19. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered *1'through "lS" herein with the same force and effectas if the same were set forth at length herein.  20. On April 18,2015 Defendant began communicating with Plaintiff by rheans of telephone calls to Plaintiff SIMCHA PODOLSKY'S mobile telephone number 732232 1073 attempting to communicate with his wife PLAINTIFF YEHUDIS PODELSKI. 21. On April 18,2A15, Plaintiff SIMCHA PODOLSKI (hereinafter referred to as "SP") answered Defendant's call.  22. A female representative of Defendant asked to speak with Plaintiff YEHUDIS PODELSKI (hereinafter referred to as "YP") and Plaintiff SP informed the caller that he was her husband.  24. Pfaintiff SP replied that Ptaintiffs were aware that a payment was tlue and thereafter Plaintiff SP requested that no telephone calls be made to Plaintiffs' mobile telephone in the future by means of automatic dialing.  25. Defendant's female representative confirmed that Defendant would report Plaintiffs' request that no calls be made and the call concluded.  26. Several days later Defendant placed a second call to Plaintiffs which call was answered by Plaintiff SP. 27, Defendant's representative caller thereupon informed Plaintiff SP that his name was "Rogef and that he was calling as a "courteEy call" to inform Plaintiff that an account was ten (10) days past due.  28. Plaintiff SP repeated his request that he did not want to receive any calls to his telephone by means of automatic dialing.  29. "Roge/' responded by saying that he vvas a live person and asked: "Do you prefer a live person calling you?"  30. Plaintiff SP replied: "l prefer no one calls me."  31. "Roged' replied: "l hear you. Do you want me to hold them off for a period of ten days or a month or so, if you could help me understand that, sir.o  32. Plaintiff SP stated that he did not want to receive any calls.  33. "Roge/'replied: "So you want me to completely hold off any communications to you by phone?"  35. "Rogef' responded by saying, 'l respect that. Definitely l'll make a'note of that, we'll only communicate to you in writing, don't get me wrong, we are just calling to offer support and ensure that this isn't impacting your other credit cards or your credit bureaus or fees, that was the only intention."  36. Several days latet Defendant placed a third call to Plaintiff which was answered by Plaintiff SP.  37. A representative caller of Defendant identified herself as "Gloria Johnson" and stated that she was following up on a past due account.  38. When Plaintiff SP stated that he was unable to make a payment at that time, Ms. Johnson stated that Defendant's account was 59 days past due and that Defendant had "hardship options" to assist in payment. Ms. Johnson asked, "ls there something that happened that you're unable to make a payment?"  39. Plaintiff SP replied that it was "per$onal." 4A. Ms. Johnson stated: .l do have the note about the automatic dialing."  41. Several days after the aforementioned telephone call in April, 2015, Plalntiffs began to rec,eive automatically dialed telephone calls from Defendant at a rate of one per day which amounted to thirty (30) calls. Plaintiffs realized the calls were automatically dialed because when the calls were answered, there was silence on the line.  50. Pursuant to Exhibit "C," at no time did either Plaintiff or the undersigned request that Plaintiff's address be changed to that of the undersigned.  51. On November 7, 2A15, after receiving Defendant's communication, Plaintiff SIMCHA PODOLSKY placed a telephone callto Defendant and was connected to an employee of Defendant who identified herself as "Sydney."  52. Plaintiff stated that he did not authorize a change of address and wanted his credit card address to remain as his home address pursuant to his contract with Defendant.  54. "Sydney" stated: "We are not able to contact you directly. lt is against the law for us to call you or send you anything if you have retained an attorney because we can get sued for that."  55. Plaintiff protested that his bank account was not ln any litigation.  56. "Sydney" responded by saying "l'm not certain where that falls or where the separation should be."  57. Plaintiff stated that he never authorized a change of address for his account.  58. "Sydney" replied, "lt was authorized by someone you asked to represent you, since your attomey is a representation of you because you have retained them," and thereafter refused to restore Plaintiff's correct address.  59. On November 9, 2015, following Plaintiff SIMCHA PODOLSKY's telephone conversation with Defendant of November 7, 2015, Defendant's "Fraud Department" wrote to Plaintiff SIMCHA PODOLSKY by letters dated November 9, 2015 which referenced Account number ending 6608 and Account number ending 9210 and stated: "Thank you for contacting us to update the address on your account."  72. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered "1" through "71- herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein. 7'3. Defendant's refusal to abide by the terms of the contract under which Plaintiffs relied for receipt of account information constituted a Fundamental Breach of Contract under New Jersey Common Law 7Lt. Defendant breached their contract with Plaintiffs by making deceptive and untrue statements and assertions (Exhibits "C" and "D") that Plaintiffs requested and authorized a change of address on their banking accounts with Defendant when no such authorization occurred. ?5" As a result of Defendant's violations of New Jersey Common Law of Breach of Contract, Plaintiffs were caused harm to their business. 7 6  As a result of Defendant's violations of New Jersey Cornmon Law of Breach of Contract, Plaintiffs have suffered distress and anxiety by Defendant deliberately and unfairly placing obstacles to Plaintiffs' ability to receive mailed communications and thereby conduct business and Plaintiffs are entitled to $50,000 in damages in accordance with the New Jersey Common Law. CALLING ON AND THEREFORE IS NOT BOUND TO ARBITMTION.  NEW YORK, NY 10017 