10.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of California.  Plaintiff is, and at all  times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (32).   11.  Defendant is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an entity that meets the definition of  “person,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (32).   12.  At all times relevant Defendant conducted business in the State of California and in the  County of San Diego, within this judicial district.   13.  Plaintiff had a credit card that was serviced by Defendant NGI.    14.  Plaintiff did not list a cellular phone number in or on any other documents at any time during  the transaction that resulted in the debt being serviced by Defendant NGI, nor did he verbally  provide NGI with a cellular phone number at any time during the transaction that resulted in  the debt owed to NGI.  Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express consent to call Plaintiff  on his cellular telephone with the use of an autodialer and/or prerecorded message, pursuant  to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A).     15.  On numerous occasions Plaintiff explicitly instructed Defendant NGI not to call him on his  cell phone.    16.  On information and belief Defendant obtained Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number from a  third party, or by “trapping” such number, i.e., making a record of him cell phone number  using caller identification technology, but did not receive that number from Plaintiff.    18.  Such calls were by prerecorded voice message and were made several times per week,  beginning no later than 2012.     19.  The telephone number Defendants and/or their 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).   20.  These telephone calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47  U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(i).   21.  These telephone calls by Defendants and/or their agents violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).   22.  Under the TCPA and pursuant to the FCC’s January 2008 Declaratory Ruling, the burden is  on Defendants to demonstrate that Plaintiff provided express consent within the meaning of  the statute.  23.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of and all others similarly  situated (“the Class”).   24.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the Class, consisting of all persons within the United  States who received any telephone call from Defendant or their agents to said person’s  cellular telephone through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or with an  artificial or prerecorded voice who did not provide prior express consent during the  transaction that resulted in the debt owed, within the four years prior to the filing of the  Complaint in this action.   26.  Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members  number in the tens of thousands, if not more.  Thus, this matter should be certified as a Class  Action to assist in the expeditious litigation of this matter.   27.  Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at least the  following ways: Defendant, either directly or through their agents, illegally contacted Plaintiff  and the Class members via their cellular telephones by using an autodialer and/or with a  prerecorded voice message, 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  during those illegal calls, and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and the Class members.   Plaintiff and the Class members were damaged thereby.   28.  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.   29.  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  disposition of the claims in a class action will provide substantial benefit the parties and the  Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits.  The Class can be identified through  Defendant’s records or Defendant’s agents’ records.   31.  As a person that received numerous calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an  artificial or prerecorded voice, 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.     32.  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.  Because of  the size of the individual Class member’s claims, few, if any, Class members could afford to  seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of herein.   33.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims and claims  involving violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.   35.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though  fully stated herein.   36.  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.   37.  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).  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek  injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future.   38.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.  39.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, of this  Complaint as though fully stated herein.   40.  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.   41.  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 treble damages, as provided by statute, up to $1,500.00,  for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(C).    43.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.  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.   THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  •  As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), Plaintiff  seeks for himself and each Class member $500.00 (five-hundred dollars) in statutory  damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).  •  Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the  future.  •  An award of attorneys’ fees and costs to counsel for Plaintiff and the Class.  •  An order certifying this action to be a proper class action pursuant to Federal Rule of  Civil Procedure 23, establishing an appropriate Class and any Subclasses the Court  deems appropriate, finding that Plaintiff is a proper representative of the Class, and  appointing the lawyers and law firms representing Plaintiff as counsel for the Class.  •  Any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. 