10.  While certain types of calls may be within the letter of the law for calls placed to  landline (“wireline”) telephones, the same calls to cellular (“wireless”) telephones violate the  1 http://greaterstcloudjobspot.com/company/2497/New-Partners-Teleservices/  2 https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/195027197  3 http://greaterstcloudjobspot.com/company/2497/New-Partners-Teleservices/  4 http://newpartners.com/direct-contact.php  4  TCPA where they are made without prior express written or oral consent. As explained by the  Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) in its 2012 order:  Additionally, we note that many commenters expressed concern about obtaining  written consent for certain types of autodialed or prerecorded calls, including debt  collection calls, airline notification calls, bank account fraud alerts, school and  university notifications, research or survey calls, and wireless usage notifications.  Again, such calls, to the extent that they do not contain telemarketing messages,  would not require any consent when made to residential wireline consumers, but  require either written or oral consent if made to wireless consumers and other  specified recipients. [Emphasis added].  See In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Protection Act of 1991,  27 FCC Rcd. 1830 (Feb. 15, 2012).   11.  Yet in violation of this rule, Defendants fail to obtain any prior express consent  (oral or written) to make the pre-recorded calls described herein to cellular telephone numbers.   12.  Consumer complaints regarding Defendants' invasive and repetitive calls are  legion. As a sample, consumers have complained as follows:  • “I've had at least one call each day from this number 303-816-3334 for weeks  and it won't stop!  Even when asked to hit #1 on phone to stop it, they're still  calling and it's quite annoying.”5  • called incessantly by this number.  called it back and requested to be taken of  their list (option on the menu tree).  Blocked number but calls still get  through”6  • “I've gotten several hangups from this number, so I called back and the  message identifies them as "New Partners Teleservices," and it says they're  doing opinion polls. They do claim to have an internal no call list, but we'll  see.”7  • “This phone number has been calling me daily (sometimes multiple times a  5 http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-303-816-3334  6 Id.  7 Id.  5  day) for the past 3 weeks. I've never answered and they've never left an actual  voicemail. Today there was a 2 second voicemail that was nothing but static. I  finally blocked their number, apparently they can't take a hint.”8  • “They call every day! Company called Individual Health Quotes.”9  • “they call my phone number at least 4 times a day without leaving a message.  I called the number back and told them to remove my number from their call  list in which the lady replied “I'm sorry I can't do that” and then hung up on  me.”10  • “Have told them am on on dnc - they keep calling sometes [sic] 3x's a day;  have hit 1 on their recording, they keep right on calling.”11   13.  In placing the calls that form the basis of this Complaint, Defendants utilized an  ATDS in violation of the TCPA. Specifically, the hardware and software used by Defendants has  the capacity to generate and store random numbers, and/or receive and store lists of telephone  numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human  intervention or as Defendants call it “Auto-calling programs.”12 Defendants’ automated dialing  equipment also is, or includes features substantially similar to, a predictive dialer, meaning that it  is capable of making numerous phone calls simultaneously and automatically connecting  answered calls to then available callers and disconnecting the rest (all without human  intervention). Indeed, individuals do not individually dial each number that Defendants call.   14.  When placing these calls to consumers, Defendants failed to get the prior express  8 Id.  9 http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-515-509-2555  10 http://www.bbb.org/chicago/business-reviews/home-health-services/individual-health-quotes- in-chicago-il-88703412/complaints  11 http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-315-834-1568  12 http://newpartners.com/direct-contact.php  6  oral or written consent required by the TCPA from cellular telephone owners/users as required  by the TCPA to make such calls.   15.  Furthermore, Defendants call these consumers who have no “established business  relationship” with Defendants.   16.  Finally, even when consumers try to opt out of future calls by requesting to never  be called again, Defendants continue to call them.   17.  Defendants knowingly made (and continue to make) telemarketing calls to  cellular telephones without the prior express consent of the call recipients. As such, Defendants  have not only invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff and other members of the putative  Classes, they have also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.  18.  Beginning in approximately January, 2016, Plaintiff began to receive pre- recorded telephone calls from Defendants on his cellular telephone. The calls were from phone  number 636-923-8774.   19.  Each call that Plaintiff received was pre-recorded and contained the following  message, “You have reached New Partners Teleservices. We place calls on behalf of many  political and non-profit clients and organizations. If you would like to be removed from our  calling list, please press 1 now.”   20.  Plaintiff pressed ‘1’ every time he received a call from Defendants in order to  remove his telephone number from their call list. Upon pressing ‘1’, he would then be prompted  to enter in his telephone number, which Plaintiff would do, and he would then hear a pre- recorded message indicating that it would take up to 10 days for his number to be removed.   21.  Despite his attempts to get his phone number removed from Defendants’ call list,  7  Plaintiff received approximately one pre-recorded call from Defendants each month consistently  up to August 2016.   22.  At no time did Plaintiff consent to the receipt of pre-recorded calls to his cellular  telephone from Defendants, nor did he ever provide prior oral or written express consent to  Defendants for such calls to be placed.   23.  