12.  Defendant SolarCity is the largest solar energy system installer in the United  States. Since its founding in 2006, SolarCity has installed solar energy systems for over 230,000  customers.   13.  Unfortunately for consumers, Defendant utilized (and continued to utilize) a  sophisticated telephone dialing system to call homeowners en masse promoting its services.   14.  That is, in Defendant’s overzealous attempts to market its services, it placed (and  continues to place) phone calls to consumers that never provided consent to call and to  consumers with whom it had no prior relationship. Worse yet, Defendant placed (and continues  to place) repeated and unwanted calls to consumers whose phone numbers are listed on the  National Do Not Call Registry. Consumers place their phone numbers on the Do Not Call  Registry for the express purpose of avoiding unwanted telemarketing calls like those alleged  here.   16.  In making the calls to consumers cell phones without their prior written express  consent, Defendant used an autodialer in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.   17.  Furthermore, Defendant calls these consumers who have no “established business  relationship” with Defendant and who are registered on the Do Not Call list.   18.  Finally, even when consumers try to opt out of future calls by requesting to never  be called again, Defendant continues to call them.   19.  In making the phone calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendant and/or its agent  utilized an automatic telephone dialing system. Specifically, the hardware and software used by  Defendant (or its agent) has the capacity to store, produce, and dial random or sequential  numbers, and/or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en  masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention. Defendant’s automated dialing  equipment includes features substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch as it is capable  of making numerous calls simultaneously (all without human intervention).    20.  Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) telemarketing calls without  the prior express consent of the call recipients and knowingly continues to call them after it  receives requests to stop. As such, Defendant not only invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiffs  and members of the putative Class but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.  22.  Approximately two years ago, a salesman visited Plaintiff Gibbs offering  SolarCity’s products and services. After some initial interest, Plaintiff Gibbs informed the  salesman that she was not interested in doing business with SolarCity.   23.  Since that visit, Plaintiff Gibbs has been receiving calls from Defendant offering  her their services though she already told them she was not interested.  On the initial calls two  years ago, she informed Defendant that she was not interested and to stop calling her, yet they  have been calling her regularly since then despite her stop call requests.   24.  As recently as April 10, 2016 Plaintiff Gibbs received two phone calls from  Defendant SolarCity from the phone number 877-373-7652 on her landline telephone.   25.  On April 11, 2016, Plaintiff Gibbs received another call from Defendant  SolarCity from the same phone number 877-373-7652. Plaintiff Gibbs informed the caller: (1)  that she was not interested in Defendant’s products or services, (2) that she had never given  Defendant permission to call her, and (3) that Defendant was not to call her again.    26.  Plaintiff Gibbs does not have a current relationship with Defendant and had  specifically requested that SolarCity not call her.    27.  Defendant is and was aware that the above-described telephone calls were and are  being made to consumers like Plaintiff who had not consented to receive them and whose  telephone numbers were registered with the National Do Not Call Registry.  29.  Approximately 6 months ago, Plaintiff Colby visited Defendant SolarCity’s  website and requested a quote for solar panels to be installed at his house.   30.  Thereafter, Defendant SolarCity performed a site visit to Plaintiff Colby’s house  to assess the positioning of his house and to provide a quote for the installation of solar panels.   Defendant SolarCity informed Plaintiff Colby that his house was not positioned well for a solar  installation and that Defendant SolarCity would not be able to perform an installation.   31.  Shortly after the in person visit, where Defendant SolarCity expressly told  Plaintiff Colby that he would be unable to utilize their services, Defendant SolarCity began  calling Plaintiff Colby’s cellular and landline telephones repeatedly. These calls were made  regularly and lasted for approximately six months.   32.  Plaintiff Colby repeatedly asked Defendant SolarCity to stop calling him, but after  several months of fruitless requests, he simply stopped answering the calls from Defendant.   33.  Colby received at least one call more than thirty (30) days after he requested for  the calls to stop.   34.  Defendant SolarCity’s calls to Plaintiff Colby were placed with an ATDS.   Whenever Plaintiff Colby would answer one of Defendant SolarCity’s telephone calls there  would be a pause before a live person would begin speaking—indicative of an ATDS or  predictive dialer.   35.  Plaintiff Colby does not have a current relationship with Defendant. Even if  Plaintiff Colby ever provided consent to Defendant to call him or requested that Defendant place  calls to him or offer him its services, such consent was repeatedly and expressly revoked by  Plaintiff.   38.  The following people are excluded from the Class:  (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2)  Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which  the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and its current or former employees,  officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion  from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the  merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal  representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. Plaintiffs anticipate the  need to potentially amend the class definitions following discovery into the scope of the classes,  the manner by which the Plaintiffs supposedly consented to receipt of the calls, and the identity  of any other persons who should be included as party defendants.    40.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Classes, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes  include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:  a. Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA;   b. Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to individuals who  did not previously provide Defendant and/or its agents with their prior express  consent to receive such phone calls;   c. Whether Defendant made the calls with the use of an ATDS;  d. Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to consumers whose  telephone numbers were registered with the National Do Not Call Registry;  e. Whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendant’s conduct; and  f. Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to consumers after  they explicitly asked not to be called from Defendant.   42.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes and have retained counsel competent and experienced in  complex class actions. Plaintiffs have no interest antagonistic to those of the Classes, and  Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiffs.   43.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Classes: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Classes as respective wholes, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure  compatible standards of conduct toward the Class members and making final injunctive relief  appropriate with respect to the Classes as respective wholes. Defendant’s practices challenged  herein apply to and affect the Class members uniformly, and Plaintiffs’ challenge of those  practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Classes as respective wholes, not on  facts or law applicable only to Plaintiffs.   