29.  Plaintiff is a subscriber of a cellular telephone associated with telephone number  (570) XXX-1283.     30.  Indra is an energy company that sells electricity and natural gas to consumers.     31.  According to Indra’s website, Indra markets itself to “millions of residential and  commercial utility customers across 9 states and more than 64 utility markets.”   32.  Over the past year, Plaintiff has received several unsolicited telemarketing  telephone calls from representatives of Indra advertising its services and goods.     33.  In particular, Plaintiff received various telemarketing calls to his cellular telephone  from representatives of Indra that were placed for the purpose of marketing or selling Indra’s  electricity and natural gas.     34.  Indra called Plaintiff from the following telephone number: (888) 269-7397.    3 See, e.g., Osorio v. State Farm Bank F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242, 1251 (11th Cir. 2014); Soppet, 679 F.3d at  638-39.  7   35.  This telephone number is associated with Indra.     36.  For example, when a call is placed to the aforementioned number, one of  Defendant’s representatives answers the telephone stating: “Thank you for calling Indra.”     37.  An example of one such call occurred as recently as January 8, 2019.     38.  At or around 2:15 PM EST, Plaintiff received a telemarketing call from Indra that  was placed from the following telephone number: (888) 269-7397.     39.  When Plaintiff answered the call, he was connected with a representative from  Indra named Susan Dean who then solicited Plaintiff to purchase natural gas and electricity from  Indra.      40.  After a brief conversation, Plaintiff informed the Indra representative that he was  not interested, requested that he be taken off Indra’s marketing list, and terminated the telephone  call.     41.  Plaintiff estimates that he has received approximately five telemarketing calls to  his cellular telephone from Defendant—all placed for the purpose of soliciting his business.     42.  On information and belief, other calls occurred on the following dates: January 2,  2019; January 4, 2019; and January 5, 2019.      43.  Plaintiff believes he spoke with an Indra representative on at least two different  occasions and both times requested to be taken off of Indra’s marketing list.     44.  Despite this fact, Indra representatives continued to bombard his cellular telephone  with telemarketing calls.   45.  Plaintiff never provided his cellular telephone number to Defendant.   46.  Plaintiff was never one of Defendant’s customers.   47.  Plaintiff never requested information about Defendant’s services.  8   48.  On information and belief, when contacting consumers, Indra uses an outbound  calling system that automatically dials a list of telephone numbers stored by Defendant.     49.  Defendant’s outbound dialing system uses algorithms to predict when Defendant’s  representatives will be available to take a call, and then automatically dials the numbers stored on  Defendant’s outbound dialing system.     50.  Upon information and good faith belief, and in light of the frequency, number,  nature, and character of the calls at issue, telephone contact made by Defendant to Plaintiff on his  cellular telephone occurred via an ATDS as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).     51.  To be sure, when Plaintiff answered the calls from Defendant, there was a long  pause and then a clicking noise before one of Defendant’s representatives came on the line.     52.  Upon information and good faith belief, and in light of the frequency, number,  nature, and character of the calls at issue, Defendant placed its calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone  number by using (i) an automated dialing system that uses a complex set of algorithms to  automatically dial consumers’ telephone numbers in a manner that “predicts” the time when a  consumer will answer the phone and a person will be available to take the call, or (ii) equipment  that dials numbers and, when certain computer software is attached, also assists persons in  predicting when a sales agent will be available to take calls, or (iii) hardware, that when paired  with certain software, has the capacity to store or produce numbers and dial those numbers at  random, in sequential order, or from a database of numbers, or (iv) hardware, software, or  equipment that the FCC characterizes as a predictive dialer through the following, and any related,  reports and orders, and declaratory rulings: In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing  the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 17 FCC Rcd 17459, 17474 (September 18, 2002);  In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of  9  1991, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14092-93 (July 3, 2003); In the Matter of Rules and Regulations  Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 23 FCC Rcd 559, 566 (Jan. 4,  2008).   53.  At no point did Indra obtain Plaintiff’s prior express written consent to place  telemarketing calls to his cellular telephone.     54.  Indeed, all of the telemarketing calls alleged herein that Defendant placed to  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone were made without Plaintiff’s prior express written consent to receive  such calls.    55.  The calls were annoying and harassing to Plaintiff, and an invasion of his privacy.     56.  The calls violated the TCPA because they were made without Plaintiff’s prior  express consent—written or oral.    57.  Not surprisingly, Indra’s unlawful telemarketing practices have led to significant  backlash from consumers.     58.  The internet is bereft with online reviews warning consumers about Defendant’s  unlawful practices4:  4 Reviews available at: https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-888-269-7397, last accessed March 13, 2019.    10   59.  By making the unauthorized telephone calls alleged herein, Indra has caused  consumers (including Plaintiff) actual harm and cognizable legal injury.     60.  This includes the aggravation and nuisance and invasions of privacy that resulted  from the receipt of such telephone calls, in addition to a loss of value realized for the monies  consumers paid to their telephone carriers for the receipt of such calls.     61.  