15.  Defendants made many of the calls using the outbound phone number (732) 362- 0402, among others.    16.  The call recipients, like Plaintiffs, include, but may not be limited to, former  subscribers of one or more Gannett newspapers; however, their subscriptions were cancelled or  expired, and they have chosen to not re-subscribe and no longer do business with Gannett.    17.  To regain these lost customers, Defendant Gannett hired Defendant Marketing  Plus to repeatedly call Class members’ telephones in an attempt to convince them to renew their  subscriptions.     18.  These calls are placed on a near daily basis, and often multiple times per day.  Even worse, when a consumer answers one of the calls and expressly requests to not receive any  further calls, Defendants persist—even after multiple cancellation requests.   19.  Defendants made these calls, or directed them to be made, using an automatic  telephone dialing system, often known as a “predicative dialer,” to calls numerous telephone  numbers simultaneously and without the calls being manually dialed.         20.  All the more problematic, many of the call recipients, like Plaintiffs, were  registered on the National Do Not Call Registry at the time the calls were made. That is, those  consumers had taken the affirmative step to be listed in a national database for the express  purpose of not receiving telemarketing calls.   22.  Neither Plaintiffs nor the other members of the putative Classes ever consented to  have Defendants make telemarketing calls to them, and certainly not after their business  relationship had ended.   23.  Plaintiff subscribed to The Asbury Park Press, a Gannett newspaper, in or around  early 2012. Plaintiff did not consent to receive telemarketing calls of any kind from Defendants  (or Asbury Park Press) as part of his subscription.   24.  In or around March 2013, after Plaintiff’s subscription had already ended, he  started to receive telephone calls on his personal landline from the phone number (732) 362- 0402.    25.  Plaintiff Casagrand’s landline telephone number had been listed on the National  Do Not Call Registry since at least 2010. Plaintiff re-registers his number on a regular basis in an  attempt to stop unwanted telemarketing calls like those at issue in this case.   26.  When Plaintiff Casagrand answered one of these calls, the live operator identified  himself as calling regarding Asbury Park Press. However, the call was actually placed by  Defendant Marketing Plus at the direction of Defendant Gannett.   28.  On several occasions, the caller acknowledged Plaintiff’s request that the calls  stop and informed him that he would be removed from the call list.       29.  Yet, after each request to stop, Defendants continued to call.    30.  For example, in the face of two requests to stop calling in the forty-five days prior  to filing this Complaint, Plaintiff has continued to receive calls as often as three times per day,  everyday (around 8:30 a.m., 10:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.).      31.  Plaintiff Casagrand’s experience is corroborated by numerous consumer  complaints appearing online, which indicate that Defendants placed calls to consumers without  permission and on a repeat basis, even in the face of repeated requests to stop.    32.  Defendants were and are aware that the above-described telephone calls were  being made, and that the telephone calls were being made to consumers who had not consented  to receive them, or revoked any purported consent.   33.  Plaintiff subscribed to The Journal News, a Gannett newspaper, in or around early  2009. Plaintiff did not consent to receive telemarketing calls of any kind from Defendants (or  The Journal News) as part of his subscription.   34.  In or around 2011, Plaintiff Schlossberg’s subscription to The Journal News  ended and Plaintiff Schlossberg chose to not renew it.    36.  Defendants have called Plaintiff Schlossberg on a regular basis for over a year,  often multiple times per week.    37.  Plaintiff Schlossberg has repeatedly, at least ten times, made express request to  the telemarketers that he was not interested in renewing his subscription and that the calls cease.    38.  After receiving numerous unwanted calls from Defendants, and after numerous  requests to the telemarketers that the calls stop, Plaintiff Schlossberg placed a telephone call to  Defendant Gannett, via The Journal News, to request that the calls stop.    39.  The live operator stated that she could not stop the calls and gave him the  telephone number for Defendant Marketing Plus and told him to leave a message requesting that  the calls cease.  Plaintiff Schlossberg called Defendant Marketing Plus and left a message  expressly requesting that Defendants stop calling.   40.  However, despite Plaintiff Schlossberg’s best efforts, the calls continued  unabated.     41.  To make matters worse, Plaintiff’s cellular telephone has been registered with the  National Do Not Call Registry since June 15, 2007.    42.  Overall, Defendants placed several dozen calls to Plaintiff Schlossberg that he  neither wanted nor consented to. At the time of filing this complaint, the calls continue.   44.  Numerosity: The exact size of the Classes is unknown and not available to  Plaintiffs at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and  belief, Defendants have made telephone calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the  definitions of the Classes. Members of the Classes can be identified through Defendants’  records.   45.  Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the  Classes in that Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes sustained damages arising out of  Defendants’ uniform wrongful conduct and unsolicited telephone calls.   