20. CreditGuard is a debt consolidation firm.   21. To increase its sales, and as part of a general cold-call based marketing scheme,  CreditGuard makes automated calls to consumers.   The Original Calls to Mr. Newell   22. Plaintiff Newell is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).   23. Mr. Newell’s telephone number, (484) 250-XXXX, is registered to a cellular telephone  service.   24. In February of 2019, Mr. Newell received a series of automated calls from the  Defendant.   25. Mr. Newell alerted the Defendant to the alleged TCPA violations.   26. Mr. Newell then resolved those claims.  The Recent Calls to Mr. Newell   27. Despite the prior notice to the Defendant, Mr. Newell continued to receive automated  calls.   29. When Mr. Newell answered the call, there was a distinctive click and a pause.    30. This click and pause is a telltale sign of a predictive dialer.   31. The click and pause signifies the algorithm of the predictive dialer operating.  The  predictive dialer dials thousands of numbers at once, and only transfers the call to a live agent once  a human being is on the line.   32. On each of the calls, Mr. Newell was offered the Defendant’s goods or services.   33. On the third call, Mr. Newell was sent an e-mail from pdavidson@creditguard.org  confirming that the Defendant had called him all three times.   34. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff is not alone in unwanted receipt of these calls.   35. The Plaintiff received all of the calls from the Caller ID (206) 451-8256.   36. The website “Should I Answer” has given this Caller ID a “NEGATIVE  UNSOLICITED CALL” rating, with 21 complaints about that number. See  https://www.shouldianswer.com/phone-number/2064518256 (Last Visited June 24, 2019).   37. Plaintiff and the other call recipients were harmed by these calls. They were  temporarily deprived of legitimate use of their phones because the phone line was tied up during  the telemarketing calls and their privacy was improperly invaded. Moreover, these calls injured  Plaintiff and the other call recipients because they were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying, and a  nuisance, and disturbed the solitude of Plaintiff and the class.  39. The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate  presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, their subsidiaries, parents,  successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or their parents have a controlling  interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4)  persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (5) the legal  representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons; and (6) persons whose claims  against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated and/or released. Plaintiff anticipates the  need to amend the class definitions following appropriate discovery.   40. Numerosity: The exact size of the Class is unknown and unavailable to Plaintiff at this  time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief, Defendant  made unsolicited prerecorded voice message calls to thousands of individuals who fall into the Class  definition. Class membership can be easily determined from Defendant’s records.   41. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class.  Plaintiff is a member of the Class, and if Defendant violated the TCPA with respect to Plaintiff, then  it violated the TCPA with respect to the other members of the Class. Plaintiff and the Class sustained  the same damages as a result of Defendant’s uniform wrongful conduct.   43. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the  interests of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions.  Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant have no defenses unique to  Plaintiff.   44. Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendant have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Class, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of  conduct toward the members of the Class, and making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect  to the Class. Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to and affect the members of the Class  uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with respect to  the Class, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.   46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 45 of this  complaint and incorporates them by reference.   47. Defendant and/or their agents made unsolicited calls to Plaintiff and the other members  of the TCPA Class using an autodialer.   48. Defendant made these autodialed calls en masse without the consent of Plaintiff and the  other members of the TCPA Class.   49. Defendant’s conduct was negligent or willful and knowing.   50. Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    51. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the TCPA Class  are each entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages, and up to $1,500 in damages, for each violation.   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the TCPA Class)  