Furthermore, the telephone calls interfered with class members’ use and enjoyment  of their cellular telephones, including the related data, software, and hardware components.     62.  Indra also caused substantial injury to their cellphones by causing wear and tear on  their property, consuming battery life, and in some cases appropriating cellular data or minutes.    11   63.  In order to redress these injuries, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of  similarly situated individuals, bring suit under the TCPA for statutory damages of $500 to $1,500  per telephone call.     64.  On behalf of the class, Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to  cease placing telemarketing calls to consumers until such time as it receives prior express written  consent from all such persons.  65.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other persons  similarly situated (hereinafter referred to as “the Class”).  Plaintiff proposes the following Class definition, subject to amendment as appropriate:  All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to whom Palmco  Administration LLC placed one or more calls, (2) for the purpose of advertising its  goods or services. (3) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service,  (4) by using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded  voice, (5) absent prior express written consent, (6) within four years preceding the  date of this complaint through the date of class certification.    66.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the Class.    67.  Excluded from the Class are Defendant and any entities in which Defendant has a  controlling interest, Defendant’s agents and employees, any Judge to whom this action is assigned  and any member of such Judge’s staff and immediate family.   68.  Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Class, but on  information and belief, the number of Class members at minimum is in the thousands.    69.  Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed by the acts of Defendant,  including, but not limited to, the invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of time, depletion of  their cellular telephone battery, and the intrusion on their cellular telephone that occupied it from  receiving legitimate communications.   12   70.  This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and money damages.    71.  The joinder of all Class members is impracticable due to the size and relatively  modest value of each individual claim.    72.  The disposition of claims in a class action will provide substantial benefit to the  parties and the judicial economy of the court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits.    73.  The Class can be identified easily through records maintained by Defendant and  third parties.    74.  There are well-defined, nearly identical, questions of law and fact affecting all  Class members.    75.  The questions of law and fact involving the Class claims predominate over  questions which may affect individual Class members.    76.  Those common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to, the  following:   a. Whether non-emergency calls made to Plaintiff and Class members’ cellular telephones  used an artificial or prerecorded voice or an automatic telephone dialing system;   b. Whether such calls were made by Defendant;   c. Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior express consent  (i.e., consent that is clearly and unmistakably stated) to make such calls;   d. Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing or willful;   e. Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and   f. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the future.   13   77.  As a person who received numerous and repeated telephone calls using an  automatic telephone dialing system, without his prior express consent within the meaning of the  TCPA, Plaintiff asserts claims that are typical of each Class member.    78.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class,  and has no interests which are antagonistic to any member of the Class.    79.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims involving  violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes, including claims under the TCPA.    80.  A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.    81.  Class-wide relief is essential to compel Defendant to comply with the TCPA.    82.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecution of  separate claims against Defendant is small because the statutory damages in an individual action  for the violation of the TCPA are relatively small.    83.  Management of these claims is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties than  are presented in many class claims because the calls at issue are all automated and the Class  members did not provide prior express consent, as required under the statute, to authorize such  calls to their cellular telephones.    84.  Defendant has acted on grounds applicable to the Class, thereby making final  injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole  appropriate.    85.  Moreover, on information and belief, the TCPA violations complained of herein  are substantially likely to continue in the future if an injunction is not entered.  14  86.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in paragraphs  1-85 as if fully stated herein.   87.  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) by utilizing an automatic  telephone dialing system to place calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number without his express  consent.    88.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), Plaintiff and  the members of the Class are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial.  89.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in paragraphs  1-60 as if fully set forth herein.   90.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) by utilizing at automatic telephone  dialing system to place telemarketing calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number without his  prior express written consent.   91.  As result of Defendant’s violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, Plaintiff and the  members of the Class are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial.  Violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, et seq.   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)  