11.  Beginning in or around February of 2015, Defendants contacted  Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone numbers ending in -5154, -3803, -1080, - 5405, -1636, -7511, -7210, and -0106 in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase  Defendants’ services.     12.  Defendants used an “automatic telephone dialing system” as defined  by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) to place its calls to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services.    13.  Defendants contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone  numbers belonging to Defendants, including without limitation (863) 862-1011,  (931) 218-7792, (501) 800-5085, and (213) 457-9243.   14.  Defendants’ calls constituted calls that were not for emergency  purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   15.  Defendants’ calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a  cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).    16.  During all relevant times, Defendants did not possess Plaintiff’s “prior  express consent” to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an  artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephones pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A).   17.  Furthermore, Plaintiff’s cellular telephone numbers ending in -5154,  -1080, -1636, -7511, and -0106 have been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry  well over thirty (30) days prior to Defendants’ initial calls.   18.  Defendants placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on  its cellular telephones beginning in or around February of 2015 and continued until  in or around March of 2017.   19.  Such calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §   24.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others  similarly situated, as a member the four proposed classes (hereafter, jointly, “The  Classes”). The class concerning the ATDS claim for no prior express consent  (hereafter “The ATDS Class”) is defined as follows:  All persons within the United States who received any  solicitation/telemarketing  telephone  calls  from  Defendants to said person’s cellular telephone made  through the use of any automatic telephone dialing  system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such  person had not previously consented to receiving such  calls within the four years prior to the filing of this  Complaint   Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection  Act   47 U.S.C. §227(c)   As a result of Defendants’ willful and/or knowing violations of 47  U.S.C. §227(c)(5), Plaintiff and the DNC Class and DNC Revocation  Class members are entitled to and request treble damages, as provided  by statute, up to $1,500, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47  U.S.C. §227(c)(5).    Any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper.   Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. §227(c)   As a result of Defendants’ negligent violations of 47 U.S.C.  §227(c)(5), Plaintiff and the DNC Class and DNC Revocation Class  members are entitled to and request $500 in statutory damages, for  each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  227(c)(5).    Any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper.  Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. §227(b)   As a result of Defendants’ negligent violations of 47 U.S.C.  §227(b)(1), Plaintiff and the ATDS Class and ATDS Revocation  Class members are entitled to and request $500 in statutory damages,  for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  227(b)(3)(B).    Any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper. 