26.  Beginning on or around June 18, 2020, Defendant caused numerous telephone calls,  prerecorded voicemails, and text messages to be transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number,  starting with “904” and ending in “4111” (the “4111 Number”).   28.  Subsequent to June 18, 2020, Defendant caused numerous other prerecorded  calls, with the same or substantially similar message, to be left of Plaintiff’s cellular telephone,  which similarly prompted her to contact The Credit Pros.    29.  For example, Plaintiff received additional prerecorded calls from Defendant on  June 20, 2020 and June 22, 2020.  Defendant also transmitted numerous automated text messages  to Plaintiff on June 18, 2020, June 20, 2020, June 22, 2020, and June 23, 2020.    30.  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused countless other prerecorded and  automated calls to be transmitted to individuals residing within this judicial district.   31.  When Plaintiff listened to the prerecorded messages described herein, she could  easily determine that they were prerecorded messages. Rahn v. Bank of Am., No. 1:15-CV- 4485-ODE-JSA, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186171, at *10-11 (N.D. Ga. June 23, 2016) (“When  one receives a call, it is a clear-cut fact, easily discernible to any lay person, whether or not the  recipient is speaking to a live human being, or is instead being subjected to a prerecorded  message.”).   32.  The prerecorded calls transmitted to Plaintiff originated from telephone number  (747) 217-3523, which is owned and/or operated by, or on behalf of, Defendant.     34.  Defendant’s unsolicited communications, as described above, constitute  telemarketing because they encourage the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or  services. i.e., requesting that Plaintiff contact Defendant regarding purchasing various credit  repairs services and obtaining a $5,000 line of credit.    35.  Plaintiff received the subject communications within this judicial district, and  therefore, Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district. Upon information  and belief, Defendant caused other prerecorded and automated calls to be sent to individuals  residing within this judicial district.   36.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 4111 Number and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 4111 Number.   37.  Plaintiff has been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since April  6, 2019.    38.  Plaintiff has never provided Defendant with her telephone number for any  reason.   39.  Plaintiff has never knowingly released her telephone number to Defendant.    40.  Plaintiff has never had any type of business relationship with Defendant.   41.  Plaintiff did not contact Defendant for any reason prior to receiving Defendant’s  unsolicited calls.   43.  Defendant’s unsolicited prerecorded calls violated Plaintiff’s substantive rights  under the TCPA. See Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F.3d 1259, 1270 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing  Susinno v. Work Out World Inc., 862 F.3d 346, 351- 52 (3d Cir. 2017) (holding that the receipt of a  single unsolicited call to a cell phone and a voicemail recording constituted an injury in fact).     44.  Defendant’s unsolicited calls also caused Plaintiff actual harm, including  invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and  conversion. Defendant’s calls also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to her  workday and/or graduate-degree studies.    45.  These unsolicited communications further harmed Plaintiff in that she estimates  that she wasted approximately 15 minutes reviewing all of Defendant’s unwanted messages.   Additionally, each and every time Plaintiff received a prerecorded call from Defendant, she  had to stop what she was doing, retrieve her phone, pull up the telephone number of the  individual who had left the message, and listen to the message.   46.  Moreover, Defendant’s voicemail messages occupied and depleted the  available memory on Plaintiff’s cellular phone. The cumulative effect of receiving voice  messages, like Defendant’s, poses a legitimate risk of ultimately rendering the phone unusable  for voice messaging purposes, as well as other basic functions, as a result of the phone’s  working memory being depleted.   47.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf  of herself and all others similarly situated.   49.  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 several  thousands, if not more.  52.  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 prerecorded telemarketing calls  to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ cellular telephones;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it 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.   53.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If  Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely transmits prerecorded telemarketing calls to telephone  numbers assigned to cellular telephone services is accurate, then Plaintiff and the Class members  will have identical claims, capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  60.  It is a violation of the TCPA 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 … to any telephone  number assigned to a … cellular telephone service ….” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    61.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – transmitted calls using an  artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of  the putative class.     62.  These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained  express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have  prior express consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative  Class when the calls were made.    63.  Defendant has therefore violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  artificial or prerecorded voice 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.    64.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these calls  and knew, or should have known, that it was using an artificial or prerecorded voice. The  violations were therefore willful or knowing.    66.  Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other  members of the putative Class had not given prior express consent to receive its prerecorded  calls to their cellular telephones, the Court should treble the amount of statutory damages  available to Plaintiff and members of the putative Class, pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.   67.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 – 58, above, as if fully set  forth herein.   68.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendant knew or should have known that  its conduct, as alleged herein, violated the TCPA.   69.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to transmit artificial  or prerecorded voice calls, and it also knew or should have known that its conduct violated the  72.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 – 58, above, as if fully set  forth herein.   73.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o  person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber who  has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who do  not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”   74.  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.” 2   75.  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.”   76.  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).   78.  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class received more than one telephone call in a 12-month period that was made by or on  behalf of Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class suffered actual damages and,  under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled to receive, among other things, up to $500.00 in  damages for each such violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.   79.  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 Plaintiff and the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Victoria Warren, on behalf of herself and all others similarly  situated, prays for the following relief:   a. A declaration that Defendant’s practices, as described herein, violate the  Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227;   b. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from using an artificial or prerecorded  voice to contact telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephones without  the prior express permission of the called party;   c. An award of actual and statutory damages; and   d. Any other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.  Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  