10.  Within four years prior to the filing of this action, Defendants—whether directly,  through affiliate marketers, or otherwise—used equipment to dial the residential and cellular  telephone numbers of potential customers, including Kenzik.  On information and belief, the  dialing equipment used had the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.   11.  Many if not all of these calls also utilized artificial and/or prerecorded voice  messages to market Kiley & Kiley’s services to lower interest rates on credit card debt and more  favorable payment terms.   12.  Unfortunately, many of the people whose residential and cell phones were called  as a result of Defendants’ telemarketing practices never actually consented to receive such calls,  and many numbers were also called despite direct requests to stop and/or registration with the  National Do Not Call Registry.   13.  These are unsolicited “cold calls” made for the purpose of generating leads for  sales of Defendants’ products and/or services.  On information and belief, many of the  individuals targeted by Kiley & Kiley and its lead generators were called more than once.   14.   Kenzik received multiple prerecorded message calls from Kiley & Kiley and  Kiley & Kiley failed to honor the National Do Not Call Registry or even direct requests that the  calls stop.    27.  Starting on or about June 3, 2014, and likely even earlier, Kenzik received calls to  her residential telephone line—sometimes multiple times a day—using prerecorded voice  messages to advertising its free credit card processing services.   29.  Upon information and belief, this statement is true:  The calls were made by Kiley  & Kiley in order to promote its goods and services.  Alternatively, the calls were made on behalf  of Kiley & Kiley.   30.  As evidenced by, among other things, the large volume of calls and their use of  prerecorded voice messages, many if not all of these calls from or on behalf of Defendants were  made using an automatic telephone dialing system, equipment having the capacity to dial  Kenzik’s number without human intervention. On information and belief, no human being  pressed the digits of Kenzik’s residential telephone number into a phone to make any call to  Kenzik.  On further information and belief, at least some of Kiley & Kiley’s lead generation  telemarketing calls were made using an automatic telephone dialing system service.    31.  Kenzik received calls on at least the following dates: June 3, 2014 June 4, 2014,  June 18, 2014, June 23, 2014, June 25, 2014, June 26, 2014, June 30, 2014, July 1, 2014, July 14,  2014, July 16, 2014, July 17, 2014, July 22, 2014, July 29, 2014, Aug 1, 2014, Aug 4, 2014, Aug  5, 2014, Aug 6, 2014, Aug 8, 2014, Aug 9, 2014, Aug 11, 2014, Aug 12, 2014, Aug 13, 2014,  Aug 14, 2014, Aug 15, 2014, and Aug 18, 2014.  Discovery from Defendants or third parties that  work with Defendants to promote their goods and services will almost certainly show that there  were more calls.   32.  Kenzik has never given Defendants permission to contact her residential  telephone line, whether through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system, prerecorded or  artificial voice, or otherwise.  At all relevant times Kenzik’s number was registered with the  National Do-Not-Call Registry.   34.  At all times relevant, Kenzik’s residential phone line was also called after being  registered with the National Do Not Call Registry.   35.  Kenzik was damaged by Defendants’ calls.  Her privacy was wrongfully invaded,  and Kenzik has become understandably aggravated with having to deal with the frustration of  repeated, unwanted phone calls forcing her to divert attention away from her work and other  activities, especially given Defendants’ complete disregard of her requests to cease and the  registration of her number with the National Do Not Call Registry.  36.  Kenzik realleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein. Kenzik brings this Count I on behalf of herself and the Class defined below, only.   37.  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).   38.  “Automatic telephone dialing system” refers to any equipment that has the  “capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.”  See, e.g., Hicks v. Client Servs., Inc.,  No. 07-61822, 2009 WL 2365637, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2009) (quoting In re Rules and  Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991: Request of ACA Int’l for  Clarification and Declaratory Ruling, 23 FCC Rcd 559, 566 (2007).   40.  These calls were made without regard to whether or not Defendants had first  obtained the express consent of the called party to make such calls.  In fact, Defendants did not  have prior express permission or invitation to call the residential phone line of Plaintiff and the  residential or cellular phone lines of other members of the putative Class when their calls were  made.   41.  As such, Defendants’ call were willful or, at a minimum, negligent. See 47 U.S.C.  § 312(f)(1).   42.  Defendants have, therefore, violated Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by  using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice to make non-  emergency telephone calls to the residential phone line of Kenzik and the residential or cellular  phone lines of the other members of the putative Class without their prior express permission or  invitation.   43.  As a result of Defendants’ conduct and pursuant to Section 227(b)(3) of the  TCPA, Kenzik and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to  a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation.  Kenzik and the Class are also entitled to  an injunction against future calls.  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).   45.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a class (the “Section 227(b) Class”) defined  as follows:  All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the filing  of this action, Defendants or some person on Defendants’ behalf called  on their residential or cell phone line, using an artificial or prerecorded  voice or device with the capacity to dial numbers without human  intervention, where Defendants’ did not have prior express permission  or invitation from the recipient to make such call.   46.  