12.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiff asserts the following Factual Allegations,  which in addition to other facts, support Plaintiff’s causes of action set out herein.    14.  Beginning in or around April 2016, Defendant called Plaintiff on her cellular  telephone number ending in “1651” using an automatic dialing and/or predictive dialer system  (“ATDS”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), and prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   15.  Defendant called Plaintiff from telephone number: “(800) 650-2951.”   16.  At no time did Plaintiff have a business relationship with Defendant.   17.  In addition, at no time did Plaintiff consent for Defendant to place telephone calls  on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.   18.  Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff never entered into a business relationship  with Defendant nor consented to receive calls from Defendant, Plaintiff received the following  non-exclusive list of calls from Defendant:  • On or about April 4, 2016, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant at or around 4:19 p.m.  • On or about April 15, 2016, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant at or around 9:40 p.m.  • On or about May 12, 2016 Plaintiff received a call from Defendant at or around 4:15 p.m.  • On or about May 20, 2016, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant at or around 2:51 p.m.   19.  Tired of the persistent and unsolicited calls, in or around late 2016, Plaintiff asked  Defendant to “stop calling,” thereby revoking any type of prior express consent, if any prior  express consent ever existed to call her cellular telephone number.   20.  The calls by Defendant to Plaintiff’s cellular phone continued, despite Plaintiff’s  oral revocation at said time.     21.  Specifically, upon information and belief, Defendant called Plaintiff two times per  day – every other day after Plaintiff revoked consent to receive calls from Defendant.   22.  Upon information and belief, the ATDS used by Defendant has the capacity to store  or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.   23.  The ATDS used by Defendant also has the capacity to, and does, call telephone  numbers from a list of databases of telephone numbers automatically and without human  intervention.   25.  As already mentioned, Plaintiff at no time provided “prior express consent,” written  or otherwise, for Defendant to place telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone with an ATDS  as proscribed under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   26.  Plaintiff had not provided her cellular telephone number to Defendant.  Plaintiff  was not a customer of Defendant.  Plaintiff had no “established business relationship” with  Defendant, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a)(2).    27.  These telephone calls made by Defendant were in violation of 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1).  40.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the Class, consisting of: “All persons  within the United States who had or have a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, who  received at least one telephone call using an ATDS from Defendant, or their agents calling on  behalf of Defendant, between the date of filing this action and the four years preceding, where  such calls were placed for the purpose of marketing, to non-customers of Defendant, at the time of  the calls.”   41.  Defendant and their employees or agents are excluded from the Class.  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 this matter.   42.   Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at least  the following ways: Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff and the Class members via their cellular  telephones thereby causing Plaintiff and the Class members to incur certain cellular telephone  charges or reduce cellular telephone time for which Plaintiff and the Class members previously  paid, by having to retrieve or administer messages left by Defendant or its agents, during those  illegal calls, and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and the Class members.  Plaintiff and the  Class members were damaged thereby.   43.  This suit seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury  on behalf of the Class and it expressly is not intended to request any recovery for personal injury  and claims related thereto.  Plaintiff reserves the right to expand the Class definition to seek  recovery on behalf of additional persons as warranted as facts are learned in further investigation  and discovery.   44.  The joinder of the Class members is impractical and the disposition of their claims  in the Class action will provide substantial benefits both to the parties and to the Court.  The Class  can be identified through Defendant’s records and/or Defendant’s agent’s records.   46.  As a person who received calls from Defendant in which Defendant used an ATDS,  without Plaintiff’s prior express consent, Plaintiff is asserting claims that are typical of the Class.   Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class in that Plaintiff  has no interests antagonistic to any member of the Class.   47.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class have all suffered irreparable harm as a result  of the Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct.  Absent a class action, the Class will continue  to face the potential for irreparable harm.  In addition, these violations of law will be allowed to  proceed without remedy and Defendant will likely continue such illegal conduct.  The size of Class  member’s individual claims causes, few, if any, Class members to be able to afford to seek legal  redress for the wrongs complained of herein.   48.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims and  claims involving violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.   50.  Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making  appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as  a whole.  51.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   52.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitutes 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.   53.  As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff  and the Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   54.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.  55.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   56.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute 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.   58.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.  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.  