14.  Defendants made (or had made on their behalf) telephone calls to Plaintiff’s and  the members of the Classes’ telephones without consent. Defendants have made thousands of  calls through the phone numbers (302) 394-6888, (954) 334-3110, and (305) 260-6112, among  others.    15.  In making unsolicited calls to the telephones of the Classes, Defendants utilized  an “automated dialing system” that places outbound calls automatically through the use of a  computerized or other mechanical process.   17.  The Newport Beachside Hotel & Resort is owned, operated, and/or marketed by  Defendants, along with interrelated non-party entities.    18.  Defendants repeatedly made (or directed to be made on their behalf) unsolicited  phone calls to Plaintiff’s and the other putative members of the Classes’ telephones in violation  of the TCPA.     19.  Neither Plaintiff Zelaya, nor the other members of the putative Classes, ever  consented to have Defendants make phone calls to them.   20.  Based on the fact that neither Plaintiff nor other members of the putative Classes  ever consented to receive calls from Defendants, and that they did not provide their phone  numbers to Defendants in any capacity, Defendants only could have obtained those telephone  numbers by purchasing lists of phone numbers from a third party and/or by simply dialing  numbers at random.         22.  Plaintiff first began receiving calling from Defendants in October 2010, and  received subsequent calls in April 2011, May 2011, and June 2011. On June 8, 2011, Plaintiff  contacted Defendants and spoke with a hotel manager, informed him of the ongoing and  unwanted telemarketing calls, and requested that they stop.    23.  Notwithstanding these requests, Defendants called Plaintiff again in August 2011.  Thereafter Plaintiff received a communication from Defendants’ counsel that indicated that he  would no longer receive telemarketing calls from Defendants. However, again, Plaintiff received  numerous additional calls from Defendants.     24.  For example, on January 25, 2012, Defendants called Plaintiff and informed him  that he was the “winner” of a promotional package that included a free trip to Orlando or Las  Vegas. The telemarketer additionally informed Plaintiff that the offer related to a promotion to  celebrate Newport's 40th anniversary and its recent extensive renovation.    25.  Plaintiff received a second call from Defendants on that very same day that  repeated the “promotional offer,” but adding that both Visa and MasterCard sponsored the offer.  The telemarketer also informed Plaintiff that to receive the offer Plaintiff needed to attend a 90- minute tour of Newport Beachside Hotel and Resort and that Plaintiff should contact Newport’s  reception manager Gabriela Rojas.   27.  On February 9, 2012, Defendants placed yet another call to Plaintiff’s cellular  telephone, this time from (305) 260-6112. The telemarketer told Plaintiff that he was the winner  of an award consisting of a free dinner package at Hotel Kitchen VIP 305, a restaurant in the  Newport hotel, and that to claim the award Plaintiff, he needed to visit the hotel.   28.  Defendants placed additional calls to Plaintiff on March 28th and March 31st.   29.  Each time Defendants called Plaintiff, he informed them that he as listed on the  National Do Not Call Registry, he asked Defendants to place his information on their internal do  not call list, and asked them to mail him a copy of their TCPA/Do-Not-Call policy.    30.  Defendants never provided Plaintiff with a copy of their TCPA/Do-Not-Call  policy, as requested.    31.  Defendants made, or had made on their behalf, the calls to Plaintiff using  equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a  random or sequential number generator and to dial such numbers.   32.  Plaintiff did not submit his phone number to Defendants or any other entity that  stated, directly or indirectly, that he would receive phone calls from Defendants, let alone phone  calls promoting time-share or resort opportunities.   33.  Plaintiff never consented to, requested, or otherwise desired or permitted  Defendants to make telephone calls to his cellular phone, nor did Plaintiff provide Defendants or  their agents with his cellular telephone number.   35.  Plaintiff’s experience is corroborated by numerous consumer complaints  appearing online, which indicate that Defendants placed calls to consumers without permission  on a repeat basis.    36.  Defendants each were aware that the above-described telephone calls were being  made either by them directly, or made on their behalf, and that the telephone calls were being  made to consumers who had not consented to receive them.  38.  Numerosity: The exact number of the members of the Classes is unknown and  not available to Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On  information and belief, Defendants have made telephone calls to thousands of consumers who  fall into the definition of the Classes. Members of the Classes can be identified through  Defendants’ records.   39.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the  Classes, in that Plaintiff and the members of the Classes sustained damages arising out of  Defendants’ uniform wrongful conduct and unsolicited telephone calls.   40.