12.  Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of Missouri who resides in  Joplin, Missouri, and is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).   13.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and regular user of the cellular telephone number at  issue, (417) xxx-1968.   14.  Thus, Plaintiff is the “called party” within the meaning of the TCPA.     15.  Defendant Skyline Metrics, LLC (“Skyline”) is a Virginia limited liability  company with its principal place of business in Roanoke, Virginia, and is a “person” as defined  by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).     16.  Skyline conducts business under the fictitious name “OnceDriven,” which Skyline  has registered with the State of Virginia.   17.  On or about May 9, 2018, Plaintiff listed his vehicle for sale on Cars.com.  The  Cars.com terms and conditions provide, inter alia, “Prohibited Activities The following is a  partial list of the kinds of activities that are prohibited on or through the Site: . . . (j) engaging in  commercial activities and/or sales without prior written consent, such as contests sweepstakes,  barter, advertising and pyramid schemes; . . . (l) using any robot, spider or other automated  device, or  a manual process, to monitor or copy web pages or the Content contained in the Site  or for any other unauthorized purpose without the prior expressed written permission[.]”     19.  On or about May 11, 2018, Plaintiff listed his vehicle for sale on Craigslist.org.   Plaintiff’s telephone number was not provided in this listing.  In the listing, Plaintiff made clear  that he did not want and was not authorizing any telemarketing or advertising calls, stating “DO  37.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in  paragraphs 1 through 36.   38.  Defendant made calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number using an artificial or  prerecorded voice without Plaintiff’s prior express consent.   39.  The subject calls were not placed for emergency purposes within the meaning of  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   40.  Defendant willfully and knowingly violated the TCPA, including 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(iii), each time it made a call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number using an  artificial or prerecorded voice without Plaintiff’s prior express consent.   41.  The subject calls and messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number advertised  the commercial availability of Defendant’s services, and therefore “included or introduced an  advertisement” within the meaning of the TCPA.   42.  The subject calls and messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number were for  the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, Defendant’s services, and  therefore constitute “telemarketing” within the meaning of the TCPA.   43.  Defendant did not have Plaintiff’s “prior express written consent,” as defined by  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(8), to make the subject calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number.   45.  As a result of Defendant’s illegal conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the Class  and each Subclass suffered actual damages and, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), are entitled to,  inter alia, a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.   46.  Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass members are also entitled to and do seek  injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from violating the TCPA in the future.  47.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all  other paragraphs as if fully stated herein.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others  similarly situated, brings the above claims on behalf of a Class and Subclass.   48.  In this case, Plaintiff seeks to certify the Class and Subclass, subject to  amendment, as follows:   49.  The Class consists of:  (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone  number (3) Defendant placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) about  Defendant’s services regarding the sale of a vehicle (5) using an artificial  or prerecorded voice (6) within 4 years of the complaint (7) where  Defendant did not have express written consent to call said cellular  telephone number.  The Scraper Subclass consists of:  (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone  number (3) Defendant placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) about  Defendant’s services regarding the sale of a vehicle (5) using an artificial  or prerecorded voice (6) within 4 years of the complaint (7) after that  person placed an advertisement on an Internet website such as  Craigslist.org or Cars.com in connection with the sale of a vehicle.   51.  Plaintiff is presently unaware of the exact number of members in the Class and  each Subclass, but based upon the size and scope of Defendant’s business and the nature of the  artificial or prerecorded voice messages, Plaintiff reasonably believes that the Class and Subclass  members number, at a minimum, in the thousands.   52.  Plaintiff and all members of the Class and each Subclass have been harmed by  Defendant’s actions.   53.  This Class Action Complaint seeks money damages and injunctive relief.   54.  The joinder of all Class and Subclass members is impractical due to the size and  relatively modest value of each individual claim.   55.  The disposition of the claims in a class action will provide substantial benefit to  both the parties and the Court in avoiding multiplicity of identical suits.  The Class and each  Subclass can be easily identified through records maintained by Defendant or its agents.   57.  As a person who received calls that were made using an artificial or prerecorded  voice without prior express consent, all within the meaning of the TCPA, Plaintiff asserts claims  that are typical of the members of the Class and each Subclass.   58.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class  and each Subclass, and Plaintiff does not have an interest that is antagonistic to any member of  the Class or any Subclass.   59.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims  involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes such as the TCPA.   60.  A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.   61.  Class-wide relief is essential to compel Defendant to comply with the TCPA.  The  interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate claims against  Defendant is small because the statutory damages in an individual action for violation of the  TCPA are small.   63.  Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class and each  Subclass, thereby making final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect  to the Class and each Subclass as a whole appropriate.  