By making unauthorized pre-recorded telephone calls as alleged herein,  Defendants have caused consumers actual harm and cognizable legal injury. This includes the  aggravation and nuisance and invasions of privacy that result from the receipt of such calls, in  addition to a loss of value realized for the monies consumers paid to their wireless carriers for  the receipt of such calls. Furthermore, the calls interfered with Plaintiff’s and the other Class  members’ use and enjoyment of their cellphones, including the related data, software, and  hardware components. Defendant also caused substantial injury to their phones by causing wear  and tear on their property, consuming battery life, and appropriating cellular minutes.   24.  In order to redress these injuries, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Classes of  similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47  U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits unsolicited pre-recorded calls to cellular telephones.   25.  On behalf of the Classes, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to  cease all unsolicited and unauthorized pre-recorded calling activities and an award of statutory  damages to the class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.   26.  For the purposes of making the repeated, harassing calls to Plaintiff and the other  Class members, Defendants were agents and alter egos of one another and acted for the other’s  benefit. They each knew about the calls, authorized and ratified the making of the calls, received  the benefits of the calls, and profited from the calls. On information and belief, both Defendants  8  were also aware of the fact   27.  Plaintiff Greene brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and the two classes defined as follows:  Pre-recorded No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who (1)  Defendants called, (2) on the person’s cellular telephone, (3) using a pre-recorded  voice or messages, and (4) for whom Defendants claim they obtained prior  express consent in the same manner as Defendants claim they supposedly  obtained prior express consent to call the Plaintiff.  Pre-recorded Stop Class: All persons in the United States who (1) Defendants  called, (2) on the person’s cellular telephone, (3) using a pre-recorded voice or  messages, (4) after the person pressed “1” when prompted to during Defendants’  recorded message.   28.  The following people are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or Magistrate  presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants’  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or their  parents have a controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3)  persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons  whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5)  Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants’ counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and  assigns of any such excluded persons. Plaintiff anticipates the potential need to amend the class  definitions following class discovery.   29.  On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the  Classes such that joinder of all members is impracticable.   30.  There are several questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and  the other members of the Classes, and those questions predominate over any questions that may  affect individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Class members that may be  9  answered in a single stroke include but are not limited to the following:  a.  whether Defendants’ conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA;  b.  whether Defendants utilized an automatic telephone dialing system or a pre- recorded messages to make the calls to members of the Classes;  c.  whether members of the Classes are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendants’ conduct;  d.  whether Defendants obtained prior express written consent to contact any class  members on their cellular telephones;  e.  whether pressing “1” when prompted revoked any consent to be called   31.  The factual and legal bases of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiff and to the other  members of the Classes are the same, resulting in the same injuries to the Plaintiff and to all of  the other members of the Classes, including the annoyance and aggravation associated with such  pre-recorded calls as well as the loss of cellular plan minutes and temporary inability to enjoy  and use their cellphones, as a result of the transmission of the pre-recorded calls alleged herein.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes have all suffered harm and damages as a result of  Defendants’ unlawful and wrongful conduct of placing pre-recorded calls. Plaintiff’s claims are  typical of the claims of the members of the Classes as all members of the Classes are similarly  affected by Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Plaintiff, like other members of the Classes, received  unsolicited pre-recorded calls from Defendants. Plaintiff is advancing the same claims and legal  theory on behalf of himself and all absent members of the Classes.   32.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the other  members of the Classes. Plaintiff’s claims are made in a representative capacity on behalf of the  other members of the Classes. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with the  interests of the other members of the proposed Classes and is subject to no unique defenses.  Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex litigation and  10  class actions. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on  behalf of the members of the Classes and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff  nor his counsel has any interest adverse to those of the other members of the Classes.   33.  The suit may be maintained as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted, and/or have refused to act, on grounds  generally applicable to the Classes, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate.  Specifically, injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate to require Defendants to discontinue  placing unsolicited and unauthorized pre-recorded calls to the public and to honor opt-out  requests. Likewise, Defendants have acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to  the Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes in placing the pre-recorded calls at issue,  requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct  toward the members of the Classes.   34.  