45.  Defendant made unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls to cellphone  numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class—without their prior express  written consent—in an effort to sell its products and services.    46.  Defendant failed to provide any of the language required to obtained prior express  written consent under the TCPA, including a disclosure that the consumer was consenting to  being called with an autodialer and/or that providing his or her cellphone number wasn’t a  requirement (direct or indirect) of any purchase.    47.  Defendant made the telephone calls using equipment that had the capacity to store  or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator,  and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse.   48.  Defendant utilized equipment that made the telephone calls to Plaintiff and other  members of the Class simultaneously and without human intervention.   49.  By making unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff and members of the Class’s  cellular telephones without prior express consent, and by utilizing an ATDS, Defendant violated  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   51.  Should the Court determine that Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing,  the Court may, pursuant to Section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff Colby and the other members of the Class.  52.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   53.  Defendant made unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls to telephone  numbers belonging to Plaintiff Colby and the other members of the Class on their cellular  telephone in an effort to sell its products and services after the person had informed SolarCity  that s/he no longer wished to receive such calls from SolarCity.    54.  Defendant made the telephone calls using equipment that had the capacity to store  or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator,  and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse.   55.  Defendant utilized equipment that made the telephone calls to Plaintiff and other  members of the Class simultaneously and without human intervention.   57.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Class suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive the unsolicited telephone  calls on their cellular phones and, under Section 227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled to, inter alia, a  minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.   58.  Should the Court determine that Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing,  the Court may, pursuant to Section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.  59.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   60.  The TCPA, specifically 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), provides that any “person who has  received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same  entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection may” bring a private action  based on a violation of said regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone  subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object.   61.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), 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.”   63.  The Report and Order, in turn, states as follows:  The Commission’s rules provide that companies making telephone solicitations to  residential telephone subscribers must comply with time of day restrictions and must  institute procedures for maintaining do-not-call lists. For the reasons described above,  we conclude that these rules apply to calls made to wireless telephone numbers. We  believe that wireless subscribers should be afforded the same protections as wireline  subscribers.   64.1200.    65.  Defendant violated § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated, telephone  solicitations to wireless telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry  class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call  Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is  maintained by the federal government. These consumers requested to not receive calls from  Defendant, as set forth in § 64.1200(d)(3).    66.  Defendant made more than one unsolicited telephone call to Plaintiff Gibbs and  members of the Do Not Call Registry class within a 12-month period without their prior express  consent to receive such calls. Plaintiff and members of the Do Not Call Registry class never  provided any form of consent to receive telephone calls from Defendant, and/or Defendant does  not have a current record of consent to place telemarketing calls to them.    67.  Defendant also violated § 64.1200(d) by initiating calls for telemarketing  purposes to residential and wireless telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff Gibbs and the Do  Not Call Registry class, without instituting procedures that comply with the regulatory minimum  standards for having a written policy, available on demand, for maintaining a list of persons who  request not to receive telemarketing calls from them, without training its employees or personnel  in the use of its do not call list, and in not recording and honoring do not call requests.    68.  Defendant further violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff Gibbs and the  Do Not Call Registry class received more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by  or on behalf of Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above.    70.  To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing,  the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry class.  71.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   72.  Plaintiffs and members of the Telemarketing Revocation Class expressly  requested that Defendant no longer place calls to them, after which Defendant failed to place  Plaintiffs and members of the Do Not Call Revocation Class on Defendant’s internal do-not-call  list (or failed to do so within a reasonable time period).   73.  More than thirty (30) days following Plaintiffs’ and the members of the Do Not  Call Revocation Class’s express requests to not receive calls from Defendant, Defendant placed  additional calls to them without their consent and in contradiction of their requests not to be  called.   75.  Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiffs and the  Telemarketing Call Revocation Class received more than one telephone call within a 12-month  period made by or on behalf of the Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described  above. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the Telemarketing  Revocation Class suffered actual damages, an invasion of their privacy, and, under section 47  U.S.C. § 227(c), are each entitled to, inter alia, up to $500 in damages for such violations of §   76.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the  Telemarketing Revocation class suffered actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c),  are each entitled, inter alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for such violations of § 64.1200.   77.  To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing,  the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Revocation Class.  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) et seq.  (On behalf of Plaintiff Colby and the Autodialed Do Not Call Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.  (On behalf of Plaintiffs Gibbs and Colby and Telemarketing Revocation Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) et seq.  (On behalf of Plaintiff Gibbs and the Do Not Call Registry Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) et seq.  (On behalf of Plaintiff Colby and the Autodialed No Consent Class)  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.  