are not necessarily limited, to the following:  (a)  Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA;  (b)  Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to consumers  whose telephone numbers were registered with the National Do Not Call  Registry;   (c)   Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to consumers  who did not previously provide Defendant and/or its agents with prior  express consent to receive such phone calls; and  (d)   Whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.  7   24.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the  Class. Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages as a result of Defendant’s uniform wrongful  conduct toward Plaintiff and the Class.    25.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class, and he has retained counsel competent and experienced in  complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant  has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.    26.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Class as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible  standards of conduct toward the Class members and making final injunctive relief appropriate  with respect to the Class as a whole. Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to and affect  the Class members uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s  conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.   27.  Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because class  proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy given that joinder of all parties is impracticable. The damages suffered by the  individual members of the Class will likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and  expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions.  Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Class to obtain effective  relief from Defendant’s misconduct. Even if members of the Class could sustain such individual  litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action, because individual litigation would  increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal and factual controversies  8  presented in this Complaint. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management  difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and  comprehensive supervision by a single court. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be  fostered and uniformity of decisions will be ensured.  28.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   29.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) provides that any “person who has received more than one  telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the  regulations prescribed under this subsection may” bring a private action based on a violation of  said regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to  avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object.   30.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation—47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)—provides that  “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone  subscriber who has registered his or his telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of  persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the Federal  Government.” See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c).   31.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e) provides that 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200(c) and (d) “are  applicable to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to  wireless telephone numbers to the extent described in the Commission’s Report and Order, CG  Docket No. 02-278, FCC 03-153, ‘Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act of 1991,’” and the Commission’s Report and Order, in turn, provides  as follows:  9  The Commission’s rules provide that companies making telephone solicitations  to residential telephone subscribers must comply with time of day restrictions  and must institute procedures for maintaining do-not-call lists. For the reasons  described above, we conclude that these rules apply to calls made to wireless  telephone numbers. We believe that wireless subscribers should be afforded the  same protections as wireline subscribers.   32.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate  any call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or  entity has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive  telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must  meet the following minimum standards:  (1) Written policy. Persons or entities making calls for telemarketing purposes  must have a written policy, available upon demand, for maintaining a do-not- call list.  (2) Training of personnel engaged in telemarketing. Personnel engaged in any  aspect of telemarketing must be informed and trained in the existence and use of  the do-not-call list.  (3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or entity making a  call for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such a call is made)  receives a request from a residential telephone subscriber not to receive calls  from that person or entity, the person or entity must record the request and place  the subscriber’s name, if provided, and telephone number on the do-not-call list  at the time the request is made. Persons or entities making calls for  telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such calls are made) must honor a  residential subscriber’s do-not-call request within a reasonable time from the  date such request is made. This period may not exceed thirty days from the date  of such request . . . .   (4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or entity making a call  for telemarketing purposes must provide the called party with the name of the  individual caller, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is  being made, and a telephone number or address at which the person or entity  may be contacted. The telephone number provided may not be a 900 number or  any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission  charges.  (5) Affiliated persons or entities. In the absence of a specific request by the  subscriber to the contrary, a residential subscriber’s do-not-call request shall  10  apply to the particular business entity making the call (or on whose behalf a call  is made), and will not apply to affiliated entities unless the consumer reasonably  would expect them to be included given the identification of the caller and the  product being advertised.  (6) Maintenance of do-not-call lists. A person or entity making calls for  telemarketing purposes must maintain a record of a consumer’s request not to  receive further telemarketing calls. A do-not-call request must be honored for 5  years from the time the request is made.   33.  Defendant made more than one unsolicited telephone call to Plaintiff and  members of the Class within a 12-month period without their prior express consent to place such  calls. Each such call was directed to a telephone number that had been registered with the  National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days. Plaintiff and members of the Class never  provided any form of consent to receive telephone calls from Defendant and/or Defendant does  not have a record of consent to place telemarketing calls to them.    34.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by initiating calls for telemarketing  purposes to residential and wireless telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff and the Class,  without instituting procedures that comply with the regulatory minimum standards for  maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls.   35.  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Class received  more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf of Defendant in  violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as  alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Class suffered actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. §  227(c), are each entitled to, inter alia, receive at least $500 in damages for each such violation of  9.  Slomin’s is a home services company primarily operating out of the mid-Atlantic  region, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Georgia, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,  and Washington, D.C. Within this area, Slomin’s offers homeowners home security systems,  heating oil, and home cooling products.   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  