10.  The calls Defendant placed or caused to be placed qualify therefore as  telemarketing calls where Defendant was offering its services.    33.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   42.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 41 as fully set forth  herein.   43.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) is a regulation prescribed under 47 U.S.C. § 227.   44.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice…to any telephone  number assigned to a cellular telephone service…” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   45.  Defendant made unsolicited calls to Plaintiff’s and the class members’ cellular  telephones, using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.   46.  The calls were made without the Plaintiff’s and the class members’ prior express  written consent, and were not made for any emergency purpose.   47.  Defendant’s violation of the TCPA resulted in an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy  and right to enjoy the full utility of her cellular device; a legally protected interest.   51.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 41 as fully set forth  herein.   52.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) is a regulation prescribed under 47 U.S.C. § 227.  It is a violation of the TCPA to “initiate any telephone solicitation to: (2) A residential  telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call  registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations …” 47 C.F.R. §   6.  Plaintiff, at all times relevant herein, is and was the user, with sole dominion and  control, of a cellular telephone assigned the number, ###-###-1014 and of her landline telephone  number ###-###-6522.   7.  On or about February 2010, Plaintiff started receiving unsolicited autodialed calls  on both her cellular telephone and landline phone from multiple different telephone numbers all  assigned to Wells Fargo.    8.  The telephone calls Plaintiff received regarded a home loan for “Ruth Phillips.”  Wells Fargo was offering to lower the price or refinance a home mortgage.    9.  Defendant also left some voice records on Plaintiff’s voice mail box, one of which  had the following content:  Hi Ruth, good afternoon, Ida Clairemont with Wells Fargo. I just wanted to thank  you again for banking with us. I just wanted to see if everything is okay with  regard to your mortgage. I was looking at your mortgage and it looks like we can  possibly reduce that rate for you. If you want to do maybe a free annual mortgage  review. If you want to do that please give a call back.    Violation of the TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)   Violation of the TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e)  