19.  In Defendant’s overzealous attempt to market its services, it placed (and continues  to place) phone calls to consumers who never provided consent to call and to consumers having  no relationship with Defendant. Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) these  telemarketing calls without the prior express written consent of the call recipients. As such,  Defendant not only invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of the putative Class,  but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.  20.  Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone number via ATDS, as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), over 20 times between February and August of 2015. Plaintiff  never consented in any manner to receive these calls to his cellular telephone.      21.  Plaintiff received all calls as described above on his cellular telephone assigned a  number ending in 2411.   22.  Plaintiff’s caller ID read “856-229-0988,” or “732-865-8040” whenever Defendant  called his cellular phone.     23.  Plaintiff answered several of the calls and interacted with Defendant’s automatic  dialing system and live operators.   25.  Plaintiff has received auto-dialed marketing calls before.  Plaintiff associated the  momentary pause as a sign a computer had auto-dialed his number and then automatically routed  the call to a Defendant’s representative after Plaintiff answered the call.   26.  Plaintiff could also hear the sounds of a call center in the background whenever  Plaintiff spoke with a live operator.    27.  Plaintiff wanted the calls to stop, so on at least one occasion, Plaintiff took steps to  identify the company calling him so he could request to be removed from its call list.     28.  Therefore, on an occasion when Defendant called from 856-229-0988, Plaintiff  pressed “1” to speak with a “lending specialist” after and answered the call from Defendant’s  automated, pre-recorded voice system.     29.  Defendant’s automated system then routed Plaintiff to a female operator.  Plaintiff  asked who she worked for, and she told him “Business Loan Center.”   30.  The operator then transferred Plaintiff to “Jerome” who said he worked for Capital  Advance Solutions.     31.  Plaintiff accidentally disconnected the call, but Jerome called back from the number  (732) 865-8040.  He provided Plaintiff Defendant’s website address and a direct call back number,  (866) 995-7272.     32.  Plaintiff was not interested in Defendant’s services and requested Defendant  remove his number from Defendant’s dialing system.   33.  Despite this reasonable request, Defendant’s automated system continued to call  Plaintiff.  He has requested Defendant stop calling his on multiple occasions, but the calls continue.       35.  Based on the circumstances of the calls – including but not limited to, a signature  pause before an operator started speaking, call center noise, receipt of multiple calls over a short  period of time, and Defendants called despite Plaintiff’s requests to Defendants to stop calling  (indicating a computer automatically dialed the number again) – Plaintiff believed Defendants  called his cellular telephone using an ATDS that automatically selected his number from a  computer database.   36.  On information and belief, Defendant’s ATDS called Plaintiff on every occasion.   37.  Plaintiff understood the purpose of Defendant’s calls was to solicit business from  Plaintiff.   38.  The telephone number Defendant called was assigned to a cellular telephone  service for which charges incur for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).   39.  Plaintiff is the regular carrier and exclusive user of the cellular telephone assigned  the number ending in 2411.   40.  Defendant’s calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined  by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1(A)(i).   41.  Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with prior express written consent to receive  calls to his cellular telephone utilizing an ATDS or artificial or pre-recorded voice, pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3).     42.  All calls Defendant made to Plaintiff violate 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).   44.  Plaintiff’s overriding interest is ensuring Defendant ceases all illegal telemarketing  practices and compensate all members of the Plaintiff Class for invading their privacy in the  manner the TCPA was contemplated to prevent.   45.  In order to redress injuries caused by Defendant’s violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff,  on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the TCPA, 47  U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits certain unsolicited voice and text calls to cell phones.     46.  On behalf of the Plaintiff Class, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant  to cease all wireless telemarketing and spam activities and an award of statutory damages to the  class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  47.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2),  and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and the following classes defined as follows (the “Class”):  All individuals in the United States who received a call made by or on behalf  of Defendant to the individual’s cellular telephone through the use of an  automatic telephone dialing system, or pre-recorded voice, or any other  device having the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention,  from October 16, 2013 to the date the Class is certified, where Defendant’s  records fail to indicate prior express written consent from the recipient to  make such call.   49.  This suit seeks only damages, statutory penalties, 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.     50.  Plaintiff reserves 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.   51.  Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by Defendant’s acts in at least the  following ways: Defendant, either directly or through agents, illegally contacted Plaintiff and the  Class members via their cellular telephones by using an ATDS, thereby causing Plaintiff and the  Class members to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular telephone time for  which Plaintiff and the Class members previously paid, and invading the privacy of Plaintiff and  the Class members.  B.  67.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as  though set forth at length herein.   68.  Defendant made unsolicited and unauthorized calls using an ATDS or pre-recorded  voice to Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ cellular telephones for the purpose of marketing  products and/or services to Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class Members.   69.  Defendant made the calls without prior express written consent of the Plaintiff and  Plaintiff Class Members.     70.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitutes numerous and multiple  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.   71.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et. seq., Plaintiff and the  Plaintiff Class Members 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).     72.  Because Defendant had knowledge that Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class Members  did not consent to the receipt of the aforementioned telephone solicitations, the Court should,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by the  Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class Members.     A.  CLASS ALLEGATIONS   VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227  