10.  In recent years, companies such as Defendant have turned to prerecorded calling  as a way to communicate with telephone subscribers concerning both marketing and  informational calls.   11.  In order to legally place prerecorded calls to cellular phone numbers it must  receive the cell phone subscriber’s prior express consent to do so for informational calls and  written prior express consent for pre-recorded marketing calls.   12.  However, in practice, when placing these prerecorded calls to cellular telephone  subscribers, Defendant fails to obtain the appropriate consent as required by the TCPA to make  such calls.   14.  For various reasons, cellular telephone subscribers deactivate and relinquish their  cellular telephone numbers. Once deactivated, the cellular telephone carrier reassigns the number  to another subscriber – a practice known as “recycling.” Recycling times (i.e., the time between  deactivation and reassignment) vary across carriers, generally ranging from 30 days to six  months depending on location and demand. During the recycling period, the cellular telephone  number is considered disconnected.   15.  In some instances, the prior owner of a recycled telephone number may have  consented to receiving prerecorded calls from Defendant.  But, even if the prior owner  consented, that consent does not transfer to the new recycled cellular telephone number’s owner.  Ultimately, new owners of recycled cellular telephone numbers are given no choice in receiving,  addressing, and in paying for Defendant’s prerecorded calls.   16.  In response to the liability risk associated with recycled numbers, numerous  commercially available services exist to help companies that call others using an artificial or  prerecorded voice, such as Defendant, identify recycled numbers and non-consenting cellular  subscribers. For instance, companies such as Infutor, Nextmark List, and Contact Center  Compliance advertise their ability to instantly identify and flag disconnected telephone numbers  from cellular telephone number data lists on a recurring basis (such as weekly or monthly). This  type of service can identify disconnected numbers before they are recycled, thereby alerting  companies such as Defendant that any consent associated with those telephone numbers has been  terminated.   18.  Rather, in an effort to increase revenue and skirt additional costs, Defendant  simply treats the new recycled cellular telephone number owner as if he or she were the previous  owner. As such, if the previous owner gave consent to receive Defendant’s prerecorded calls,  Defendant continues to treat that consent as the consent of the new (unassociated) owner. New  owners are then forced to incur the cost and annoyance of receiving Defendant’s prerecorded  calls.     19.  Worse yet, sometimes these unwanted calls continue for years (as in the present  case) as the company continues to call the recycled number and does not update its caller details  despite the new subscriber alerting the company that they are calling for the owner who no  longer subscribes to the cell phone number.    20.  Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) unsolicited prerecorded calls  without the prior express consent of the call recipients.  In so doing, Defendant not only invaded  the personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of the putative Classes, but also intentionally and  repeatedly violated the TCPA.   22.  Over the time span of approximately three years, Plaintiff received repeated  prerecorded telephone calls on its cellular telephone number from Defendant’s telephone number  612-435-8142.   23.  When Plaintiff answered the calls from telephone number 612-435-8142, Plaintiff  was greeted each time by a prerecorded voice identifying the call from UnitedHealthcare, asking  to speak to “Tremaine.”  Plaintiff would then be instructed to press #1 if the recipient was  Tremaine, and to press #2 if not to be opted out.  Plaintiff pressed #2 numerous times when  receiving calls from Defendant in attempt to stop the calls.    25.  Frustrated at receiving the unwanted prerecorded calls, Plaintiff tried calling the  telephone number 612-435-8142 in order to stop the calls.  However, Plaintiff could not speak to  anyone because a prerecorded voice instructed Plaintiff to input Tremaine’s date of birth in order  to continue and Plaintiff does not know a Tremaine or Tremaine’s date of birth.     26.   Plaintiff was determined to get the calls to stop since they continued to call.   Plaintiff called a different number that UnitedHealth uses, and upon being connected to a  representative, provided its phone number and informed Defendant’s representative that Plaintiff  is not familiar with anyone named “Tremaine” and to stop calling Plaintiff’s cell phone number.   The representative informed Plaintiff that its phone number would be removed from its system.   27.  Despite Plaintiff’s call to UnitedHealth, Plaintiff continued to receive pre- recorded calls on Plaintiff cellular phone. Plaintiff called another UnitedHealth phone number  Plaintiff found on its website and provided its phone number to the representative. Plaintiff then  explained that the calls are for “Tremaine,” not Plaintiff, and demanded that the calls to stop. The  representative assured Plaintiff that Plaintiff’s phone number would be removed from their  system.   28.  Again, despite Plaintiff’s requests for UnitedHealth to stop calling, the calls  continued to the cellular telephone. On September 21, 2017 and October 20, 2017, Plaintiff  received two additional prerecorded telephone calls from Defendant using 612-435-8142.    29.  Defendant continues to call Plaintiff’s phone number to this day several years  later.   30.  On one of the calls, the pre-recorded message was regarding a flu shot. Some of  the other calls may have been marketing messages.   32.  During all relevant times, Plaintiff did not have a relationship with UnitedHealth,  or any of its affiliated companies, and never requested that UnitedHealth place prerecorded calls  to it. Simply put, UnitedHealth did not possess Plaintiff’s prior express consent to place a  telephone call to Plaintiff using a prerecorded voice.   33.  By making unauthorized prerecorded telephone calls as alleged herein,  UnitedHealth has caused cell phone subscribers actual harm in the form of annoyance, nuisance,  and invasion of privacy. In addition, the calls disturbed Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of its  phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phone’s hardware (including the phone’s battery)  and the consumption of memory on Plaintiff’s phone. In the present case, a cell phone subscriber  could be subjected to many unsolicited prerecorded telephone calls as UnitedHealth does not  take care to ensure that the recipients of its prerecorded calls have given their prior express  written consent to be called.   34.  In order to redress these injuries, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and Classes of  similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47  U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits unsolicited prerecorded telephone calls to cellular  telephones.   35.  On behalf of the Classes, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring UnitedHealth to  cease all unsolicited prerecorded telephone calling activities and an award of statutory damages  to the class members, together with costs.  37.  The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or their  parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors;  (3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion  from the class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons;  and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated and/or  released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the class definition following appropriate  discovery.   38.  Numerosity: The exact size 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 placed prerecorded telephone calls to thousands of cellular telephone  subscribers who fall into the definition of the Classes. Members of the Classes can be easily  identified through Defendant’s records.   40.  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 his 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 his counsel has any interest adverse to the Classes.   42.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing factual allegations as if fully set forth herein.   43.  Defendant made prerecorded telephone calls to cellular telephone numbers  belonging to Plaintiff and other members of the Prerecorded No Consent Class without first  obtaining prior express consent to receive such calls.   44.  By making the unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff and the Prerecorded No  Consent Class members’ cellular telephones without their prior express consent, and by utilizing  a prerecorded voice to make those calls, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   45.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Prerecorded No Consent Class are each entitled a minimum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00)  in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.   46.  In the event that the Court determines that Defendant’s conduct was willful and  knowing, it may, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Prerecorded No Consent Class.  48.  Defendant made unsolicited and unwanted prerecorded calls to telephone  numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Prerecorded Stop Class on their  cellular telephones after they had informed Defendant, orally and/or through the Defendant’s  automated prompt system, that they no longer wished to receive such calls from Defendant.   49.  By making unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff and other members of the Pre- recorded Stop Class’s cellular telephones using a prerecorded voice after they requested to no  longer receive such calls, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) by doing so without  prior express consent.   50.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Prerecorded Stop 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.  Should the Court determine that Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing, the Court may,  pursuant to Section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiff  and the other members of the Prerecorded Stop Class.  Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Prerecorded No Consent Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Prerecorded Stop Class)  