19.  Defendant Empower Energy is a “person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C.  § 153(39).   20.  Plaintiff Hopkins’s telephone number, 774-XXX-0365, is registered to a cellular  telephone service.   21.  The Plaintiff Hopkins received at least five telemarketing calls from the  Defendant.   22.  The dates of the calls were October 8 (twice), October 22, October 27 and  October 29, 2020.   23.  The telemarketing calls were generic and computer-generated with the content  below:   24.  The telemarketing calls were sent using an automated dialing system.   26.  As a result, the system that sent automated calls to Plaintiff Hopkins qualifies as  an ATDS pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(1)(A).   27.  After receiving repeated unwanted telemarketing calls, the Plaintiff set an  appointment with Empower Energy Solutions.   28.  Confirming their involvement, Empower Energy Solutions sent confirmation  materials for the call.    29.  The telemarketing received by Plaintiff demonstrates that the message was sent  for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of Empower’s energy services.     30.  This message therefore qualified as telemarketing.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12).   31.  Moreover, for more than 31 days prior to the first call, the Plaintiff Hopkins’s  telephone number has been listed on the NDNC list.     32.  Plaintiff Hopkins did not provide her prior express written consent to receive the  telemarketing calls at issue.   33.  The calls were not necessitated by an emergency.   35.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if  fully stated herein.   36.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the following classes (the  “Classes”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.   37.  Plaintiff proposes the following Class definitions, subject to amendment as  appropriate:   Robodialing Class: All persons in the United States who, within four years prior  to the commencement of this litigation until the class is certified, received one or  more autodialed calls on their cellular telephone from or on behalf of Empower  Energy, sent via the same, or substantially similar, system used to contact the  Plaintiff.  National Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States whose  telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry, but who received  more than one telephone solicitation telemarketing call from or on behalf of  Empower Energy with a 12-month period, from four years prior the filing of the  Complaint.   38.  Plaintiff Hopkins is a member of and will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of, these Classes as she has no interests that conflict with any of the class  members.   40.  Plaintiff and all members of the Classes have been harmed by the acts of the  Defendant, including, but not limited to, the invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of time,  the use of their cell phone battery, and the intrusion on their cellular telephone that occupied it  from receiving legitimate communications.   41.  This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and money damages.   42.  The Classes as defined above are identifiable through the Defendant’s dialer  records, other phone records, and phone number databases.     43.  Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Classes, but Plaintiff  reasonably believes Class members number, at minimum, in the hundreds in each class.     44.  The joinder of all Class members is impracticable due to the size and relatively  modest value of each individual claim.   45.  Additionally, the disposition of the claims in a class action will provide substantial  benefit to the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits.   46.  There are well defined, nearly identical, questions of law and fact affecting all  parties. The questions of law and fact, referred to above, involving the class claims predominate  over questions which may affect individual Class members.    48.  Further, Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of  the Classes.  Plaintiff has no interests which are antagonistic to any member of the Classes.   49.  Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex  litigation and class actions, and especially TCPA class actions.  Plaintiff and her counsel are  committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the other members of the Classes,  and have the financial resources to do so.   50.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only  individual class members, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy.  The only individual question concerns identification of class  members, which will be ascertainable from records maintained by Defendant and/or its agents.   51.  The likelihood that individual members of the Classes will prosecute separate  actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual case.    53.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   54.  Empower Energy violated the TCPA by sending, or causing to be sent via an  agent, automated calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and members of the Robocall Class  using an automated dialer without their prior express written consent.   55.  As a result of the Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and  Robocall Class members are entitled to an award of $500 in statutory damages for each and  every violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   56.  The Plaintiff and Robocall Class Members are entitled to an award of treble  damages if their actions are found to have been knowing or willful.     57.  Plaintiff and Robocall Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive  relief prohibiting the Defendant from advertising their goods or services, except for emergency  purposes, using an ATDS or pre-recorded voice in the future.  58.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   60.  As a result of the Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and  National Do Not Call Registry Class members are entitled to an award of up to $500 in statutory  damages for each and every violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   61.  Plaintiff and National Do Not Call Registry Class members are also entitled to  and do seek injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from advertising their goods or services,  except for emergency purposes, to any number on the National Do Not Call Registry in the  future.   62.  The Defendant’s violations were knowing or willful.  CLASS ACTION  JURY TRIAL DEMANDED  /  Plaintiff Amanda Hopkins (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), individually and on  behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges on personal knowledge, investigation of her  counsel, and on information and belief, as follows:  Statutory Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (47 U.S.C. 227, et seq.) on behalf of the Robocall Class   Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (47 U.S.C. 227, et seq.)  on behalf of the National Do Not Call Registry Class  