16.  These calls were all in an effort to sell Defendant’s energy services to Plaintiff,  making them advertisements and/or telemarketing.   17.  Accordingly, Defendant was required to obtain prior express written consent prior  to making these autodialed telemarketing calls.   18.  Plaintiff never gave Defendant such consent.   19.  Furthermore, because Plaintiff never agreed to the calls and did not want the calls,  Plaintiff asked Defendant on numerous occasions to stop calling her.   20.  All of these calls were placed using an “automatic telephone dialing system” as  defined at 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) and as explained in subsequent FCC regulations and orders. The  system(s) used by Defendant has/have the capacity to store number and to dial those numbers, or  to produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator.   21.  This is evidenced by:  • The inability to stop the calls;  • The frequency of the calls;  • A brief and unnatural pause from the time Plaintiff answered the calls until the  time Defendant’s agent comes on the line (for example, Defendant would not  appear on the line until Plaintiff’s second “hello”);  • That none of the calls were initiated using human intervention.  • That several of the calls used a prerecorded or artificial voice.   23.  Plaintiff knew that these calls used a prerecorded voice because she is familiar with  normal human interaction, and could tell that the voice on the other line was a recording rather  than a live person with whom she could interact. She was unable to interrupt the voice or get the  voice to deviate from the prerecorded message, as is the case with prerecorded messages.   24.  These calls were not made for any emergency purpose.   25.  Plaintiff has suffered actual injury as a result of Defendant’s telephone calls,  including, but not limited to:  • Device storage;   • Data usage;   • Lost time tending to and responding to the unsolicited calls;  • Depleted battery and cost in charging her phone;  • Tying up of her telephone line;  • Invasion of Privacy;  • Nuisance.   26.  These forms of actual injury are sufficient for Article III standing purposes.   27.  Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages, actual damages, and injunctive relief.   28.  Specifically, Plaintiff is entitled to at least $500 for each call placed to her cellular  telephone in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b).   29.  Plaintiff is also entitled to treble damages for each call made willfully or knowingly  and in violation of the TCPA.   31.   Defendant’s actions were knowing violations of § 227(b) because Defendant knew  it was placing calls to cellular telephones, knew it was using an automatic telephone dialing system,  and knew or should have known it did not have consent.   32.  Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to $1,500 per call for violations of § 227(b).  33.  Plaintiff brings this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of a proposed class,  defined as follows:  Plaintiff and all persons within the United States to whose cellular  telephone number Defendant Direct Energy, L.P. placed, since  October 16, 2013, a telemarketing telephone call using an automatic  telephone dialing system when Defendant’s records show that it  obtained those cellular telephone numbers through the same  method in which it obtained Plaintiff’s telephone number, or  Defendant’s records show a request to stop calling that telephone  number.   34.  Excluded from the class are Defendant and any entities in which Defendant has a  controlling interest; Defendant’s agents and employees; any Judge and Magistrate Judge to whom  this action is assigned and any member of their staffs and immediate families, and any claims for  personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress.   35.  The Class members for whose benefit this action are brought are so numerous that  joinder of all members is impracticable.    37.  The Class is comprised of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals nationwide.   38.  There are common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of the Class  members, including, inter alia, the following:  a. Whether Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system;  b. Whether Defendant took adequate steps to acquire and/or track consent;  c. The purpose(s) of Defendant’s calls;  d. Whether Plaintiff and the Classes were damaged thereby, and the extent of damages  for such violations; and  e. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the  future.   39.  Plaintiff is a member of the class in that Defendant placed a telemarketing call to  her cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system, including calls placed after  Plaintiff asked Defendant to stop calling.   40.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class members’ claims in that they arise from  Defendant’s uniform conduct and are based on the same legal theories as Class members’ claims.    41.  Plaintiff and all putative Class members have also necessarily suffered actual  damages in addition to statutory damages, as all Class members spent time tending to Defendant’s  unwanted calls, suffered depleted battery, and suffered a nuisance and an invasion of their privacy.    43.  Plaintiff will thoroughly and adequately protect the interests of the Class, having  retained qualified and competent legal counsel to represent herself and the Class.   44.  Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class,  thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate for the Class as a whole.   45.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk  of inconsistent or varying adjudications.   46.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy since, inter alia, the damages suffered by each class member make  individual actions uneconomical.   47.  Common questions will predominate, and there will be no unusual manageability  issues.   48.  Plaintiff and the proposed Class incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set  forth herein.   49.  Defendant placed numerous telephone calls to Plaintiff and Class members.   50.  These calls all used an automatic telephone dialing system.   51.  The calls were not made for “emergency purposes” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(i).   52.  All of the calls were telemarketing, in that the calls were meant to sell Defendant’s  services to Plaintiff and putative Class Members.   54.  Furthermore, calls made after the called party asked Defendant to “stop calling”  were made without any form of consent.   55.  Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award of $500 in statutory damages  for each call, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   56.  Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award of treble damages in an amount  up to $1,500 for each telephone call, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).  Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  