10.  Beginning on or about November 14, 2013, Defendant started placing telephone  calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone ending in 6721.    11.  Defendant placed multiple calls for Plaintiff, on her cellular phone, and left her  multiple voice-messagesn in the form of pre-recorded messages, asking for a return call at  (866)368-1565.   13.  The telephone number that Defendant or its agents called was assigned to a  cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1).   14.  These telephone calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(i).   15.  Plaintiff never provided any personal information, including her cellular  telephone number to Defendant. At no time did Plaintiff provide Defendant or its agents with  prior express consent to receive telephone calls from an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded  voice, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A).   16.  These telephone calls by Defendant, or its agents, violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1).  17.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of and all others  similarly situated (―the Class‖).   18.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the Class, consisting of:   All persons within the United States who received any  telephone call(s) from Defendant, or its agent(s) and/or  employee(s), to said person’s cellular telephone, made  through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system, or  an artificial or prerecorded voice, within the four years prior  to the filling of the Complaint.   19.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class.  Plaintiff  does not know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number in  the thousands, if not more.  Thus, this matter should be certified as a Class action to assist in  the expeditious litigation of this matter.   21.  This suit seeks only damages 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.  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.   22.  The joinder of the Class members is impractical and the disposition of their  claims in the Class action will provide substantial benefits both to the parties and to the court.   The Class can be identified through Defendant’s records or Defendant’s agents’ records.   23.  There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact  involved affecting the parties to be represented.  The questions of law and fact to the Class  predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members, including the  following:  a)  Whether, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendant or  its agents placed any calls to the Class (other than a call made for emergency  purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) or to a Class  member using any automatic dialing system, or an artificial or prerecorded  voice, to any telephone number assigned to a cellular phone service;   b)  Whether Plaintiff and the Class members were damaged thereby, and the extent  of damages for such violation; and   c)  Whether Defendant and its agents should be enjoined from engaging in such  conduct in the future.    25.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class have all suffered irreparable harm as a  result of the Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct.  Absent a class action, the Class will  continue to face the potential for irreparable harm.  In addition, these violations of law will be  allowed to proceed without remedy and Defendant will likely continue such illegal conduct.   Because of the size of the individual Class member’s claims, few, if any, Class members could  afford to seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of herein.   26.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims and  claims involving violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.   27.  A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.  Class-wide damages are essential to induce Defendant to comply with federal and  state law.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate  claims against Defendant is small because the maximum statutory damages in an individual  action for violation of privacy are minimal.  Management of these claims is likely to present  significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many class claims.    28.  Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby  making appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to  the Class as a whole.  32.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully stated herein.   34.  As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq,  Plaintiff and The Class 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).   35.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.  36.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully stated herein.   37.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and  multiple knowing and/or willful 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.   38.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227  et seq, Plaintiff and The Class are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for  each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   39.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.  ///  FOR KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET  SEQ.  •  As a result of Defendant’s willful and/or knowing violations of 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1), Plaintiffs seek for themselves and each Class member treble damages,  as provided by statute, up to $1,500.00 for each and every violation, pursuant to  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  •  Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct  in the future.  •  Any other relief the Court may deem just and proper.  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE  CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.   NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  