11.  In an effort to increase collections on alleged debtor accounts, Defendant has  made thousands of unsolicited phone calls to consumers nationwide. Many of these calls were  placed to non-debtors.  Most, if not all, of the calls featured a prerecorded voice.    12.  As part of Defendant’s debt collection process, Defendant “loads referrals  electronically, reconciles accounts with clients, provides standard and customized reports,  provides flexible payment arrangement opportunities, accepts credit cards and check-by-phone,  refers accounts to credit bureaus and/or undertakes legal judgment (with client approval), has an  efficient month end process, and interfaces electronically with client hosts systems.” See  http://m3fs.com/?page_id=5(last visited on May 8, 2015).   13.  Beginning approximately January 2015, Plaintiff received a number of unsolicited  phone calls to her wireless phone, for which Plaintiff provided no consent to call, in attempt to  collect an alleged debt owed by a third party.   14.  Such calls were always made by prerecorded voice message that stated:  “Hello. This is not a sales call. This is a second attempt to reach June Kahn  in regard to the account with M3 Financial Services. If you are that person  or can deliver a message to that person please have them call 708-632-5680  4In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of  1991 (“FCC Declaratory Ruling”), 23 F.C.C.R. 559, 23 FCC Rcd. 559, 43 Communications  Reg. (P&F) 877, 2008 WL 65485 (F.C.C.) (2008).  5FCC Declaratory Ruling, 23 F.C.C.R. at 564-65 (¶ 10).  5  tonight up until 8:30 p.m. or on Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00  p.m. central standard time with reference number 1[XXXXX]3. This is a  very serious matter and it is very important we speak with them. Once  again this is a second attempt from M3 Financial Services. The phone  number to call back is 708-632-5680 and your reference number is  1[XXXXX]3. Thank you for delivering this message as it is very important.  Press 2 to hear this message again. Goodbye.”   15.  The incoming calls from M3 Financial received by Plaintiff came from the phone  number (708) 632-5680, a number owned by Defendant.   16.  Plaintiff received calls beginning approximately in January 2015, but more  recently received calls on April 14, 2015 at 3:42 p.m., April 22, 2015 at 3:15 p.m., April 28,  2015 at 4:39 p.m. and on May 7, 2015. Each of these calls featured the above described  prerecorded voice message.    17.  These unsolicited phone calls placed to Plaintiff’s wireless telephone were placed  via an “automatic telephone dialing system,” (“ATDS”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a)(1) and  by using “an artificial or prerecorded voice” system as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A),  which had the capacity to produce or store numbers randomly or sequentially, and to dial such  numbers, to place telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.   18.  The telephone number that Defendant, or its agents, called was assigned to a  cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurred a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1).   19.  These telephone calls constitute calls that were not for emergency purposes as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).    20.  Plaintiff did not provide Defendant or its agents prior express consent to receive  unsolicited phone calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A). Plaintiff has no prior business  dealings with Defendant and is not the person (June Kahn) whom Defendant is attempting to  6  reach per the prerecorded voice message. Plaintiff believes that Defendant obtained her phone  number through skip-tracing or other similar means because she never provided her number to  Defendant.    21.  These telephone calls by Defendant or its agents therefore violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1).   22.  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.   23.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  and 23(b)(3) on behalf of herself and on behalf of and all others similarly situated (“the Class”).   24.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the Class, consisting of all persons within  the United States who received any unsolicited telephone calls from Defendant or its agents on  their cellular telephones through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or  pre-recorded voice system as set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(3), which telephone calls by  Defendant or its agents were not made for emergency purposes or with the recipients’ prior  express consent, within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial.   25.  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  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.   26.  Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at  least the following ways: Defendant, either directly or through its agents, illegally contacted  7  Plaintiff and the Class members via their cellular telephones by using unsolicited telephone calls,  thereby causing Plaintiff and the Class members to incur certain cellular telephone charges or  reduce cellular telephone time for which Plaintiff and the Class members previously paid, and  invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and the Class members.  Plaintiff and the Class members  were damaged thereby.   27.  This suit seeks only statutory damages and injunctive relief for 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.   28.  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.   29.  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 through the  date of trial, Defendant or its agents placed telephone calls without the  recipients’ prior express consent (other than a telephone call  made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party)  to a Class member using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial  8  or prerecorded voice system, to any telephone number assigned to a cellular  telephone service;   b. Whether the equipment Defendant, or its agents, used to make the telephone  calls in question was an automatic telephone dialing system as contemplated by  the TCPA;   c. Whether Defendant, or its agents, systematically made telephone calls to  persons featuring an artificial or prerecorded voice;   d. Whether Defendant, or its agents, systematically made telephone calls to  persons who did not previously provide Defendant with their prior express  consent to receive such telephone calls;   e. Whether Plaintiff and the Class members were damaged thereby, and the extent  of damages for such violation; and   f. Whether Defendant and its agents should be enjoined from engaging in such  conduct in the future.    30.  As a person that received at least one unsolicited telephone call to her cell phone  without Plaintiff’s prior express contest, Plaintiff is asserting claims that are typical of the Class.   Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class in that Plaintiff  has no interest antagonistic to any member of the Class.    31.  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.   9  Because of the size of the individual Class member’s claims, few, if any, Class members could  afford to individually seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of herein.   32.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims and  claims involving violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.   33.  A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy because joinder of all parties is impracticable.  Class-wide damages are essential to  induce Defendant to comply with federal 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, especially given  the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by  Defendant’s actions. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the  Class to obtain effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct. Even if members of the Class  could sustain such individual litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action, because  individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal  and factual controversies presented in this Complaint. By contrast, a class action presents far  fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of  scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single Court. Economies of time, effort and expense  will be fostered and uniformity of decisions ensured.   34.  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.  10  35.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully stated herein.   36.  Each such telephone 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.  By using such equipment, Defendant  was able to effectively make thousands of phone calls simultaneously to lists of thousands of  wireless phone numbers of consumers without human intervention.  These telephone calls also  featured a prerecorded voice and were made without the prior express consent of the Plaintiff  and other members of the Class to receive such telephone calls.    37.  Defendant also made telephone calls featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice  without the prior express consent of the Plaintiff and other members of the Class to receive such  telephone calls.    38.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and its agents constitute numerous  and multiple negligent 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.   39.  As a result of Defendant’s, and Defendant’s agents’, 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).   40.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.  11  41.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs 1 through 34 inclusive, of  this Complaint as though fully stated herein.   42.  Each such telephone 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.  By using such equipment, Defendant  was able to effectively make thousands of phone calls simultaneously to lists of thousands of  wireless phone numbers of consumers without human intervention.  These telephone calls also  featured a prerecorded voice and were made without the prior express consent of the Plaintiff  and other members of the Class to receive such telephone calls.    43.  Defendant also made telephone calls featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice  without the prior express consent of the Plaintiff and other members of the Class to receive such  telephone calls.    44.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitutes 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.   45.  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 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).    46.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.  12  47 U.S.C. §§ 227 ET SEQ.   47 U.S.C. §§ 227 ET SEQ.   47.  As a result of Defendant’s, and Defendant’s agents’, negligent violations of 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), Plaintiff seeks for herself and each Class member $500.00 in statutory  damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   48.  Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.  49.  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 herself 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).   50.  Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct  in the future.  * * *   51.  An order certifying the Class as defined above, appointing Plaintiff Mason as  Class Representatives, and appointing Ronald A. Marron of the Law Offices of Ronald A.  Marron as Class Counsel.    52.  An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees (in the event of a class recovery) and  costs.   13   53.  Any other relief the Court may deem reasonable, just and proper.  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.  