24.  Upon information and belief, the individual identified in the above prerecorded  messages is Kirk Watson, is the owner of Watson Auto Group.     25.  The prerecorded telemarketing calls were transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone,  and within the time frame relevant to this action.     26.  Defendant’s prerecorded telemarketing calls constitute telemarketing because they  encouraged the future purchase, sell, or investment in property, goods, and/or services, i.e., selling  Plaintiff one of Defendant’s vehicles.     27.  The prerecorded telemarketing calls originated from telephone a telephone number  which upon information and belief is owned and/or operated by or on behalf of Defendant.     28.  Plaintiff received the subject prerecorded telemarketing calls within this District and,  therefore, Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this District.  Upon information and  belief, Defendant caused other prerecorded telemarketing calls to be sent to individuals residing within  this judicial district.     29.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her express consent to be  contacted using an ATDS.     30.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 7724 Number and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 7724 Number.    31.  Defendant’s prerecorded calls were sent to a cellular telephone with a 682 area code,  which means Defendant knew, or should have known, that it was making calls into this District. The  682 area code serves the cities of Arlington, Bedford, Burleson, Cleburne, Euless, Fort Worth,  Grapevine, Haltom City, Hurst, Keller, Mansfield, North Richland Hills, Southlake, Watauga.   33.  Defendant’s prerecorded calls caused Plaintiff actual harm. Specifically, Plaintiff  estimates that she spent approximately fifteen minutes investigating the unwanted prerecorded calls  including how they obtained her number and who the Defendant was.   34.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  herself and all others similarly situated.   35.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a Class defined as follows:  No Consent Class: All persons within the United States who, within  the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a  prerecorded message, from Defendant or anyone on Defendant’s  behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone number, without  emergency purpose and without the recipient’s prior express  written consent.    36.  Excluded from the Class is Defendant, its officers, directors, affiliates, legal  representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries and assigns, as well as the judge and court staff to  whom this case is assigned.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the right to amend the Class definition  if discovery of further investigation reveals that the Class should be modified.   39.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  Among the questions of law and  fact common to the Class are:  (1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency prerecorded telemarketing calls to  Plaintiff’s and Class members’ cellular telephones;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it obtained prior express  written consent to make such calls;  (3) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  (4) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  (5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   40.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers.  If  Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely transmits prerecorded telemarketing calls to telephone  numbers assigned to cellular telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have  identical claims capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  47.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice … to any telephone  number assigned to a … cellular telephone service ….” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    48.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – transmitted calls using an  artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the  putative class.     49.  These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained  express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior  express consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class  when its calls were made.    50.  Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  artificial or prerecorded voice to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express consent.    51.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an  injunction against future calls. Id.   52.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-45 as if fully set forth herein.   54.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to transmit artificial or  prerecorded voice calls and knew or should have known that its conduct was a violation of the  Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  