13.  Level 3 is an international communications company offering a wide-range of  services for its clients.   14.  Upon information and belief, either through its own telemarketing operations or a  third-party, Defendant has made thousands of Robocalls and telemarketing calls to consumers'  cellular telephones throughout the United States.   15.  Plaintiff and Class Members have received more than one unsolicited  telemarketing call within a 12-month period.   17.  A simple internet search shows this number IS  related to Level 3  Communications, LLC in Rogers, AR.   18.  Just a few weeks later, on or about March 5, 2013 around 2:50 pm, Defendant  placed a second call to Plaintiffs cellular telephone from 479-935-1122. When Plaintiff  answered the phone, he heard a pre-recorded message about automobile insurance. Plaintiff then  called the number back and received a message indicating that the number he had called was not  a valid number.   19.  A simple internet search shows this number Is related to Level 3  Communications, LLC in Rogers, AR.   20.  Upon information and belief, Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing  system to generate consumers' telephone numbers.   21.  Plaintiffs cellular telephone numbers were at all relevant times registered on the  national Do Not Call registry.   23.  The TCPA was designed to protect consumers, Plaintiff, and the putative Class  from these kinds of calls.  24.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf all others similarly situated  pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. This action satisfies the numerosity,  commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of Rule 23.   25.  Plaintiff seeks certification for the following class ("the Class" or "Class"):  All natural persons residing in the United States who received a  telephone call, made by or on behalf of Defendant, within the four  years prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint, featuring an  artificial voice or pre-recorded message.   26.  Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside  over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class;  (c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases of all their  class claims; and (d) Defendant's employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and  their family members.   27.  Numerosity. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable. At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact size of each Class. Based on  information and belief, the Class is comprised of at least thousands of members so as to render  joinder of all Class Members impracticable. Class Members can be identified through  Defendant's records.   29.  Typicality. Plaintiffs claims are typical ofthe other Class Members' claims. As  described herein, Plaintiff and Class Members sustained damages arising from Defendant's  wrongful conduct and unsolicited telephone calls. Defendant uniformly violated the TCP A by  engaging in the conduct as described herein, and these violations had the same effect on each  member of the Class.   30.  Adequacy. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because he fits  within the Class definition and his interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of  the Class he seeks to represent. Plaintiff will prosecute this action vigorously for the benefit of  the entire Class. Plaintiff is represented by experienced and able attorneys. Class counsel have  litigated numerous class actions and complex cases, and Plaintiffs counsel intend to prosecute  this action vigorously for the benefit of the entire Class. Plaintiff and class counsel can and will  fairly and adequately protect the interests of all of the members of the Class.   32.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation  contained above, as though fully set forth herein.   33.  The allegations in this cause of action are brought on behalf of Class Members  who received an unsolicited telephone call to their cellular phones from Defendant, or on behalf  of Defendant, that included a pre-recorded or artificial voice message.   34.  Defendant made unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff's and Class Members'  telephone numbers without their prior express consent.   35.  Defendant utilized artificial or pre-recorded voice messages when making the  telephone calls.   37.  By making these unsolicited calls, or allowing them to be made on Defendant's  behalf, containing artificial or pre-recorded voice message without the Plaintiffs or Class  Members' prior express consent, and by utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system,  Defendant has violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(l)(B) and§ 227(b)(l)(A)(iii).   38.  Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other Class Members, seeks an  injunction under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A) enjoining Defendant's unlawful telemarketing  practices.   39.  Additionally, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other Class Members, under 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), seeks an award of statutory damages of at least $500 for each of  Defendant's violations of the TCP A and for the actual damages suffered in the form of monies  paid to receive the unsolicited telephone calls.   40.  If this Court should find that Defendant's actions were willful and knowing, it  may, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), award treble damages recoverable by Plaintiff and Class  Members.  Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 USC§ 227(b)  