12.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was the sole operator, possessor, and subscriber of  the cellular telephone number ending in 7679.    13.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s number ending in 7679 was assigned to a cellular  telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   14.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was financially responsible for his cellular telephone  equipment and services.    15.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide his cellular phone number to Defendant or  otherwise consent to receive phone calls from Defendant.   16.  In May 2020, Plaintiff started to receive solicitation calls from Defendant to  schedule a health assessment.   18.  Upon answering Defendant’s calls, Plaintiff was required to say “hello” numerous  times before being connected to a live representative.    19.  On multiple occasions, including June 8, 2020 and September 1, 2020, Plaintiff  answered Defendant’s calls and requested that Defendant cease its solicitation calls.   20.  Despite Plaintiff’s multiple requests that the calls cease, Defendant continued its  barrage of solicitation calls, including, but not limited to, calls from the phone numbers (855) 746- 8709 and (855) 215-1831.     21.  In total, Defendant placed dozens of solicitation calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone  after Plaintiff initially requested that the solicitation calls cease in June 2020.     22.  Defendant’s invasive solicitation calls have severely disrupted Plaintiff’s daily life  and general well-being.    23.   Defendant’s phone harassment campaign and illegal telemarketing activities have  caused Plaintiff actual harm, including but not limited to, invasion of privacy, nuisance, wasting  Plaintiff’s time, the increased risk of personal injury resulting from the distraction caused by the  phone calls, decreased daily productivity, aggravation that accompanies unwanted telephone calls,  emotional distress, mental anguish, anxiety, loss of concentration, diminished value and  functionality of his cellular phone, the loss of battery charge, and the per-kilowatt electricity costs  required to recharge his cellular telephone as a result of increased usage of his cellular phone.   24.  Moreover, each time Defendant placed a telephone call to Plaintiff, Defendant  occupied Plaintiff’s cellular phone such that Plaintiff was unable to receive other phone calls or  otherwise utilize his cellular phone while his phone was ringing.    26.  All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as  though fully set forth herein.   27.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3)  individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Putative Class”) defined as follows:  All persons in the United States (1) to whom Defendant placed a phone call relating  to the scheduling of a health assessment; (2) to a phone number assigned to a  cellular phone; (3) without the call recipient’s express consent; (4) using an  automatic telephone dialing system; (4) within four years preceding the date of this  compliant through the date of class certification.   28.  The following individuals are excluded from the Putative Class: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate Judge presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant,  Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or  their 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 Putative Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such  excluded persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally  adjudicated and/or released.    A.  Numerosity   29.  Upon information and belief, the members of the Putative Class are so numerous  that joinder of them is impracticable.   30.  The exact number of the members of the Putative Class is unknown to Plaintiff at  this time and will be determined through targeted discovery.   32.  The members of the Putative Class are identifiable in that their names, addresses,  and telephone numbers can be identified in business records maintained by Defendant.  B.  Commonality and Predominance   33.  There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and  members of the Putative Class.   34.  Those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual  members of the Putative Class.    C.  Typicality   35.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of members of the Putative Class because Plaintiff and  members of the Putative Class were harmed by Defendant’s conduct and thus are entitled to  damages as result of Defendant’s conduct.  D.  Superiority and Manageability   36.  This case is also appropriate for class certification as class proceedings are superior  to all other available methods for the efficient and fair adjudication of this controversy.     37.  The damages suffered by the individual members of the Putative Class will likely  be relatively small, especially given the burden and expense required for individual prosecution.   38.  By contrast, a class action provides the benefits of single adjudication, economies  of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.     39.  Economies of effort, expense, and time will be fostered and uniformity of decisions  ensured.  E.  Adequate Representation   41.  Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Putative Class and Defendant  has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.   42.  Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced counsel in consumer class action  litigation.  43.  All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as  though fully set forth herein.   44.  As pled above, Defendant placed or caused to be placed dozens of non-emergency  calls, including but not limited to the aforementioned calls, to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone,  utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) without his prior consent in violation  of 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(iii).   45.  The TCPA defines ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or  produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B)  to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).   46.  Upon information and belief, based on the lack of prompt human response during  the phone calls in which Plaintiff answered, Defendant used an ATDS to place calls to Plaintiff’s  cellular phone number.     48.  As pled above, Plaintiff never provided Defendant with consent to place calls to his  cellular phone.   49.  Moreover, Plaintiff requested that Defendant’s phone calls cease to no avail.     50.  As pled above, Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant’s solicitation calls to his cellular  phone.   51.  Upon information and belief, Defendant knew its solicitation practices were in  violation of the TCPA, yet continued to employ them to maximize efficiency and profits.      52.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the members of the  Putative Class are entitled to receive $500.00 in damages for each such violation.     Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227 et. seq.)  (On behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Putative Class)  