16.  Defendant Agentra, Defendant Data LP, and Defendant ILH sell and provide health  insurance. (the “Health Insurance Defendants”).   17.  Defendant Nunez sells its services in connecting property owners with purchasers.   18.  To increase their sales and avoid paying for more expensive forms of advertising,  Defendants called and played prerecorded voice messages to thousands or possibly tens of thousands of  phones at once.     20.  Unfortunately, Defendants failed to obtain consent from Plaintiff and the Class before  bombarding their phones with illegal prerecorded voice messages.  21.  On March 19, 2019, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant Nunez and/or his agents  from 901-250-0463.     22.  When Plaintiff listened to the message, Plaintiff heard a prerecorded voice advertising  Nunez’s services connecting property owners to purchasers.     23.  On April 4, 2019 at 10:17 a.m., Plaintiff received a call from the Health Insurance  Defendants and/or their agents on Plaintiff’s cell phone from 970-713-2254.   24.  When Plaintiff answered the phone, Plaintiff heard a prerecorded voice message  advertising Defendants’ health insurance plans.   25.  When Plaintiff responded to the automated prompt, Plaintiff was connected with the  Health Insurance Defendants.   26.  Plaintiff never consented to receive calls from Defendants.  Plaintiff has no relationship  with Defendants and has never requested that Defendants contact him in any manner.  28.  The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding  over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants’ subsidiaries, parents,  successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or their parents have a controlling  interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (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 Defendants’  counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.   29.  Numerosity: The exact number of the Class members is unknown and not available to  Plaintiff, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief, Defendants  placed telephone calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the Class. Members of  the Class can be identified through Defendants’ records.   30.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Class, in  that Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ uniform wrongful  conduct and unsolicited telephone calls.   31.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the  interests of the other members of the Class. Plaintiff’s claims are made in a representative capacity on  behalf of the other members of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the interests of the  other members of the proposed Class and is subject to no unique defenses. Plaintiff has retained  competent counsel to prosecute the case on behalf of Plaintiff and the proposed Class.  Plaintiff and  Plaintiff’s counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the  Class and have the financial resources to do so.    32.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendants have 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. Defendants’ practices challenged herein apply to and affect the Class  members uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinge on Defendants’ conduct with  respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.   34.  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 as 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 Defendants’ actions. Thus, it would be virtually  impossible for the individual members of the Class to obtain effective relief from Defendants’  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 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 ensured.  35.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   36.  Defendants and/or its agent placed telephone calls to Plaintiff’s and the Class members’  cellular telephones without having their prior express written consent to do so.   38.  Defendants played a prerecorded voice message to the cell phone and/or residential  phones of Plaintiff and the Class members as proscribed by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   39.  As a result of its unlawful conduct, Defendants repeatedly invaded Plaintiff’s and the  Class’s personal privacy, causing them to suffer damages and, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), entitling  them to recover $500 in civil fines for each violation and an injunction requiring Defendants to stop  their illegal calling campaign.   40.  Defendants and/or its agent made the violating calls “willfully” and/or “knowingly” under  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   41.  If the court finds that Defendants willfully and/or knowingly violated this subsection, the  court may increase the civil fine from $500 to $1500 per violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  