Upon information and belief, Defendants called more than 100 phone numbers in  the four years prior to the filing of this action utilizing a device with the capacity to dial numbers  without human intervention or a message that had been recorded ahead of time, where  Defendants did not have prior express permission for such call.   48.  Kenzik’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the putative  Class.  The factual and legal bases of Defendants’ liability to Kenzik and the other members of  the putative Class are the same: Defendants violated the TCPA by causing the residential and  cellular telephone number of each member of the putative Class, including Kenzik, to be called  using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice without prior  express permission or invitation.   49.  Kenzik will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.  Kenzik has no  interests that might conflict with the interests of the Class.  Kenzik is interested in pursuing her  claims vigorously, and she has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and complex  litigation, including with regards to the claims alleged herein.   50.  Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy alleged herein.  Such treatment will permit a large number of  similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously,  efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual action  would entail.  There are, on information and belief, thousands of members of the putative Class,  such that joinder of all members is impracticable.   52.  Defendants have acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Kenzik  and the other members of the putative Class, thereby making relief appropriate with respect to  the Class as a whole. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the putative  Class, should they even realize that their rights have been violated, would likely create the risk of  inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class that would  establish incompatible standards of conduct.   53.  The identity of the putative Class is, on information and belief, readily identifiable  from the records of Defendants and/or any affiliated marketers.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, LINDA KENZIK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly  situated, demands judgment in her favor and against Defendants, KILEY & KILEY, L.L.C. and  JOHN DOES 1-10, jointly and severally, as follows:  A. That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be properly  maintained as a class action, appoint Kenzik as the representative of the class, and  appoint Kenzik’s counsel as counsel for the class;  B. That the Court Award actual monetary loss from such violations or the sum of  five hundred dollars ($500.00) for  each violation, whichever is greater;   C. That the Court enjoin the Defendants from additional violations; and   D. That the Court award pre-judgment interest, costs and such further relief as the   Court may deem just and proper.   54.  Kenzik realleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein. This Count II is brought on behalf of Kenzik and the Defendant-Specific DNC Class  defined below, only.   55.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make a telephone solicitation to any person that  has asked not to receive such calls. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3).   56.  Telemarketers like Kiley & Kiley must honor a do-not-call request immediately.   In its July 3, 2003, Final Order implementing 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3), the FCC explained:  We note that the Commission’s rules require that entities must record  company- specific do-not-call requests and place the subscriber’s  telephone number on the do-not-call list at the time the request is made.  Therefore, telemarketers with the capability to honor such company- specific do- not-call requests in less than thirty days must do so. We  believe this determination adequately balances the privacy interests of  those consumers that have requested not to be called with the interests of  the telemarketing industry.  Consumers expect their requests not to be called to be honored in a  timely manner, and thirty days should be the maximum administrative  time necessary for telemarketers to process that request.  In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 18 FCC Rcd  14014, 14069-14070 (2003).   57.  Kiley & Kiley claims to be a technologically savvy company.  Upon information  and belief, that claim is true:  Kiley & Kiley had the capacity to cease calling immediately upon  demand, but instead made at least two additional calls to Plaintiff and each of the Defendant- Specific DNC Class members in spite of this.   59.  A private right of action is available for consumers who have received more than  one call within a twelve-month period, in violation of FCC regulations like 47 C.F.R. §   60.  As a result of Defendants’ conduct and pursuant to Section 227(c)(5) of  the TCPA, Kenzik and the other members of the putative Defendant-Specific DNC Class  were harmed and are each entitled to up to $500.00 in damages for each violation, which  amount may be trebled if the violations are proven to have been willful or knowing.  Kenzik and the Defendant-Specific DNC Class are also entitled to an injunction against  future calls. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).  Class Allegations   61.  Kenzik brings this Count on behalf of a class (the “Defendant-Specific  DNC Class”) defined as follows:  All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the filing  of this action, ongoing, Defendants or some person on Defendants’  behalf called at least twice in any twelve month period in order to  promote Kiley & Kiley goods and/or services, where both calls were  made outside a reasonable time after a request that calls to the phone  number stop.   62.  