(Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(1)(A))   (Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A))   25.  Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47  51.  Numerosity. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the Class has more than 100  members. Moreover, the disposition of the claims of the Class in a single action will provide  substantial benefits to all parties and the Court.   52.  Commonality. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff  and members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited  to, the following:  a.  Whether Defendants and/or their affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or  entities acting on Defendants’ behalf violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) by making any call,  except for emergency purposes, to a cellular telephone number using an ATDS and/or artificial  or prerecorded voice;  b.  Whether Defendants and/or their affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or  entities acting on Defendants’ behalf knowingly and/or willfully violated 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(1)(A) by making any call, except for emergency purposes, to a cellular telephone  number using an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice, thus entitling Plaintiff and the  Class to treble damages;  c.  Whether Defendants are liable for ATDS generated and/or automated or  prerecorded calls promoting USHealth’s products or services made by Defendants’ affiliates,  agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on Defendants’ behalf; and  d.  Whether Defendants and/or their affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or  entities acting on Defendants’ behalf should be enjoined from violating the TCPA in the future.   54.  Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.  Plaintiff has retained competent and capable attorneys with significant experience in complex  and class action litigation, including consumer class actions and TCPA class actions. Plaintiff  and its counsel are committed to prosecuting this action vigorously on behalf of the Class and  have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor its counsel has interests that are  contrary to or that conflict with those of the proposed Class. Additionally, Plaintiff is a member  of the Class.   55.  Predominance. Defendants have engaged in a common course of conduct toward  Plaintiff and members of the Class. The common issues arising from this conduct that affect  Plaintiff and members of the Class predominate over any individual issues. Adjudication of these  common issues in a single action has important and desirable advantages of judicial economy.   56.  Superiority. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy. Classwide relief is essential to compel Defendants to comply  with the TCPA. The interest of individual members of the Class in individually controlling the  prosecution of separate claims against Defendants is small because the damages in an individual  action for violation of the TCPA are small. Management of these claims is likely to present  significantly fewer difficulties than are presented in many class claims because the calls at issue  are all automated. Class treatment is superior to multiple individual suits or piecemeal litigation  because it conserves judicial resources, promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication,  provides a forum for small claimants, and deters illegal activities. There will be no significant  difficulty in the management of this case as a class action.   58.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set  forth in the preceding paragraphs.   59.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants and/or their affiliates, agents,  and/or other persons or entities acting on Defendants’ behalf constitute numerous and multiple  violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), by making calls, except for emergency  purposes, to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the Class using an  ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice.   60.  As a result of Defendants’ and/or their affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or  entities acting on Defendants’ behalf’s violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A),  Plaintiff and members of the Class presumptively are entitled to an award of $500 in damages for  each and every call made to their cellular telephone numbers using an ATDS and/or artificial or  prerecorded voice in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   61.  Plaintiff and members of the Class are also entitled to and do seek injunctive  relief prohibiting Defendants and/or their affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting  on Defendants’ behalf from violating the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), by making calls,  except for emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers using an ATDS and/or  artificial or prerecorded voice in the future.  I.  62.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set  forth in the preceding paragraphs.   64.  As a result of Defendants’ and/or their affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or  entities acting on Defendants’ behalf’s knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(1)(A), Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to treble damages of up to $1,500  for each and every call made to their cellular telephone numbers using an ATDS and/or artificial  or prerecorded voice in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).  A.  Factual Allegations Regarding Plaintiff  