20.  Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined  by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).     21.  On or around September 20, 2010, Plaintiff’s wife, Lisa Jefferson,  financed her vehicle with AmeriCredit.  Lisa Jefferson provided neither her cellular telephone  number nor Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number to AmeriCredit when she financed her vehicle  with AmeriCredit.     22.  Plaintiff does not have an AmeriCredit account.  Plaintiff’s name is not on  the title to the vehicle, and Plaintiff has no legal responsibility for the AmeriCredit loan.  On  information and belief, AmeriCredit may have obtained Plaintiff’s cell phone number when  AmeriCredit classified him as a credit reference from Mrs. Jefferson.  At no point did Plaintiff  provide prior express consent to AmeriCredit to contact him on his cellular telephone using an  automated telephone dialing system in connection with Mrs. Jefferson’s account.11   23.  On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff received a telephone call on his cellular  telephone from telephone number 705-876-5332.  Plaintiff did not pick up the call.  The caller  left a voicemail message asking for Plaintiff’s wife.     25.  On information and belief, given the apparent debt collection purpose of  the calls and the many calls received within a short period of time, the calls received by Plaintiff  were made using a system that qualifies as an automated dialer under the TCPA and relevant  FCC regulations.   26.  AmeriCredit is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person”, as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).    27.  Pursuant to FCC Rulings and relevant case law, AmeriCredit is directly  liable for the TCPA violations of its debt collectors when such third parties make debt collection  calls on behalf of AmeriCredit.   28.  All telephone contact on behalf of AmeriCredit to Plaintiff on his cellular  telephone occurred via an “automatic telephone dialing system,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §  227(a)(1), and/or used “an artificial or prerecorded voice” as described in 47 U.S.C. §   227(b)(1)(A).     29.  The telephone number on which Plaintiff was contacted on behalf of  AmeriCredit with an “artificial or prerecorded voice” and/or made by an “automatic telephone  dialing system,” was assigned to a cellular telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C. §   227(b)(1)(A)(iii).     30.  Plaintiff did not provide his “prior express consent” allowing AmeriCredit  or its debt collectors to place telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone utilizing an “artificial or  prerecorded voice” or placed by an “automatic telephone dialing system,” within the meaning of  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   31.  Telephone calls made to Plaintiff’s cellular phone by on behalf of  AmeriCredit were not “for emergency purposes” as described in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   33.  Under the TCPA and pursuant to the FCC’s January 2008 Declaratory  Ruling, the burden is on AmeriCredit to demonstrate that Plaintiff provided it with prior express  consent within the meaning of the statute.12  34.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other persons  similarly situated (hereinafter referred to as “the Class”).   35.  Plaintiff proposes the following Class definition, subject to amendment as  appropriate:  All persons within the United States who, on or after May 27,  2014, received a non-emergency telephone call from or on behalf  of AmeriCredit to a cellular telephone through the use of an  automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or  prerecorded voice.    Collectively, these persons will be referred to as “Class members.”  Plaintiff represents, and is a  member of, the Class.  Excluded from the Class are GM Financial and any entities in which  AmeriCredit has a controlling interest, AmeriCredit’s agents and employees, any Judge to whom  this action is assigned and any member of such Judge’s staff and immediate family, and claims  for personal injury, wrongful death and/or emotional distress.   36.  Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Class, but  Plaintiff reasonably believes that Class members number at minimum in the thousands.   37.  Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed by the acts of  AmeriCredit, because their privacy has been violated, they were subject to annoying and  harassing calls that constitute a nuisance, and they were charged for incoming calls.     38.  This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and money damages.     40.  There are well defined, nearly identical, questions of law and fact  affecting all parties.  The questions of law and fact involving the class claims predominate over  questions which may affect individual Class members.  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 automatic telephone  dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice;  b.  Whether such calls were made by or on behalf of  AmeriCredit;  c.  Whether AmeriCredit 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 AmeriCredit’s conduct was knowing  and/or willful;  e.  Whether AmeriCredit is liable for damages, and the  amount of such damages; and  f.  Whether AmeriCredit should be enjoined from  engaging in such conduct in the future.     41.  As a person who received telephone calls using an automatic telephone  dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without her prior express consent within  the meaning of the TCPA and Rules, Plaintiff asserts claims that are typical of each Class  member.  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.   42.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims  involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes, including claims under the  45.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this  Complaint as if fully stated herein.   46.  The foregoing acts and omissions of AmeriCredit constitute numerous and  multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the  above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.    47.  AmeriCredit knew or should have known that its actions were in violation  of the TCPA as a result, inter alia, of numerous consumer complaints, its prior FCC Citation,  and its involvement in the Newman case, which AmeriCredit was in the process of settling  during the class period in this case.   49.  Plaintiff and all Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive  relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendants in the future.  Plaintiff and  Class members are also entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.  50.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this  Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   51.  The foregoing acts and omissions of AmeriCredit constitute numerous and  multiple violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the above cited provisions  of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.    52.  As a result of AmeriCredit’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff  and Class members are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages for each and every  violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).     53.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive  relief prohibiting AmeriCredit’s violation of the TCPA in the future.   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE  CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.   STATUTORY VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  