15.  Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others  similarly situated (“The Class”).   16.  Plaintiffs represent, and are members of, “The Class” defined as follows:    “All persons in California whose inbound and outbound telephone  conversations were monitored, recorded, eavesdropped upon and/or  wiretapped without their consent by Defendant within the four years prior to  the filing of the original Complaint in this action.”     17.  Defendant, and its employees and agents are excluded from The Class.     Plaintiffs do not know the number of members in The Class, but believe this  number to be in the tens of thousands, if not more.  Thus, this matter should  be certified as a Class action to assist in the expeditious litigation of this  matter.   26.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this  Complaint as though fully stated herein.   27.  Californians have a constitutional right to privacy.  Moreover, the California  Supreme Court has definitively linked the constitutionally protected right to  privacy within the purpose, intent and specific protections of the Privacy Act,  including specifically, Penal Code § 632.  “In addition, California’s explicit  constitutional privacy provision (Cal. Const., 1 § 1) was enacted in part  specifically to protect California from overly intrusive business practices that  were seen to pose a significant and increasing threat to personal privacy.  (Citations omitted).  Thus, Plaintiffs believe that California must be viewed  as having a strong and continuing interest in the full and vigorous application  of the provisions of section 632 prohibiting the recording of telephone  conversations without the knowledge or consent of all parties to the  conversation.   28.  California Penal Code § 632 prohibits one party to a telephone call from  intentionally recording the conversation without the knowledge or consent of  the other party.  Penal Code § 632 is violated the moment the recording is  made without the consent of all parties thereto, regardless of whether it is  subsequently disclosed that the telephone call was recorded.  The only intent  required by Penal Code § 632 is that the act of recording itself be done  intentionally.  There is no requisite intent on behalf of the party doing the  surreptitious recording to break California law or any other law, or to invade  the privacy right of any other person.   36.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this  Complaint as though fully stated herein.   37.  Defendant invaded Plaintiffs and the members of The Class’ right to privacy  by intentionally allowing the unauthorized eavesdropping, wiretapping,  recording, and listening of the telephone conversation with Plaintiffs and the  members of The Class and negligently maintaining the confidentiality of the  information of Plaintiffs and the members of The Class, as set for above.   38.  The intrusion through the unauthorized eavesdropping, wiretapping,  recording, and listening of the telephone conversations with Plaintiffs and the  members of The Class and the negligently maintaining of the confidentiality  of the information of Plaintiffs and The Class, was offensive and  objectionable to Plaintiffs, the Class, and to a reasonable person of ordinary  sensibilities.    39.  The intrusion was into a place or thing which was private and which is  entitled to be private, in that Plaintiffs and The Class’ personal conversations  and information provided to Defendant were made privately, were intended  not to be recorded, and were intended to be kept confidential and protected  from unauthorized disclosure.   43.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this  Complaint as though fully stated herein.   44.  Defendant, as aforesaid herein, has various statutory and common law duties  not to engage in the aforementioned wire-tapping, eavesdropping, recording,  and listening conduct such that Plaintiffs and The Class’ rights to privacy  were invaded and breached.   45.  Defendant negligently and recklessly engages in the aforementioned  eavesdropping, wiretapping, recording, and listening conduct of Plaintiffs  and The Class.   48.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this  Complaint as though fully stated herein.   49.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of California Penal Code §§ 631(a)  and/or 632.6(a), as set forth above, and Defendant’s violation of California  Business and Professions Code § 17200, as set forth below, Plaintiffs and  The Class have suffered an injury in fact by, among other things, having their  personal information recorded without their prior permission or consent, as  required by California Penal Code § 630 et seq.  Additionally, Plaintiffs and  The Class have lost property in that Plaintiffs and The Class suffered and are  each entitled to the greater of statutory damages of $5,000 per violation  pursuant to Penal Code § 637.2(a), or three times actual damages per  violation pursuant to Penal Code § 637.2(a).   Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing  (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause: VII.  REQUESTED IN INVASION OF PRIVACY: COMMON LAW   INVASION OF PRIVACY: VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE § 630 ET SEQ.   NEGLIGENCE   UNLAWFUL, FRAUDULENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS ACTS AND PRACTICES  IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §  17200, ET SEQ.  