10.  Plaintiff has never provided his cellular number to Defendant and never consented to  be contacted by Defendant on his cellular telephone.   11.  Despite Plaintiff’s request that Defendant cease making automated calls to his  cellular phone, Defendant continued to place automated calls to Plaintiff.   12.  Plaintiff received automated calls from Defendant on or about February 27 and 28,  2013, and March 1 and 6, 2013.   14.  Upon information and belief, each of the aforementioned calls was placed using an  ATDS and used an artificial or prerecorded voice, as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   15.  The telephone number that Defendant used to contact Plaintiff was and is assigned  to a cellular telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   16.  Defendant did not have prior express consent to place automated calls to Plaintiff on  his cellular telephone.   17.  Defendant’s calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone were not for “emergency  purposes.”  18.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf  of himself and all others similarly situated.   19.  Plaintiff’s proposed Class is as follows, subject to amendment as appropriate:  Class Definition. All persons within the United States who, at any time  during the last four years, received one or more non-emergency telephone  calls from Kohl’s to a cellular telephone through the use of an ATDS and/or  an artificial or prerecorded voice, and who did not provide prior express  consent for such calls.   21.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed calls using an ATDS and/or  using an artificial or prerecorded voice to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of  consumers throughout the United States, without their prior express consent.  The members of  the Class, therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   22.  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    23.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Class 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 ATDS and/or an artificial or  prerecorded voice;  b. Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior express  consent to make each call;  c. Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing willful, and/or negligent;  d. Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages;  and  e. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   25.  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    26.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class 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    27.  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 Kohl’s is small because it is not economically feasible for Class members  to bring individual actions.   29.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   30.  Defendant negligently placed multiple automated calls to cellular numbers  belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class without their prior express consent.   31.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a negligent violation of  the TCPA.   32.  As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the  Class 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).   33.  Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.  34.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   35.  Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed multiple automated calls to cellular  numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class without their prior express  consent.   36.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing and/or  willful violation of the TCPA.   38.  Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.  9.  Beginning in or around December 2012, Defendant repeatedly placed automated  calls using an ATDS to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.   A. The Class   Dated: March 20, 2013  Respectfully submitted,  By     /s/ Sergei Lemberg                 Sergei Lemberg (BBO# 650671)  Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,   47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,   47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  