46.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in  complex class actions. Plaintiffs have no interest antagonistic to those of the Classes, and  Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiffs.   49.  Plaintiff Schlossberg incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if  fully set forth herein.   50.  Defendants made, or directed to be made, unsolicited telephone calls to cellular  telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff Schlossberg and other members of the Cell Phone (No  Consent) Class without their prior express consent to receive such calls.   51.  Defendants also made unsolicited telephone calls to cellular telephone numbers  belonging to Plaintiff Schlossberg and other members of the Cell Phone (Revocation) Class more  than seven days after they expressly requested to no longer receive telephone calls from  Defendants. As such, the calls made to Cell Phone (Revocation) Class members after they  revoked any purported consent were made without Plaintiff Schlossberg and the Cell Phone  (Revocation) Class members’ prior express consent to receive such calls.    52.  Defendants made the telephone calls, or directed them to be made, using  equipment that had the capacity to store or produce lists of telephone numbers, equipment that  has the capacity to generate and store numbers randomly or sequentially, and the capacity to dial  such numbers.    54.  By making, or having made on its behalf, the unsolicited telephone calls to  Plaintiff Schlossberg and the Cell Phone (No Consent) Class members’ cellular telephones  without their prior express consent, and by utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system to  make those calls, Defendants have violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   55.  By making, or directing to be made, the unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff  Schlossberg and the Cell Phone (Revocation) Class members’ cellular telephones more than  seven days after the requests were made to stop such calls (thereby revoking any type of  purported consent), and by utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system to make those calls,  Defendants have violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   56.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff Schlossberg and the  members of the Cell Phone (No Consent) Class and the Cell Phone (Revocation) 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.   57.  Should the Court determine that Defendants’ conduct was willful and knowing,  the Court may, pursuant to section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable  by Plaintiff Schlossberg and the other members of the Cell Phone (No Consent) Class and the  Cell Phone (Revocation) Class.  58.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   60.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “No  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.”   61.  47 C.F.R. §64.1200 (e) provides that §64.1200 (c) and (d) “are applicable to any  person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone  numbers to the extent described in the Commission's Report and Order, CG Docket No. 02-278,  FCC 03-153, ‘Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of  1991,’” which Report and Order, in turn, provides 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.  Defendants made, or directed to be made, more than one unsolicited telephone  call to Plaintiffs and the members of the Do Not Call (No Consent) Class within a 12-month  period, without their prior express consent to receive such calls. Plaintiffs and members of the  Do Not Call (No Consent) Class never provided any form of express consent, at any time, to  receive telemarketing calls from Defendants.   65.  Plaintiffs and members of the Do Not Call (Revocation) Class expressly requested  that Defendants no longer place calls to them, after which Defendants failed to place Plaintiffs  and members of the Do Not Call (Revocation) Class on Defendants’ internal do-not-call list (or  failed to do so within a reasonable time period).   66.  More than seven days following Plaintiffs’ and the members of the Do Not Call  (Revocation) Class’s express requests to not receive calls from Defendants, Defendants placed  additional calls to them without their consent and in contradiction of their requests not to be  called.    67.  Defendants violated § 64.1200 (d) by initiating calls for telemarketing purposes to  residential and wireless telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiffs, the Do Not Call (No Consent)  Class, and the Do Not Call (Revocation) Class, without instituting procedures that comply with  the regulatory minimum standards for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive  telemarketing calls from them.   68.  Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiffs, the Do Not Call (No  Consent) Class, and the Do Not Call (Revocation) Class received more than one telephone call  within a 12-month period made by or on behalf of the Defendants in violation of 47 C.F.R. §   69.  To the extent Defendants’ misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing,  the Court should, pursuant to § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by  the members of the Do Not Call (No Consent) Class and the Do Not Call (Revocation) Class.  Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)   (On behalf of Plaintiffs, the Do Not Call (No Consent) Class,   and the Do Not Call (Revocation) Class)   Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)  (On behalf of Plaintiff Schlossberg, the Cell Phone (No Consent) Class,  and the Cell Phone (Revocation) Class)  