10.  When Plaintiff answered calls from Defendant, he was greeted with a pre- recorded voice message stating “This is an important message from Progressive Leasing .  . . .”  There was no live person to speak with on these calls, just a prerecorded voice  playing a message.   11.  On other calls, Plaintiff would have to wait on the line through several  seconds of silence before a live representative came on the line.   12.  When Plaintiff did not answer Defendant’s calls, Defendant left pre- recorded voicemail stating “This is an important message from Progressive Leasing . . .  .”  The voicemail were not delivered by a live person , but by a pre-recorded voice.   13.  On one call from Defendant, Plaintiff waited on the line to speak with a live  representative.  The representative indicated it was calling to reach someone other than  Plaintiff.  Plaintiff advised he was not that person and instructed Progressive to stop  calling.   14.  Defendant continued to place its autodialed calls to Plaintiff’s cellular  telephone.   15.  Plaintiff does not have business with Defendant and never provided  Defendant his cellular telephone number or prior express consent to call or autodial it.   17.  Plaintiff was annoyed, frustrated, and inconvenienced by Progressive’s  calls.     18.  Defendant’s calls distracted Plaintiff while he was driving.   19.  Defendant’s unwanted calls have invaded Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.   Plaintiff has had to turn his phone on ‘silent mode’ to prevent being distracted.    20.  The calls from Defendant to Plaintiff were not placed for “emergency  purposes” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).  21.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on  behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.   22.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the following classes:  The “TCPA Class”: (1) All persons within the United States (2) to  whose cellular telephone number (3) Defendant placed a non- emergency telephone call (4) using an autodialer or prerecorded voice  (5) within four years of the complaint.  The “Revoke Class”: (1) All persons within the United States (2) to  whose cellular telephone number (3) Defendant placed a non- emergency telephone call (4) using an autodialer or prerecorded voice  (5) within four years of the complaint, (6) after said person instructed  Defendant to cease calling.   23.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Classes.  Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Classes, but believes the Class  members number in the several thousands, if not more.  Thus, this matter should be  certified as a Class action to assist in the expeditious litigation of this matter.  B. Numerosity   25.  The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at  this time and can only be ascertained through discovery.  Identification of the Class  members is a matter capable of ministerial determination from Defendant’s call  records.   C. Common Questions of Law and Fact    26.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Classes that  predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members.  These  questions include:  a. Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Class  members’ cellular telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice;  b. Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and the  Class members’ cellular telephones using an autodialer;   c. Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior  express consent to make each call;  d. Whether Defendant ignored Plaintiff and the Revoke Class’s valid  requests to cease calling;  e. Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and/or willful;  f. Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such  damages; and  g. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the  future.   28.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they  are all based on the same factual and legal theories.  E. Protecting the Interests of the Class Members    29.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes and  has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving  unlawful business practices.  Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interests which  might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.  F. Proceeding Via Class Action is Superior and Advisable    30.  A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication  of this controversy.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the  prosecutions of separate claims against Defendant is small because it is not  economically feasible for Class members to bring individual actions.   31.  Management of this class action is unlikely to present any difficulties.   Several courts have certified classes in TCPA actions.  These cases include, but are not  limited to: Mitchem v. Ill. Collection Serv., 271 F.R.D. 617 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Sadowski  v. Med1 Online, LLC, 2008 WL 2224892 (N.D. Ill., May 27, 2008); CE Design Ltd. V.  Cy’s Crabhouse North, Inc., 259 F.R.D. 135 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Lo v. Oxnard European  Motors, LLC, 2012 WL 1932283 (S.D. Cal., May 29, 2012).  33.  Defendant placed multiple prerecorded or artificial calls to cellular  numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes without their  prior express consent.   34.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a negligent  violation of the TCPA.   35.  Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory  damages for each call in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   36.  Additionally, Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to and seek injunctive  relief prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.   37.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek a declaration  that:  • Defendant violated the TCPA;  • Defendant used prerecorded voices and/or artificial voices on its calls to  Plaintiff and the Classes; and  Defendant placed calls to the Plaintiff and the Classes without prior express  consent.   38.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   39.  Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed multiple prerecorded or  artificial calls to cellular numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the  Classes without their prior express consent.   40.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing  and/or willful violation of the TCPA.   42.  Additionally, Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to and seek injunctive  relief prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.   43.   Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek a declaration  that:  • Defendant knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA;  • Defendant knowingly and/or willfully used prerecorded voices and/or  artificial voices on calls to Plaintiff and the Classes;  • Defendant willfully ignored Plaintiff and the Revoke Class’s valid requests  to cease calling;  • Defendant willfully placed automated calls to the Plaintiff and the Classes at  the numbers received from those third parties, knowing it did not have prior  express consent to do so; and  • It is Defendant’s practice and history to place automated telephone calls to  consumers without their prior express consent.  7.  In the last four years, Defendant placed calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone  number, 480-xxx-5754.   8.  Defendant placed calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number from several  different numbers, including 701-989-7920, 207-480-3985, 312-525-9091, 208-497- 3612, 703-574-9800, and 520-635-2120.   9.  Defendant placed its calls using an ‘automatic telephone dialing system’  (“autodialer”) and a ‘prerecorded voice,’ within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).   A. The Class   Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,  47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,  47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  