(Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1))   10.   Valarity told Plaintiff that he must contest the debt with the original creditor,  Mercy Hospital and that his account must be a fraud.   11.  Subsequently Plaintiff disputed the debt in writing with Mercy Hospital.   12.  At no point has Plaintiff received any letters in the mail, or any form of verification  of the alleged debt.   13.  At no point had Plaintiff given Defendant or Valarity prior express written consent  to call him on his cellular phone.   14.  On or about February 2014, Plaintiff  revoked any consent that Defendant or  Valarity may have had, to call his cellular phone.   15.  On or about March 13, 2014, Valarity called Plaintiff’s cellular phone through the  automatic telephone dialing system that the TCPA was designed to regulate.   16.  During said call, Valarity hung up on Plaintiff as soon as he tried to respond.   17.  On or about March and April 2014, Valarity, again acting on behalf of and as an  agent for Mercy Hospital, continued to use an automatic telephone dialing system to call Plaintiff’s  cellphone repeatedly for a total of twenty four (24) times. Specifically, but not limited to on: March  7, 2014; March 8, 2014; March 12, 2014; March 13, 2014; March 14, 2014; March 15, 2014;  March 19, 2014; March 20, 2014; March 21,2014; March 24, 2014; March 27, 2014; March 28,  2014; April 1,2014; April 2, 2014; April 3, 2014; April 4, 2014; April 5, 2014; April 9, 2014; April  10, 2014; twice on April 11, 2014; April 12, 2014; and twice on April 14, 2014.   18.   Valarity would call and then hang up repeatedly.   19.  Plaintiff continued to dispute the alleged debt. In addition, Plaintiff requested  Mercy’s agent Valarity, to cease further calls to Plaintiff.  4   20.  Despite these requests, Marcy’s agent Valarity, contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s  cellular telephone in connection with the collection of the debt on numerous occasions.  21.  Plaintiff brings this claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2),  (b)(3) and (c)(4) on behalf the following Class:   (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone  number (3)  Varity, acting to collect the debts of Mercy,  placed a  non-emergency telephone call (4) using an autodialer (5) within four  years of the complaint (6) where Mercy’s agent  Valarity  did not  have express written consent to call said cellular telephone number  (the “TCPA Class”).   22.  Plaintiff represents and is a member of the TCPA Class.  Excluded from the Class  are Defendant and any entities in which Defendant has  a controlling interest, Defendant’s agents  and employees, any  Judge to whom this action is assigned and any member of the Judge’s staff  and immediate family.   23.  Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Class, but based upon  the size, Plaintiff reasonably believes that the Class numbers in the thousands.   24.  The joinder of all Class members is impracticable due to the size and relatively  modest value of each individual claim. The disposition of the claims in a class action will provide  substantial benefit to the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits. The  Class can be identified easily through records maintained by Defendant or its agent Valarity.   25.  There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class which  predominate over any questions that affect only individual Class members. Those common  questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to, the following:  i.  Whether Valarity engaged in a pattern of using an autodialer to place calls to  cellular phones;   5  ii.  Whether Valarity was acting on behalf of and/or as an agent for Mercy Hospital in  connection with the actions described herein ;   ii.   Whether Valarity had prior express consent to make the calls;   iii.  Whether Valarity failed to allow consumers to revoke consent to be called;  iv.   Whether Valarity negligently violated the TCPA; and  v.   Whether Valarity willfully violated the TCPA;               vi.         Whether Mercy Hospital is responsible for the actions of Valarity and is liable to  Plaintiff and the Class for the damages sought in this complaint.    26.  As a person who received telephone calls from Valairty using an autodialer to his  cellular phone without his prior express consent, Plaintiff asserts claims that are typical of the  members of the Class.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  class, and has no interests which are antagonistic to any member of the Class.   27.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims, including  class claims involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes such as the  32.  Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 as if  specifically stated herein.   33.  Defendant’s conduct violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(l) in that Valarity, acting on  behalf of and as an agent for Mercy Hospital, repeatedly used the automated dialing system to call  Plaintiff’s cellular phone in February, March and April 2014, without Plaintiff’s prior express  written consent to call him on his cellular phone.   34.  Defendant’s conduct violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(l) in that Valarity, acting on  behalf of and as an agent for Mercy Hospital ,  repeatedly used the automated dialing system to  call Plaintiff’s cellular phone in February, March and April 2014, after Plaintiff  expressly  withdrew any consent to call him on his cellular phone.   35.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff has been damaged and  7  is therefore entitled to damages in accordance with the TCPA.   36.  Defendant’s actions were willful and knowing and therefore Plaintiff Petri is  entitled to treble damages for each violation in accordance with the TCPA.  5.  At all times relevant to this action Mercy Hospital. Mercy Hospital engaged  Valarity, LLC (Valarity), a company engaged in the collection of debts, to collect the debts of  Mercy Hospital. Valarity maintains its headquarters in this District.     6.  As described more fully below, Valarity, acting on behalf of and as an agent of  Mercy Hospital, contacted Plaintiff Petri to collect a debt that was incurred primarily for personal,  family or household purposes. With regards to each of the acts set forth herein, Valarity was always  acting as the authorized agent for Mercy.   7.  On or around January 28, 2014, Valarity, acting on behalf of and as an agent for  Mercy Hospital, commenced collection activities in an attempt to collect an alleged debt  from  Plaintiff, by  contacting Plaintiff on his cellular phone.   8.  The alleged debt supposedly arose from medical services claimed to be provided  by Mercy Hospital to Plaintiff, which was ultimately found to be a mistake.   9.  During this communication, Plaintiff disputed and requested verification of said  3  alleged debt.  