10.  Defendant Spinnaker is a Florida corporation. Upon information and belief,  Defendant purchases lists of consumers to call without receiving their consent.   11.  Spinnaker has turned to unsolicited telemarketing as a way to increase its  customer base as it seeks to generate sales for its vacation ownership business. Widespread  telemarketing is a primary method by which Defendant recruits new customers.   14.  At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant was and is fully aware that  unsolicited telemarketing calls are being made to consumers’ residential landlines through its  own efforts and their agents.   15.  Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) unsolicited telemarketing  calls without the prior express consent of the call recipients and knowingly continued to call  them after requests to stop. In so doing, Defendant not only invaded the personal privacy of  Plaintiff and members of the putative Class, but it also intentionally and repeatedly violated the  18.  Plaintiff is a nurse who works at night and must sleep during the day without  interruption.   19.  On February 9, 2010, Plaintiff registered her landline phone number on the do  not call registry specifically to avoid telemarketing calls.   21.  Plaintiff estimates she has received at least 70 unwanted calls during the past  twelve months.  For the past several months, she has received as many as four (4) calls per day.   22.  When she answered each call, there would be a long pause, and then a voice  which identified itself as representing Defendant Spinnaker would tell her that she had a credit  for something that she had not used.   23.  Each time, Plaintiff told the caller she was not interested, that she was on the do  not call registry, and not to call her back again.   24.  Plaintiff continued to receive dozens of calls from Defendant despite her  previous request that they stop calling her.    25.  The calls were annoying and harassing and interrupted her necessary daytime  sleep, making it more difficult to do her job at night.   26.  Plaintiff called back the phone numbers that kept calling her in an effort to tell  them yet again to stop calling her, but each time reached a non-working telephone number, and  thus her attempt to further opt-out of their calls was obstructed.    27.  Finally, on March 21, 2016, Plaintiff called the listed telephone number for  Defendant Spinnaker in an effort to stop the calls. Plaintiff reached the customer service  department and spoke to a representative whom she told to stop the calls. The customer service  representative said she needed to contact the marketing department, and transferred Plaintiff to  that extension. Nobody answered at that extension, and the call was routed to voicemail.    Plaintiff left a voicemail requesting the calls stop immediately.   29.  Plaintiff does not have a relationship with Defendant, has never provided her  telephone number directly to Defendant, or requested that Defendant place calls to her or offer  her its services. Simply put, Plaintiff has never provided her prior express consent to Defendant  to place calls to her and has no business relationship with Defendant.    30.  As a result of Defendant’s repeated intrusive and unwanted telemarketing calls  within a 12-month period, Plaintiff suffered actual harm in the form of annoyance, nuisance,  and invasion of privacy.   31.  At the time it called Plaintiff, Defendant was aware that the above-described  telephone calls were and are being made to consumers like Plaintiff who had not consented to  receive them and whose telephone numbers were registered with the National Do Not Call  Registry.    32.  Each time it called Plaintiff after the first call in, Defendant was also aware that  it had placed more than one telemarketing call to Plaintiff’s number within a 12-month period.  34.  Numerosity: The exact sizes of the Classes are unknown and not available to  Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and  belief, Defendant made telephone calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of  the Classes. Members of the Classes can be easily identified through Defendant’s records.   36.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting  this action on behalf of the members of the Classes, and have the financial resources to do so.  Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel has any interest adverse to the Classes.   38.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing factual allegations as if fully set forth herein.   39.  47 U.S.C. §227(c) provides that any “person who has received more than one  telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the  regulations prescribed under this subsection may” bring a private action based on a violation of  those regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to  avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object.   40.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that  “[n]o 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.”   42.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be  initiated, telephone solicitations to residential telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the No  Consent-DNC Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the  National Do Not Call Registry. These consumers requested to not receive calls from Defendant  as set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3).    44.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by initiating calls for telemarketing  purposes to residential telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff and the No Consent-DNC Class,  without instituting procedures that comply with the regulatory minimum standards for  maintaining a written policy, available on demand, for maintaining a list of persons who request  not to receive telemarketing calls from them, and by not informing and training its personnel  engaged in any aspect of telemarketing in the existence and use of the do-not-call list.   45.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class suffered  actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), Plaintiff and each member of the No  Consent Do Not Call Class are each entitled to receive up to $500 in damages for each violation  of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.  47.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Stop Do Not Call  Class suffered actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), Plaintiff and each member  of the Class is each entitled to receive up to $500 in damages for each violation of 47 C.F.R. §   48.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   49.  Defendants knowingly and/or willfully initiated, or caused to be initiated,  telephone solicitations to residential telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the No Consent- DNC Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not  Call Registry and who received more than one call within a 12-month period.   50.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing and/or  willful violation of the TCPA.   51.  As a result of Defendant's knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA,  Plaintiffs and the No Consent Do Not Call Class are entitled to an award of treble damages up  to $1,500.00 for each call in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   53.  Defendant knowingly and/or willfully initiated, or caused to be initiated,  telephone solicitations to residential telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Stop Do Not  Call Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not  Call Registry and who received more than one call within a 12-month period from Defendant  after informing Defendant to stop calling them.    54.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing and/or  willful violation of the TCPA.   55.  Defendant knowingly and/or willfully failed to maintain a written policy,  available on demand, for maintaining a list of persons who’ve requested not to be called and for  training its personnel involved in any aspect of telemarketing in the existence and use of that  list.   56.  As a result of Defendant's knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA,  Plaintiffs and the Stop Do Not Call Class are entitled to an award of treble damages up to  $1,500.00 for each call in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   64.1200.  Knowing and/or Willful Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent-DNC Class)   Knowing and/or Willful Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Stop Do Not Call Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent-DNC Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Stop Do Not Call Class)  