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in  complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Classes, and  Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiff.   43.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   44.  Defendants made thousands of unsolicited phone calls to cellular telephone  numbers belonging to Plaintiff and other members of the Newport Call and Newport Opt-Out  Classes using equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called  using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.   45.  Specifically, Defendants utilized an automatic telephone dialing system to make  telephone calls to Plaintiff and the other members of the Newport Call and Newport Opt-Out  Classes without human intervention. Defendants’ equipment qualifies as an automatic telephone  dialing system because it is equipment, combining software and hardware aspects, that has the  capacity to store or produce numbers and dial numbers at random, in sequential order, or from a  database of numbers, and likewise has the capacity to make telephone calls, that, when answered,  create a new outbound call and direct the called party to a live operator. Defendants’ equipment  can accomplish all these functions without human intervention.    47.  Defendants’ phone calls were also made to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and  other members of the Newport Opt-Out Class after they had expressly requested to no longer  receive any future calls from Defendant, and therefore, any calls made following such a request  were done without prior express consent.    48.  Defendants have, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). As a result of  Defendants’ illegal conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Newport Call and Newport  Opt-Out Classes suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive unsolicited calls  on their cellular phones and, under section 227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled to, inter alia, a  minimum of $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the Act.   49.  Should the Court determine that Defendants’ misconduct was willful and  knowing, the Court may, pursuant to section 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory  damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Newport Call and Newport Opt- Out Classes.  50.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   51.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c) provides that 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,” 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.   53.  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 to the extent described in the Commission’s Report and Order, CG Docket No. 02-278,  FCC 03- 153, ‘Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of  1991,’” which Report and Order in turn, provides as follows:  The Commission's rules provide that companies making telephone solicitations to  residential telephone subscribers must comply with time of day restrictions and must  institute procedures for maintaining do-not-call lists. For the reasons described above, we  conclude that these rules apply to calls made to wireless telephone numbers. We believe  that wireless subscribers should be afforded the same protections as wireline subscribers.   55.  Defendants violated § 64.1200(c) by initiating telephone solicitations to wireless  and residential telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff and the Newport Do Not Call Class, 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. These consumers requested not to receive calls from Defendants, as set forth in  § 64.l200(d)(3).    56.  Defendants and/or their agents made more than one unsolicited telephone call to  Plaintiff and members of the Newport Do Not Call Class within a 12-month period, without their  prior express consent to receive such calls. Plaintiff and members of the Newport Do Not Call  Class never provided any form of consent, at any time, to receive telephone calls from  Defendants.   57.  Plaintiff and members of the Newport Do Not Call Class expressly requested that  Defendants no longer place calls to them, after which Defendants failed to place Plaintiff and  members of the Newport Do Not Call Class on Defendants’ internal do-not-call list (or failed to  do so within its stated seven day time period).    59.  Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Newport Do  Not Call Class received more than one telephone call within a 12-month period made by or on  behalf of the Defendants in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of  Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Newport Do Not Call Class suffered  actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are each entitled, inter alia, to receive up  to $500 in damages for such violations of § 64.1200.   60.  To the extent Defendants’ misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing,  the Court should, pursuant to § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by  the members of Plaintiff and the Newport Do Not Call Class.  Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Newport Do Not Call Class)   Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff, the Newport Call Class, and the Newport Opt-Out Class)  