(Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. – Telephone Consumer Protection Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   10.  Plaintiff received and listened to the call from Bluegreen on her personal cell  phone.   11.  Plaintiff did not provide Defendant prior express written consent to call her cell  phone. As used herein, the term “prior express written consent” means an agreement signed by  the recipient containing a clear and conspicuous disclosure informing the recipient that she will  receive phone calls from Bluegreen from an automatic telephone dialing system and informing  her that she is not required to sign such an agreement as a condition of purchasing any property  or goods.   12.  Defendant placed calls soliciting membership for its vacation club to Plaintiff and  members of the proposed class without their prior express written consent.  13.  Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(a) and 23(b)(3):   "All persons in the United States who received one or more  unauthorized phone calls from Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited,  Inc."   15.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class in that they all  received phone calls from Defendant without providing their express written consent as defined  by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (f)(8).  Plaintiff’s claims and the claims of the proposed class are based  on the same legal theories and arise from the same unlawful conduct, resulting in the same injury  to Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class.   16.  There are common questions of law and fact involved affecting the parties to be  represented, including:  a. Whether Defendant called members of the proposed class without obtaining their  prior written consent, including a signed agreement with the disclosures required  by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a)(2) and (f)(8);  b. Whether Defendant called members of the proposed class using an automatic  telephone dialing system;  c. Whether the calls encourage the purchase of Defendant’s services and products;  d. Whether Defendant’s conduct violates 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A);  e. Whether Defendant’s conduct violates the rules and regulations implementing the  TCPA; and,  f. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class are entitled to increased  damages based on the willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.   18.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel competent and  experienced in collective action litigation.   19.  References to Plaintiff in this complaint include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  20.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully  herein.   21.  The TCPA defines an “automatic telephone dialing system” as “equipment that  has the capacity… to store or produce numbers to be called, using a sequential number generator;  and to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a)(1).   22.  The TCPA defines a “telephonic solicitation” as a “call or message for the  purpose of encouraging the purchase of goods, or service, which is transmitted to any person.”  47 U.S.C. § 227 (a)(4).   23.  The Federal Communications Commission’s Regulations implementing the  TCPA provide that telephone solicitations cannot be made to a recipient without the recipient’s  “prior express written consent.”  See FCC 12-21, CG Docket 02-278 (effective October 16,  2013); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a)(2).   25.  The Code of Federal Regulations further provides that the written agreement  required to obtain “prior written consent” must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure  informing the person signing that (1) by executing the agreement, such person authorizes the  seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the signatory telemarketing calls using an automatic  telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; and (2) the person is not required  to sign the agreement (directly or indirectly), or agree to enter into such an agreement as a  condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (f)(8)(i)(A)-(B).   26.  The TCPA provides for a private right of action and statutory damages of at least  $500 per violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(3).   27.  Defendant placed phone calls to Plaintiff and members of the proposed class  using equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a  random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.   28.  Defendant made calls nationwide to members of the proposed class despite not  having prior express written consent from the class members to call them.  It would be  impracticable for Defendant to make these calls without using the automatic telephone dialing  system described in the previous paragraph.   30.  By calling Plaintiff and members of the proposed class who had not granted  Defendant their prior express written consent by signing agreements containing the disclosures  described above, Defendant violated the express provisions of the TCPA, including 47 U.S.C. §  227 (b)(1)(A)(iii) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a)(2) and (f)(8).   31.  Defendant knew or should have known that the calls placed to Plaintiff and  members of the proposed class were telephone solicitations and that Plaintiff and members of the  proposed class did not provide prior written consent, as described above, authorizing Defendant  to call them.   32.  Plaintiff and the proposed class are entitled to damages of $500.00 per call placed  by Defendant and up to $1,500.00 per call if the Court finds that Defendant willfully violated the  7.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully  herein.   9.  On or about May 17, 2016, Bluegreen called Plaintiff while she was in New  Orleans, Louisiana, informing her that she was a finalist of a sweepstakes for $47,000, and  offered her a vacation in exchange for a deposit to hold the reservation.    