Upon information and belief, Defendants called more than 40 phone numbers at  least twice each in the four years prior to the filing of this action, where the recipient of such call  had previously demanded that further calls promoting Defendants’ goods and/or services cease.   64.  Kenzik’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the putative  Company-Specific DNC Class.  The factual and legal bases of Defendants’ liability to Kenzik  and the other members of the putative Defendant-Specific DNC Class are the same: Defendants  violated the TCPA by causing telemarketing calls to be made to persons after they had requested  not to be called.   64.1200(d)(3).  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   65.  Kenzik will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Defendant-Specific  DNC Class.  Plaintiff has no interest that might conflict with the interests of the Defendant-  Specific DNC Class.  Kenzik is interested in pursuing these claims vigorously, and she has  retained counsel competent and experienced in class and complex litigation, including with  regards to the claims alleged herein.   67.  No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action  that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the  fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.   68.  Defendants have acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Kenzik  and the other members of the Defendant-Specific DNC Class, thereby making relief appropriate  with respect to the Defendant-Specific DNC Class as a whole. Prosecution of separate actions by  individual members of the putative Defendant-Specific DNC Class, should they even realize that  their rights have been violated, would likely create the risk of inconsistent or varying  adjudications with respect to individual members of the Defendant-Specific DNC Class that  would establish incompatible standards of conduct.   70.  Kenzik realleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.  This Count III is brought against Defendants on behalf of Kenzik and the National DNC  Registry Class defined below.   71.  The TCPA provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone  solicitation to … [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 that is maintained by the Federal Government.”  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2); 47  C.F.R. § 64.1200©(2);47 U.S.C. § 227 (c).    72.  Defendants or some party on their behalf initiated more than one telephone  solicitation in a 12-month period to each of the telephone numbers of Kenzik and the other  members of the National DNC Registry Class, despite the fact that Kenzik and the other  members of the National DNC Registry Class had all registered their numbers on the National  Do Not Call Registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations.   73.  Defendants have, therefore, violated Section 227 (c) of the TCPA. See 47 C.F.R.  § 64.1200(c)(2).   75.  On information and belief, because Kenzik has received multiple calls from or  on behalf of Defendants despite having registered with the National Do Not Call Registry,  Defendants willfully and/or knowingly violated the TCPA, such that treble damages are  warranted.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).  Class Action Allegations   76.  Kenzik brings this Count on behalf of a class (the “National DNC Registry  Class”) defined as follows:  All person in the United States to whose telephone number Defendants or  some person on Defendants’ behalf initiated more than one call in any 12- month period within the four years prior to the filing of this action, where  (1) the telephone number was registered on the National Do Not Call  Registry, (2) the calls were made for the purpose of promoting Defendants’  goods and/or services, and (3) Defendants’ records do not contain a signed,  written agreement with the person stating that the person agrees to be  contacted at such number.   77.  Upon information and belief, Defendants caused more than 100 telephone  numbers to each be called more than once within any 12-month period in the four years prior to  the filing of this action for the purpose of promoting Defendants’ goods and/or services, despite  such numbers being registered on the National Do Not Call Registry and the lack of express,  written permission for such calls.   79.  Kenzik s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the putative  Class.  The factual and legal bases of Defendants’ liability to Kenzik and the other members of  the National DNC Registry Class are the same: Defendants violated the TCPA by initiating calls  to the telephone numbers of each member of the putative Class, including Kenzik, despite the fact  that such persons had registered their numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry of persons  who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations.   80.  Kenzik will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the putative Class.   Kenzik has no interests that might conflict with the interests of the Class.  Kenzik is interested in  pursuing her claims vigorously, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and  complex litigation, including with regards to the claims alleged herein.   82.  No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action  that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the  fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.   83.  Defendants have acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Kenzik  and the other members of the Class, thereby making relief appropriate with respect to the Class  as a whole.  Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class, should they  even realize that their rights have been violated, would likely create the risk of inconsistent or  varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class that would establish  incompatible standards of conduct.   9.  Defendant, Kiley & Kiley, is a credit card processing company that provides and  markets services to lower interest rates on credit card debt and more favorable payment terms.   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the National DNC Registry Class)   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Section 227 (b) Class)  