11. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was an individual residing in the State of South Carolina, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(10).  12. DRS is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation and a “person”, as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(10).  13. DRS used instruments of interstate commerce for its principal purpose of business, which is the collection of debts.  14. DRS regularly collects, or attempts to collect, debts owed or due another.  15. DRS is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA.  16. In July of 2012, plaintiff received a call from “Melissa Steel” claiming to be an attorney and telling him that he missed a court date back in 2007 and now has a judgment against him. The call from Ms. Steel was connected after a pause, which indicates a dialing system was used.  18. Plaintiff continued to receive calls from DRS on his cellular telephone. These telephone calls from DRS were an attempt to collect a debt relating to plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s wife.  19. Plaintiff never gave his cell phone number to any entity that either acquired or attempted to collect on this account.  20. Notwithstanding the fact Plaintiff did not provide DRS with his cellular number, DRS repeatedly contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.  21. DRS’s website promotes its use of “virtual dialing solutions.” Virtual dialing solutions is equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.  22. All telephone contact by DRS to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone occurred via an “automatic telephone dialing system,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1), and all calls that are the subject of this Complaint occurred within four years of the filing of this Complaint.  23. The telephone calls placed by DRS to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone also used “an artificial or prerecorded voice” as described in 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A).  24. The telephone number Defendant dialed with a “prerecorded voice” that sounded automated was assigned to a cellular telephone service as specified in 47 27. Plaintiff incorporates the above factual allegations herein.  28. Defendant made unsolicited commercial phone calls to the wireless telephone number of Plaintiff and the other members of the class using DRS’ virtual dialing solutions, which is equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.  29. These phone calls were made without the prior express consent of Plaintiff or the class.  30. DRS has therefore violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii), which makes it unlawful for any person within the United States ... to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice ...” As a result of Defendant’s illegal conduct, the members of the class suffered actual damages and, under section 227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.  32. Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive relief prohibiting DRS’s and Palisades’ violation of the TCPA in the future. 33. Plaintiff proposes the following class and sub-class, subject to amendment as appropriate: All persons within the United States1 who, on or after four years prior to the filing of this action and 20 days following the filing of this action, received a non-emergency telephone call from Dynamic Recovery Services, Inc. to a cellular telephone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and who did not provide prior express consent for such calls during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed. The sub-class consists of all persons who fit the class definition and were called by DRS for a debt owned by Palisades Collection, LLC. Collectively, all these persons will be referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “Class members.” Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the Class. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and any entities in which Defendants have a controlling interest, Defendants’ agents and employees, the Judge to whom this action is assigned and any member of the Judge’s staff and immediate family, and claims for personal injury, wrongful death and/or emotional distress.  35. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the classes, which common questions predominate over any questions that affect only individual class members. Those common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Whether DRS made nonemergency calls to Plaintiff and Class members’ cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; b. Whether DRS can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior express consent (i.e., consent that is clearly and unmistakably stated), during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed, to make such calls; c. Whether DRS’s conduct was knowing and/or willful; d. Whether DRS is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and e. Whether DRS should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the future.  36. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members. All are based on the same factual and legal theories.  37. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class members. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes including TCPA class actions.  40. Plaintiff incorporates the above factual allegations herein.  41. Defendant’s practice of placing calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone utilizing an “artificial or prerecorded voice” or placed by an “automatic telephone dialing system” for non- emergency purposes and in the absence of Plaintiff’s prior express consent was harassing and annoying. Because Plaintiff kept his cellular telephone on or around his person everyday, he was unable to avoid Defendant’s calls.  42. Defendant violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692d, by attempting to harass and annoy Plaintiff by the calls to his cellular telephone.  43. Defendant also violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by falsely, deceptively, and misleadingly representing to Plaintiff that one of the callers was an attorney. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the class members and against Defendant for: A. Actual and Statutory damages; B. Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; C. Such other or further relief as the Court deems appropriate. FDCPA-INDVDUAL CLAIM  TCPA (CELLULAR CALLS) 