15.  At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Jesse Prather was an  individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff Jesse Prather is, and at all  times mentioned herein was, a "person" as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).   17.  Plaintiff Jesse Prather applied for and obtained a number of  educational loans during the 2003 - 2007 time period through American Education  Services. On information and belief, one or more of those loans was purchased by  Wells Fargo and / or WFEFS, and WFEFS has serviced those loans from at least  September, 2010 to the present.   18.  Plaintiff John W. Prather co-signed for each of those educational  loans that Jesse Prather applied for and obtained during the 2003-2007 time period.  Each of those contracts originated in and were performed in California.   19.  "During the transaction that res· Jted in the debt owed," Plaintiff  John W. Prather did not provide express consent to receive calls made by Wells  Fargo or WFEFS on an "automatic telephone dialing system," as defined by 47  U.S.C. § 227(a)(l), on his cellular telephone.6 In fact, Plaintiff John W. Prather  never provided a cellphone number to Defendants during the process of acting as a  co-signer on Jesse Prather's educational loans on any application relating to the  debt for which Wells Fargo and / or WFEFS called him on his cellphone. In fact,  Plaintiff John W. Prather did not own or use a cellphone at any time during the  entire time period Jesse Prather applied for and obtained the educational loans for  which John W. Prather was a co-signer. Defendants either obtained John W.  Prather's cellphone number through skip tracing or by other means not related to  the process of co-signing for the educational loans, and by Wells Fargo and WFEFS  obtaining his cellphone number in that manner, that did not constitute the requisite  prior express consent of John W. Prather to be contacted on his cellphone by an  automatic telephone dialing system or by a prerecorded voice message for any  purpose related to the collection or servicing of Jesse Prather's student loans.   21.  Beginning no later than February, 2015, Plaintiff John W.  Prather began receiving calls from Wells Fargo and WFEFS to his cellphone,  approximately a dozen in just over a month, telling him to call Wells Fargo at 1- 800-416-8229, continuing to at least April 13, 2015, just prior to the filing of the  Complaint.   22.  Wells Fargo and WFEFS are, and at all times mentioned herein  were, "persons", as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).   23.  All telephone contact by Wells Fargo and WFEFS to Plaintiffs  on their cellular telephones occurred via an "automatic telephone dialing system,"  as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), and/or used "an artificial or prerecorded voice"  as described in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   24.  The telephone numbers that Wells Fargo and WFEFES called  in order to contact Plaintiffs, with an "artificial or prerecorded voice" and/or made  by an "automatic telephone dialing system," were assigned to a cellular telephone  service as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   26.  Wells Fargo's and WFEFS's telephone calls to Plaintiffs'  cellular phones were not "for emergency purposes" as described in 47 U.S.C. §  227(b )(1)(A).   27.  Wells Fargo's and WFEFS's telephone calls to Plaintiffs'  cellular phones utilizing an "artificial or prerecorded voice" or placed by an  "automatic telephone dialing system" for non-emergency purposes and in the  absence of Plaintiffs' prior express consent violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   28.  Under the TCPA and pursuant to the FCC's January 2008  Declaratory Ruling, the burden is on Wells Fargo and WFEFS to demonstrate that  Plaintiffs provided express consent within the meaning of the statute.  7  29.  Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf  of all other persons similarly situated (hereinafter referred to as "the Class").   31.  Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of members in the  Class, but based upon the representations of Wells Fargo as to its market share,  Plaintiffs reasonably believe that Class members number at minimum in the  hundreds of thousands.   32.  Plaintiffs and all members of the Class have been harmed by the  acts of Wells Fargo and WFEFS.   33.  This Class Action Complaint s<;>:;ks injunctive relief and money  damages.   34.  The joinder of all Class members is impracticable due to the size  and relatively modest value of each individual claim. The disposition of the claims  in a class action will provide substantial benefit to the parties and the Court in  avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits. The Class can be identified easily through  records maintained by Wells Fargo and WFEFS.   36.  As persons who received numerous and repeated telephone calls  14  using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice,  15  without their prior express consent within the meaning of the TCP A and Rules,  16  Plaintiffs assert claims that are typical of each Class member. Plaintiffs will fairly  17  and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class, and have no interests  18  which are antagonistic to any member of the Class.  19   37.  Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in handling class  20  action claims involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes,  21  including claims under the TCP A.  22   39.  Wells Fargo and WFEFS have acted on grounds generally  applicable to the Class, thereby making final injunctive relief and corresponding  declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a wh01e appropriate. Moreover, on  information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the TCP A violations complained of  herein are substantially likely to continue in the future if an injunction is not  entered.  44.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of  this Complaint as if fully stated herein.   45.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Wells Fargo and WFEFS  constitute numerous and multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA,  including but not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.c. § 227 et  seq.   46.  As a result of Wells Fargo's and WFEFS's knowing and/or  willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiffs and each member of the  Class are entitled to treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each and every call in  violation ofthe statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).   48.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the paragraphs 1 through 43,  inclusive, of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   49.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Wells Fargo and WFEFS  constitute numerous and multiple violations of the TCP A, including but not limited  to each of the above cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   50.  As a result of Wells Fargo's and WFEFS's violations of 47  U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to an award of  $500.00 in statutory damages for each and every call in violation of the statute,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   51.  Plaintiffs and Class members are also entitled to and do seek  injunctive relief prohibiting Wells Fargo's and WFEFS's violation of the TCPA in  the future.   52.  Plaintiffs and Class members are also entitled to an award of  attorneys' fees and costs.  53.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of  this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   55.  Wells Fargo's and WFEFS's conduct using automated and  predictive dialing techniques to harass Plaintiffs and members described herein is  unlawful and violates Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (the "UCL").   56.  Wells Fargo's and WFEFS's illegal practices outweigh the  utility, if any, of those practices.   57.  The illegal business practices of Wells Fargo and WFEFS are  immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and/or substantially injurious to  Plaintiffs and members of the Class.   58.  Unless restrained by this Court, Wells Fargo and WFEFS will  continue to engage in the illegal acts and practices alleged above.   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE  CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.   VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 47  5  U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28   VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA'S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, CAL.  BUS. & PROF. CODE SECTION 17200, ET SEQ.  