10.  Beginning in or around the fall of 2013, Defendant began to utilize Plaintiff’s  cellular telephone number, ending in 3046, to place virtually daily incessant calls to Plaintiff  pertaining to an alleged debt owed by his son.   11.  Plaintiff was not a borrower, co-signor, or in any other way affiliated with his  son’s alleged loan with Defendant.   12.  Plaintiff never provided Defendant with his cellular telephone number.   13.  During this time, Defendant placed calls on a daily basis, often placing numerous  calls a day.   14.  The calls Defendant placed to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone were placed via an  “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”), as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) as  prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   15.  This ATDS has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be dialed,  using a random or sequential number generator.   16.  The telephone number that Defendant, or its agents, called was assigned to a  cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).   17.  These telephone calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   19.  These telephone calls by Defendant, or its agents, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).  20.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of and all others  similarly situated (“the Class”).   21.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the Class, consisting of all persons within  the United States who received any telephone call/s from Defendant or its agent/s and/or  employee/s to said person’s cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone  dialing system within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint.   22.  Defendant and its 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.   23.  Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at  least the following ways: Defendant, either directly or through its agents, 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, and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff  and the Class members. Plaintiff and the Class members were damaged thereby.   25.  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 or Defendant’s agents’ records.   26.  There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact  involved affecting the parties to be represented. The questions of law and fact to the Class  predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members, including the  following:  a.  Whether, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendant or  its agents placed any calls to the Class (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made  with the prior express consent of the called party) to a Class member using any automatic dialing  system to any telephone number assigned to a cellular phone service;   b.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class members were damaged thereby, and the extent of  damages for such violation; and   c.  Whether Defendant and its agents should be enjoined from engaging in such  conduct in the future.    27.  As persons that received numerous calls from Defendant via an automated  telephone dialing system, 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.   29.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims and  claims involving violations of the TCPA.   30.  A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy. Class-wide damages are essential to induce Defendant to comply with federal law.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate claims  against Defendant is small because the maximum statutory damages in an individual action for  violation of privacy are minimal. Management of these claims is likely to present significantly  fewer difficulties than those presented in many class claims.    31.  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.  32.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully stated herein.   33.  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.   35.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A).  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant Plaintiff and the Class  members the following relief against Defendant:  (a) $500.00 in statutory damages for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(3)(B);  (b) Injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(3)(A); and  (c) Any other relief the Court may deem just and proper.  36.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully stated herein.   37.  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.   38.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et  seq., Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages for each  and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   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.  