10.  Since at least 2018, Defendants have engaged in a practice of leaving repeated,  unsolicited, prerecorded messages on the cellular telephone voicemails of individuals who own  property in Arizona.    11.  Defendants’ telemarketing calls are not initiated or monitored by a live person.    13.  The voicemail message since at least 2018 was similar or identical to the following:   Hi! How’s it going? This is Lisa, I am not sure if I have the right number, to be  honest, but I came across your property and thought I would reach out to you. I just  wanted to see if you’d be interested in a cash offer for your home. I am a local  investor here in the area and I usually buy around five to ten homes every few  months. If you’re interested, please give me a call back my phone number is 602- 833-5317. Thank you so much. Bye, bye.   14.  Upon information and belief, “Lisa” does not exist or is not otherwise employed by  Defendants.   15.  The purpose of these automated calls and prerecorded voicemail messages was to  solicit business.   16.  Notably, when dialing the number “Lisa” leaves on the voicemails, Defendant  acknowledges the calls are subject to the TCPA and provides an option to be added to the “Do  Not Call List.”   17.  On or about June 2018, Plaintiff started receiving on his cellular telephone the  above-described unsolicited calls from Defendants with the same prerecorded message alleged  above. Plaintiff received numerous of these calls on his cellular telephone and “ringless”  voicemails per month with the same prerecorded message from “Lisa.”   18.  At no point did Plaintiff provide Defendants with his express written consent to be  contacted using an Automated Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”) with an artificial or  prerecorded message.   20.  Plaintiff called the number that “Lisa” left in the voicemail message and was  eventually routed to Defendant Geary. Defendant Geary in this call acknowledged responsibility  for the voicemails from “Lisa” and that the calls were solicitations by Defendants to purchase  Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff informed Defendant Geary that his number was on the “Do Not Call”  register, requested to be removed from the ATDS registry, and asked not to be called again.    21.  Despite speaking with Defendant Geary in December 2018, Plaintiff continued to  receive multiple calls and voicemails from “Lisa” in 2019 and 2020.   22.  Defendants’ unsolicited prerecorded message caused Plaintiff actual harm,  including, but not limited to invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on  seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendants’ prerecorded message also inconvenienced  Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life.  23.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.  Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class of individuals:  All persons within the United States who received an unsolicited call or voicemail  from Defendants or someone acting on Defendants’ behalf or direction using an  artificial or prerecorded voice without emergency purpose and without the  recipient’s prior express written consent within the four years preceding the filing  of this Complaint.   24.  Upon information and belief, Defendants have left hundreds of prerecorded  messages on recipients’ voicemails. The members of the class, therefore, are believed to be so  numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   26.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the class which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class. These common  questions include (a) whether Defendants utilize an automated telephone dialing system and leave  artificial or prerecorded messages without the recipients’ prior express written consent for  telemarketing purposes; (b) whether Defendants authorized, directed, or condoned the calls to the  extent initiated by a third party; (c) whether such conduct, if proven, constitutes a violation of the  ATDS; (d) whether Defendants’ conduct was knowing or willful; and (e) the statutory damages  to be awarded for violations of the TCPA.    27.  Plaintiff shares the same interests and has suffered the same injuries as each class  member. Plaintiff asserts identical claims and seeks identical relief on behalf of the class members.  Plaintiff’s claims are, therefore, typical of the class members’ claims, and Plaintiff will fairly and  adequately protect the absent class members’ claims and serve as a class representative.   28.  Plaintiff is prepared to serve as the named class representatives for the class.  Plaintiff has also retained competent counsel that will diligently pursue this action on behalf of  the absent class members.   29.  A class action is superior to all available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this lawsuit, because individual litigation of the claims of all members of the class  is economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. While the aggregate damages  sustained by the class are in the hundreds of thousand dollars, the individual damages incurred by  each member of the class resulting from Defendants’ wrongful conduct are too small to warrant  the expense of individual lawsuits. The likelihood of individual class members prosecuting their  own separate claims is remote, and, even if every member of the class could afford individual  litigation, the court system would be unduly burdened by individual litigation of such cases.   31.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).  32.  Plaintiff incorporates all of the above allegations as if set forth fully herein.   33.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for emergency  purposes or made with the prior express written consent of the called party) using any automated  telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice … to any telephone number assigned  to a  … cellular telephone service….” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   34.  Defendants – or third parties directed by Defendants and acting at their direction  and on their behalf – transmitted calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular  telephone number of Plaintiff and members of the class.   35.  These calls were made without regard to whether Plaintiff provided express written  consent for Defendants to make such calls. Defendants never obtain express written consent from  Plaintiff or other members of the class. In fact, Plaintiff expressly requested not to be contacted  again by Defendants but continued to receive the unsolicited telemarketing calls from Defendants.   36.  Defendants actions violate § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an artificial or  prerecorded voice to make non-emergency telephone calls to Plaintiff’s and other class members’  cell phone without their prior express written consent.   37.  Plaintiff and other members of the class were harmed and are entitled to a minimum  of $500.00 for each violation of the TCPA and an injunction under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).    39.  Defendants’ calls and “ringless” voicemails caused Plaintiff and members of the  class actual harm including, but not limited to invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance,  intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendants’ prerecorded message also  inconvenienced Plaintiff and other members of the class and caused disruption in their daily lives.   40.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and other members of the class should be awarded $1,500.00  each in statutory damages for each violation of the TCPA.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other members of the class pray for relief  against Defendants as follows:  (A)  Awarding Plaintiff statutory damages in an amount to be determined by the court;  (B)  Awarding an injunction enjoining Defendants from further violations of the TCPA;  and  (C)  Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.  DATED this 31st day of December 2020.  6.  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., makes  it unlawful to engage in unsolicited telemarketing using an automated telephone dialing system  or artificial or prerecorded messages without the recipients’ prior express written consent.   7.  The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) is empowered to issue rules and  regulations implementing the TCPA.   8.  The FTC has issued rulings and clarified that to obtain an individual’s consent, a  clear, unambiguous, and conspicuous written disclosure must be provided to the individual. See  2012 FTC Order, 27 FTC Rcd. At 1839 (“Requiring prior written consent will better protect  consumer privacy because such consent requires conspicuous action by the consumer – providing  permission in writing – to authorize autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls….”).    9.  The courts and the FTC have issued rulings and clarified that consumers are entitled  to the same content-based protections for “ringless” voicemails as they are for calls to wireless  numbers. See Schaevitz v. Braman Hyundai, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 3d 1237, 1248 (S.D. FL. 2019);  Toney v. Quality Res., Inc., 75 F. Supp. 3d 727, 734 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (defendant bears the burden  of showing that it obtained Plaintiff’s prior express consent before contacting the individual).   VIOLATION OF 47 U.S.C. §227  