1. Whether Defendants made any call/s (other than a call made for emergency  purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) to Class  members using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or  prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a telephone service;   17.  Sometime prior to January 1, 2016, Plaintiff was assigned, and became the owner  of a cellular telephone number ending in 0028 from her wireless provider.     18.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was the sole subscriber, owner, and operator of a  cellular telephone with an assigned number ending in 0028. Plaintiff is and has always been  financially responsible for her cellular phone and its services.   19.  Sometime after January 1, 2016, Plaintiff began receiving telephone calls from the  Defendant using numbers such as 845-243-6549 and 917-819-8167, including three calls on May  26, 2016.   2. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class members were damaged thereby, and the extent  of damages for such violation; and    20.  Plaintiff answered one call on or around May 25, 2016 and told the Defendant to  stop calling.   21.  Upon answering said telephone call, Plaintiff noticed a pause between the time she  answered and the time a representative got on the phone.   22.  Based upon the above, Plaintiff believes the calls were initiated by an automatic  telephone dialing system (“ATDS”).   23.  Plaintiff continued to receive calls even after notifying the Defendant to stop.   25.  Plaintiff has never previously contacted DegreeMatch nor has Plaintiff had any type  of business relationship with DegreeMatch.   26.  Upon information and belief, and based off of above, the Defendants used an  automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), which is  prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).    27.  The ATDS used by Defendants has the capacity to store or produce telephone  numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.   28.  The telephone numbers Defendants called were assigned to a cellular telephone  service for which the Plaintiffs incurred charges for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1).   29.  Plaintiffs did not provide prior express written consent to receive telephone calls  from Defendant using an artificial or prerecorded voice utilizing an ATDS, as required by 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   30.  Under the Federal Communication Commission’s amended regulation which took  place on October 16, 2013, telemarketers must obtain prior express written consent of the called  party to autodial or leave prerecorded telemarketing calls to a wireless number and to leave  prerecorded calls to residential landlines.   31.  Defendant is and was aware that it is placing unsolicited robocalls to Plaintiff and  other consumers without their prior written express consent.   32.  These telephone calls by Defendants or its agents were therefore in violation of 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).   34.  Defendant’s action harmed Plaintiff by causing the very harm that Congress sought  to prevent – a “nuisance and invasion of privacy.”   35.  Defendant’s action harmed Plaintiff by trespassing upon and interfering with  Plaintiff’s rights and interest in Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.   36.  Defendant’s action harmed Plaintiff by intruding upon Plaintiff’s seclusion.   37.  Defendant’s action harmed Plaintiff by causing Plaintiff aggravation and  annoyance.   38.  Defendant’s action harmed Plaintiff by wasting the Plaintiff’s time.   39.  Defendant’s action harmed Plaintiff in the loss of use of her phone during the time  that her phone was occupied by incoming calls.   40.  Defendant’s action harmed Plaintiff by depleting the battery life on Plaintiff’s  cellular telephone.  41.  Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated  (“the Class”).   42.  Plaintiffs represent, and are members of, the Class, consisting of:   All persons within the United States who (1) received any telephone  call; (2) promoting Defendant’s services (3) where the call was  initiated by an ATDS; and (4) for which the caller had no record of  prior written express consent to make such call to the telephone  number that received it.   44.  Plaintiffs and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at  least the following ways: Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiffs and the Class members via their  cellular telephones thereby causing Plaintiffs and the Class members to incur certain cellular  telephone charges or reduce cellular telephone time for which Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs and the Class members.  Plaintiffs and the Class  members were damaged thereby.   45.  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.  Plaintiffs reserve 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.   46.  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 Class  can be identified through Defendants’ records or Defendants’ agent’s records.   47.  There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact  involved affecting the parties to be represented.  The questions of law and fact to the Class  predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members, including the following:   48.  As persons who received numerous calls using an automatic telephone dialing  system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without Plaintiffs’ prior express consent, Plaintiffs are  asserting claims that are typical of the Class.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class in that Plaintiffs have no interest antagonistic to any member of  the Class.     49.  Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have all suffered irreparable harm as a result  of 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.   50.  Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims and  claims involving violations of the TCPA.   51.  A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.  Class-wide damages are essential to induce Defendant to comply with federal and  California law.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecution of  separate claims against Defendants is small because the maximum statutory damages in an  individual action for violation of privacy are minimal.  Management of these claims is likely to  present significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many class claims.   52.  Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby  making appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the  Class as a whole.  53.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   54.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants 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.   55.  As a result of Defendants negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiffs  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).   56.  Plaintiffs and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.  57.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   58.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants 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.   59.  As a result of Defendants’ knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et  seq., Plaintiff and each of 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).    60.  Plaintiffs and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  