11.   Plaintiff does now, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, use  internet service from Defendant at his residence.   12.  As part of its internet service, Defendant provides to customers and  hosts email accounts ending in “@cox.net.”   13.  Plaintiff created an email account hosted by Defendant more than a  decade ago (the “Cox Email Account”).   14.  Plaintiff began using Gmail, preferred it to Cox’s email service, and  set his Cox Email Account to forward all emails to his Gmail account.   15.  In or around May 2017, Plaintiff noticed that emails sent to his Cox  Email Account were no longer being forwarded to his Gmail account.    16.  Plaintiff discovered that Defendant had locked him out of his Cox  Email Account.   17.  Plaintiff had not received any advance warning from Defendant that  it would lock his Cox Email Account.   18.  On or about May 17, 2017, Plaintiff called Defendant’s customer  service number to inquire about the Cox Email Account.   19.  During that call, Defendant’s representative, Sarah West, unlocked  the Cox Email Account and Plaintiff successfully logged in. Plaintiff told Ms.  West that he had successfully logged in.   29.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class (the  “Class”), of which he is a member.   30.  The Class is defined as follows: “All persons in California whose  cellular or cordless telephone conversations were monitored, recorded and/or  eavesdropped upon without disclosure at the outset of the conversation by  Defendants within one year before the filing of the original Complaint in this  action.”   31.  Defendant, its employees and its agents are excluded from the Class.   Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Class but believes it to be  in the thousands. Defendant bills itself as the “third-largest U.S. cable company,”  providing service to approximately 6 million residences and businesses across the  country, including in this District and elsewhere in California.   32.  This suit seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of  economic injury on behalf of the Class. It does not seek recovery for personal  injury and claims related thereto.   33.  Plaintiff reserves the right to expand the Class definition to seek  recovery on behalf of additional persons as warranted by facts learned from  further investigation and discovery.   41.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the above paragraphs of  this Complaint as though fully stated herein.   42.  California Penal Code section 632.7 prohibits intentionally  monitoring or recording a cellular or cordless telephone conversation without the  consent of all parties to the call.   43.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that  Defendant employed and/or caused to be employed certain eavesdropping,  recording and listening equipment on the telephone lines of all employees,  officers, directors and managers of Defendant.   VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE § 632.7  