25.  On or about June 27, 2019, Defendant called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number  ending in 6638 (“6638 Number”).    26.  Upon Plaintiff answering the phone, Plaintiff heard a very long and noticeable pause  before he was greeted by a live person.  This pause is indicative of automatic telephone dialing system  (“ATDS”) technology.    28.  When Plaintiff was transferred to a live person, the person introduced themselves as  Diamond and stated that they were calling on behalf of Momentum Solar. Defendant then proceeded to  try to sell Plaintiff solar panels and to try and setup a solar panel installation.     29.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and/or sole user of the 6638 Number.   30.  Additionally, Plaintiff has been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since  July of 2007.   31.  Defendant called Plaintiff from 941-264-1066, a number which upon information and  belief, Defendant owned and/or operated.    33.  On or about July 8, 2019, Defendant called Plaintiff again at the 6638 Number from the  telephone number 407-890-0217. During that telephone call, Plaintiff told Defendant to stop calling  him.   34.  Despite Plaintiff instructing Defendant to stop calling him, on or about July 19, 2019  Defendant called Plaintiff again at the 6638 Number from the telephone number 914-223-7530.   35.  Plaintiff received the subject calls within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant’s  violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.     36.  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused similar calls to be placed to individuals  residing within this judicial district.     37.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with written express consent to be  contacted.     39.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  himself and all others similarly situated.   40.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the below defined Class:  No Consent Class: All persons within the United States who, within  the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were called by  Defendant or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s  cellular telephone number, using the same equipment, or type of  equipment, used to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, without their  prior express written consent.    Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who  from four years prior to the filing of this action (1) were called by  or on behalf of Defendant; (2) more than one time within any 12- month period; (3) where the person’s telephone number had been  listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days;  (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant’s products and/or services;  and (5) for whom Defendant’s claim (a) it did not obtain prior  express written consent, or (b) it obtained prior express written  consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it supposedly  obtained prior express written consent to call the Plaintiff.   41.  Defendant and their 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 several  thousands, if not more.  44.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  Among the questions of law and  fact common to the Class are:  (1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Class members’  cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet their burden of showing that they obtained prior  express written consent to make such calls;  (3) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  (4) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  (5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   45.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s  claim that Defendants routinely calls telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephone services is  accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of being efficiently  adjudicated and administered in this case.  50.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    52.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used an automatic telephone  dialing system to make non-emergency marketing telephone calls to the cellular telephones of  Plaintiff and other members of the Class.   53.  These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained  express written consent from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have  prior express written consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the  putative Class when its calls were made.    54.  Defendant violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an automatic  telephone dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of Plaintiff  and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express consent.    55.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an  injunction against future calls.   56.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the paragraphs 1 through 49 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.    58.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that § 64.1200(c) and (d) “are applicable to any  person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone  numbers.”   59.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any  call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity  has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing  calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity.”    60.  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” may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were  promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone  solicitations to which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c).    61.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated,  telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry  Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call  Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained  by the federal government.    63.  To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, the  Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Perry Becker, on behalf of himself and the other members of the  Class, prays for the following relief:   a.  A declaration that Defendant’s practices described herein violate the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227;   b.  A declaration that Defendant’s violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection  Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, were willful and knowing;  c.  An injunction prohibiting Defendant from using an automatic telephone dialing  system to call telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephones without the prior express consent  of the called party;   d.  An award of actual, statutory damages, and/or trebled statutory damages; and   e.  Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.  PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class)  