10. The Defendant would further leave automated, prerecorded messages on the Plaintiff’s cell  phone.  These prerecorded messages would typically state:  “This is Allstate, calling with an important message for Margaret Huwigan (phonetic).  Par  espanol, esprima dos.  If this is Margeret Huwigan, press 1 now.  Otherwise, press 2.  If  we have reached this number in error, please press 3.  I’m sorry, I did not understand the  response.  If this is Margeret Huwigan, press 1 now.  Otherwise, press 2.  If we have  reached this number in error, please press 3.  I’m sorry, I did not understand the response.   If this is Margeret Huwigan, press 1 now.  Otherwise, press 2.  If we have reached this  number in error, please press 3.  I’m sorry, I did not understand the response.  Allstate  appreciates your business.  Goodbye.”     11. The Plaintiff never gave the Defendant his prior, express permission to call his cell phone  via the use of an automated telephone dialing system.  Upon information and belief,  Plaintiff has never provided his cell phone number to Defendant or had any business,  educational or personal relationship with the Defendant.   12. Plaintiff had no wish to be contacted on his cell phone via the use of an autodialer or  prerecorded message, and expressly directed Defendants to stop calling his cell phone  number on numerous occasions.   13. By placing auto-dialed calls and prerecorded messages to the Plaintiff’s cell phone, the  Defendant violated 47 USC §227(b)(A)(iii) which prohibits using any automated telephone  dialing system or an artificial prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a  cellular telephone service when calling to the plaintiff’s cell phone.                                                                                                               15. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as a  member of the proposed class (hereafter “The Class”) defined as follows:  All persons within the United States who received any telephone calls from  Defendant to said person’s cellular telephone made through the use of any  automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded message and such person had  not previously consented to receiving such calls within the four years prior to the  filing of this Complaint   16. Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the Class, consisting of all persons within the  United States who received any telephone calls from Defendant to said person’s cellular  telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or via the  placement of prerecorded messages and such person had not previously not provided their  cellular telephone number to Defendant within the four years prior to the filing of this  Complaint.   17. Defendant, its employees and agents are excluded from The Class.   18. Plaintiff does not know the number of members in The Class, but believes the Class  members number in the thousands, if not more. Thus, this matter should be certified as a  Class Action to assist in the expeditious litigation of the matter.   20. Plaintiff and members of The Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at least the  following ways: Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff and Class members via their  cellular telephones thereby causing Plaintiff and Class members to incur certain charges or  reduced telephone time for which Plaintiff and Class members had previously paid by  having to retrieve or administer messages left by Defendant during those illegal calls, and  invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and Class members.   22. As a person that received numerous calls from Defendant using an automatic telephone  dialing system, without Plaintiff’s prior express consent, Plaintiff is asserting claims that  are typical of The Class.   23. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of The Class.  Plaintiff has retained attorneys experienced in the prosecution of claims arising under the  Telephone Consumer Protection Act and in prosecuting class actions.   24. A class action is superior to other available methods of fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy, since individual litigation of the claims of all Class members is  impracticable. Even if every Class member could afford individual litigation, the court  system could not. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which individual  litigation of numerous issues would proceed. Individualized litigation would also present  the potential for varying, inconsistent, or contradictory judgments and would magnify the  delay and expense to all parties and to the court system resulting from multiple trials of the  same complex factual issues. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action  presents fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and of the  court system, and protects the rights of each Class member.   26. Defendant has acted or refused to act in respects generally applicable to The Class, thereby  making appropriate final and injunctive relief with regard to the members of the California  Class as a whole.  27. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference into this cause of action the allegations set  forth above at Paragraphs 1-26.   28. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple negligent  violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the above cited  provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   29. As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and the  Class Members are entitled an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every  violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   30. Plaintiff and the Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.  31. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference into this cause of action the allegations set  forth above at Paragraphs 1-30.   32. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple knowing  and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of  the above cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   34. Plaintiff and the Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.  6. On information and belief, on a date better known to Defendants, Defendants began their  campaign of communicating with the Plaintiff via the use of an automated telephone  dialing system and prerecorded messages throughout the past four years by calling his cell  phone number of (732)222-2222 numerous times seeking a third party.   7. The Defendant called from numerous phone numbers, including but not limited to 866- 723-8375 and 866-219-1145, which phone numbers belongs to Defendant.   9. Defendant specifically used an automated telephone dialing system and prerecorded  messages to call the Plaintiff on his cell phone on November 29, 2011 and December 20,  2011 amongst numerous other dates, calling the Plaintiff several times per day.   Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. §227 et seq.   Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. §227 et seq.  