In addition, this suit may be maintained as a class action under Federal Rule of  Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) because a class action is superior to all other available methods for the  fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Absent a class action, most members of the  Classes would find the cost of litigating their claims to be prohibitive, and will have no effective  remedy. The class treatment of common questions of law and fact is also superior to multiple  individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that it conserves the resources of the courts and the  litigants, and promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication. The claims asserted herein are  applicable to all consumers throughout the United States who received an unsolicited and  unauthorized pre-recorded call from Defendants, many of whom had expressly revoked any  consent by pressing “1” when prompted. The injury suffered by each individual class member is  relatively small in comparison to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the  11  complex and extensive litigation necessitated by Defendants’ conduct. It would be virtually  impossible for members of the Classes individually to redress effectively the wrongs done to  them. Even if the members of the Classes could afford such litigation, the court system could  not. Individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments.  Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties, and to the court system,  presented by the complex legal and factual issues of the case. By contrast, the class action device  presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication,  economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.   35.  Adequate notice can be given to the members of the Classes directly using  information maintained in Defendants’ records or through notice by publication.  36.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   37.  Defendants made unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls to telephone  numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class on  their cellular telephone in an effort to sell their products and services using a pre-recorded voice  as defined in the TCPA.   38.  Defendants made the telephone calls using equipment that had the capacity to  store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator,  and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse.   39.  Defendants utilized equipment that made the telephone calls to Plaintiff and other  members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class simultaneously and without human intervention.  12   40.  Defendants failed to obtain any prior express written consent from Plaintiff and  other called parties that included, as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(8)(i) a “clear and  conspicuous” disclosure informing the person signing that:  (A) By executing the agreement, such person authorizes the seller to deliver or  cause to be delivered to the signatory telemarketing calls using an automatic  telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; and  (B) The person is not required to sign the agreement (directly or indirectly), or  agree to enter into such an agreement as a condition of purchasing any property,  goods, or services.   41.  Defendants also failed to obtain any prior express oral consent of the persons  receiving its pre-recorded telephone calls.   42.  By making unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff and members of the Pre- recorded No Consent Class’s cellular telephones using a pre-recorded voice, Defendants violated  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B) by doing so without prior express consent.   43.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Pre-recorded No Consent Class suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive  the unsolicited telephone calls on their cellular phones and, under Section 227(b)(3)(B), are each  entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.   44.  Should the Court determine that Defendants’ conduct was willful and knowing,  the Court may, pursuant to Section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class.  45.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.  13   46.  Defendants made unsolicited and unwanted pre-recorded calls to telephone  numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded Stop Class on their  cellular telephone after the cellphone users had pressed “1” to opt out of Defendant’s system. By  pressing “1” as prompted, Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded Stop Class clearly  revoked any prior express consent that they may arguably have ever provided to be called.   47.  Defendants made the telephone calls using equipment that had the capacity to  store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator,  and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse.   48.  Defendants utilized equipment that made the telephone calls to Plaintiff and other  members of the Pre-recorded Stop Class simultaneously and without human intervention.   49.  By making unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff and other members of the Pre- recorded Stop Class’s cellular telephones using a pre-recorded voice after they requested to no  longer receive such calls, Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B) by doing so without  prior express consent.   50.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Pre-recorded Stop Class suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive the  unsolicited telephone calls on their cellular phones, the temporary inability to use their phones,  lost time and data, wear and tear on their phones and the batteries, and, under Section  227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500 in damages for each such  violation of the TCPA.   51.  Should the Court determine that Defendants’ conduct was willful and knowing,  the Court may, pursuant to Section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded Stop Class.  14  7.  Defendant New Partners Consulting is a Washington D.C.-based political and  corporate consulting firm with more than 160 staff members and several offices throughout the  United States.   8.  Defendant New Partners Teleservices is a Minnesota-based affiliate or subsidiary  of Defendant New Partners Consulting and operates inbound and outbound contact centers. On  information and belief, New Partners Teleservices has a 120 seat call center in Eveleth,  Minnesota,1 recently opened a new contact center in Melrose, Minnesota,2 and also operates an  “At Home Agent (AHA)” program which allows employees to work from home.3   9.  Defendant New Partners Consulting specifically notes that Defendants offer  clients services including “auto-calling programs” that utilize an ATDS.4   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Pre-Recorded No Consent Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Pre-Recorded Stop Class)  