11.  On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff received a telephone call to his cellular  phone from phone number (832) 240-3940.    12.  When Plaintiff picked up the call, an automated voice advertised the  availability of an extended vehicle warranty.    13.  Plaintiff was then connected to a live person who identified themself as  working for Royal Admin.    14.  Prior to this call, Plaintiff had never heard of Royal Admin, had never  done business with Royal Admin, and had never given written or oral permission to  receive automated pre-recorded marketing calls from Royal Admin.    15.  Under the TCPA, the term telemarketing means the initiation of a  telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of,  or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person.  ! 4   16.  The call from Royal Admin fits squarely within this definition, as the  purpose of the call from Royal Admin was to encourage the purchase of goods or  services.   17.  Any purported consent received by Royal Admin or its agents did not  conform to requirements of the TCPA or the Rules and Regulations Implementing  the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and  Order, 27 FCC Rcd 1830 (2012) and Rules and Regulations Implementing the  Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, WC Docket No.  07-135, Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72, 30 F.C.C.R. 7961, 7996 (July 10,  2015), or otherwise satisfy any prior express requirements applicable under the  18.  Plaintiff bring this case pursuant to Rules 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules  of Civil Procedure on their own behalf and on behalf of the proposed Class, defined  as:  All persons within the United States who, within four  years prior to the filing of this action received any  telephone call from Defendant or its agents to either: (1) a  cellular telephone subscribed to by said person, or (2) a  cellular telephone for which said person is the number’s  customary user, where the call from Defendant was made  through the use an artificial or prerecorded voice, which  call was not made for emergency purposes.   19.  Defendant and its employees and agents are excluded from the Class.    20.  The Class is comprised of hundreds or likely thousands of individuals.  Although the exact number of class members is presently unknown, the number  ! 5  and identity of Class members can be readily determined through Royal Admin’s  records.    21.  The disposition of the numerous claims of these class members in a  single class action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court.   22.  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally  to the Class, so that final injunctive relief is appropriate respecting the Class as a  whole.   23.  There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law  and fact involved affecting the class members. The questions of law and fact  common to the Class predominate over questions affecting only individual class  members, and include without limitation the following:  A.  Whether Royal Admin used an artificial or prerecorded voice in  placing calls.  B.  Whether Royal Admin received consent from Plaintiff and Class  members prior to placing calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class  members.  C.  Whether any purported consent received by Royal Admin  complied with the requirements set forth by the Federal Communications  Commission and/or the TCPA.  D.  Whether Royal Admin acted willfully and/or knowingly in  violation of the TCPA.  ! 6   24.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Plaintiff and  Class members have similarly received calls from Royal Admin to cellular  telephones owned by Plaintiff and Class members, and Plaintiff and Class members  suffered the same harm arising from Royal Admin’s legal violations as identified in  causes of action enumerated and set forth below.    25.  Plaintiff’s and Class members’ claims flow, in each instance, from a  common nucleus of operative facts: Royal Admin’s legal violations as identified in  causes of action enumerated and set forth below.    26.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his  interests do not conflict with and are not antagonistic to the interests of the Class  members he seeks to represent. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class.   27.  Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced counsel.   28.  Plaintiff and Class members have all suffered and will continue to  suffer substantial harm and damages due to Royal Admin’s conduct. A class action  is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the subject  controversy. Absent a class action, most Class members likely will find the cost of  litigating their individual claims to be prohibitive, and will have no effective remedy  at all. Absent a class action, class members will continue to sustain damages, and  Royal Admin’s misconduct will proceed without remedy.    29.  The class treatment of common questions of law and fact is also  superior to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that it conserves  ! 7  the resources of the courts and the litigants and promotes consistency and efficiency  of adjudication. Additionally, Royal Admin has acted, and failed to act, on grounds  generally applicable to Plaintiff and the Class, requiring court imposition of uniform  relief to insure compatible standards of conduct toward Plaintiff and the Class.  31.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and its agents  constitute numerous and multiple negligent violations of the TCPA, including but  not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227.   32.   As a result of the negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 by Defendant  and its agents, Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award of $500 in  statutory damages for each and every call in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   33.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive  relief prohibiting Defendant’s, and its agents’, violation of the TCPA in the future.   34.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to an award of attorneys’  fees and costs.   ! 8  35.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and its agents  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.    36.  As a result of Defendant’s, and its agents’, knowing and/or willful  violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, Plaintiff and each member of the Class are entitled to  treble damages of up to $1,500 for each and every call in violation of the statute,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).   37.  Plaintiff and all Class members are also entitled to and do seek  injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendant and its  agents in the future.    38.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to an award of attorneys’  fees and costs.  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227    NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 47 U.S.C. § 227  