20.  Fred Loya makes promotional phone calls to consumers without having  the necessary prior express written consent to do so in violation of the TCPA.    21.  Fred Loya makes these unsolicited advertising calls using equipment  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a)(1) that has the capacity to store or produce telephone  numbers, and to dial such numbers, without any need for human intervention.   22.  The TCPA was intended to give individuals control over how and  where they receive phone calls to their wireless phone.  When Fred Loya makes  phone calls to consumers without their consent, it fails to address or respect the  limitations imposed by the TCPA.  In doing so, it takes control away from the  consumers and violates both the spirit and the letter of the TCPA.    23.  Under the TCPA and pursuant to the FCC’s January 2008 Declaratory  Ruling, the burden is on Defendant to demonstrate that Plaintiff provided express  consent within the meaning of the statute.    24.  With the passage of CIPA in 1967, California became a two-party  consent state, which means that all parties to a telephone call must consent before  their conversation can be recorded.  The statute was enacted for the explicit purpose  of protecting privacy rights.    25.  In or around the Summer of 2020, Plaintiff began receiving unsolicited  phone calls to his wireless phone ending in -6277 from Fred Loya attempting to  advertise insurance products.     47 U.S.C. §§ 227 ET SEQ.   47 U.S.C. §§ 227 ET SEQ.   53.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all  others similarly situated (“the TCPA Class”).  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the TCPA Class, consisting of all  persons within the United States who received any unsolicited, promotional  phone calls from Defendant or its agents on their cellular telephones through  the use of any automatic telephone dialing system as set forth in 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(3), which phone calls by Defendant or its agents were not made  for emergency purposes or with the recipients’ prior express written consent,  within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of final  approval.   54.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the TCPA  Class. Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the TCPA Class, but  believes members number in the hundreds of thousands, if not more.  Thus, this  matter should be certified as a Class action to assist in the expeditious litigation of  this matter.   74.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this  Complaint as though fully stated herein.    75.  Each such promotional phone call was made using equipment that,  upon information and belief, had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers  to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such  numbers.  These promotional phone calls were made without the prior express  written consent of the Plaintiff and other members of the TCPA Class.   76.  Defendant made unauthorized promotional phone calls using an  automatic telephone dialing system to the cellular telephone number of Plaintiff and  the other members of the TCPA Class without their prior express written consent.   80.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-73 of this Complaint  as though fully stated herein.    81.  Each such promotional phone call was made using equipment that,  upon information and belief, had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers  to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such  numbers.  These promotional phone calls were made without the prior express  written consent of the Plaintiff and other members of the TCPA Class to receive  such telephone calls.   82.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitutes 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.   83.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47  U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and the TCPA Class are entitled to 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).    85.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-73 of this Complaint  as though fully stated herein.   86.  Californians have a constitutional right to privacy. Moreover, the  California Supreme Court has definitively linked the constitutionally protected right  to privacy within the purpose, intent and specific protections of the Privacy Act,  including specifically, Penal Code § 632. In addition, California’s explicit  constitutional privacy provision (Cal. Const., 1 § 1) was enacted in part specifically  to protect California from overly intrusive business practices that were seen to pose  a significant and increasing threat to personal privacy. Thus, California must be  viewed as having a strong and continuing interest in the full and vigorous application  of the provisions of section 632 prohibiting the recording of telephone conversations  without the knowledge or consent of all parties to the conversation. See Kearney v.  Salmon Smith Barney, Inc., (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 95, 125.   87.  California Penal Code § 632.7 prohibits one party to a telephone call  from intentionally recording the conversation without the knowledge or consent of  the other party, where a cellular telephone is involved. Cal. Pen. Code § 632.7 is  violated the moment the recording is made without the consent of all parties thereto,  regardless of whether it is subsequently disclosed that the telephone call was  recorded. The only intent required by Cal. Pen. Code § 632.7 is that the act of  recording itself be done intentionally. There is no requisite intent on behalf of the  party doing the surreptitious recording to break California law or any other law, or  to invade the privacy right of any other person.   96.  As a result of Defendant’s, and Defendant’s agents’, negligent  violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), Plaintiff seeks for himself and TCPA Class  member $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   97.  Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future.  98.  As a result of Defendant’s, and Defendant’s agents’, willful and/or  knowing violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), Plaintiff seeks for himself and each  TCPA 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).   99.  Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA   47 U.S.C. §§ 227 ET SEQ.   NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA  47 U.S.C. §§ 227 ET SEQ.   UNLAWFUL INVASION OF PRIVACY  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 632.7  