19.  Prior to May 15, 2017, Plaintiff registered his cellular telephone number on the  National Do Not Call registry to try to avoid receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls on his cell  phone.     20.  On May 15, 2017, at 10:58 a.m., Plaintiff received a telemarketing sales call from  Defendant, or on Defendant’s behalf, on his cellular telephone line, from the phone number 708- 640-8017.  This telephone number is notorious for belonging to Defendant and for being used for  telemarketing, in violation of the TCPA.  See, supra, ¶ 11.  A partially redacted screen shot of  Plaintiff’s cell phone call log, taken on May 15, 2017, is attached as Exhibit B.     22.  As there was no prior or current relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant,  Defendant did not know anything about Plaintiff until Plaintiff chose to share certain personal  information on the phone call.  Plaintiff, for example, provided Defendant with his name and  mailing address and agreed to receive a sales contract through the mail.  Defendant stated on the  phone call that it would be sending a sales contract through the mail to Plaintiff.   23.  Plaintiff then received, via the mail, a letter, signed by Defendant’s CEO David  Hernandez, and a “Welcome Kit” that included a contract entitled “LIBERTY POWER  UNIFORM DISCLOSURE STATEMENT/CONTRACT SUMMARY – Illinois – Residential –  Green (Wind).”  The letter and contract are attached as Exhibit A to this Class Action Complaint.   24.  The letter from Defendant stated that Defendant was “pleased to welcome  [Plaintiff] to the Liberty Power family!” and stated that Defendant had “already coordinated with  [Plaintiff’s] utility to ensure [Plaintiff’s] transition is simple and worry free.”  See Exhibit A.     25.  Defendant’s intentional violation of the TCPA in, for example, making a call to  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone line, without Plaintiff’s prior express consent, using an automatic  telephone dialing system, was rewarded by contact with Plaintiff (a potential customer),  obtaining Plaintiff’s personal information, and Plaintiff’s acceptance of marketing materials and  a contract from Defendant through the mail.      26.  Defendant is and was aware that the above-described cellular telephone call was  and is being made to consumers like Plaintiff who had not consented to receive them and whose  telephone numbers were registered with the National Do Not Call Registry.  27.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a),  (b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as defined as follows:  All persons in the United States who from July 28, 2013, to the present (1) Defendant  caused to be called using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) or an artificial  or prerecorded voice; (2) on the person’s cellular telephone service number; (3) not for  emergency purposes; and (4) for whom Defendant had not obtained the prior express  consent to call the person.   28.   The following people are excluded from the Class:  (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2)  Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in  which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and its current or former  employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely  request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been  finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and  Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any  such excluded persons.  Plaintiff anticipates the need to potentially amend the class  definitions following discovery into the scope of the class and the identity of any other  persons who should be included as party defendants.   29.  Numerosity: The exact size of the Class is unknown and not available to Plaintiff  at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable.  On information and belief,  Defendant made calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the Class.   Members of the Class can be identified through reference to objective criteria, including  Defendant’s (or Defendant’s agent’s) business records, consumer phone records, and other  evidence to be gained in discovery.   31.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the  Class.  Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered essentially identical harm and sustained  damages as a result of Defendant’s uniform wrongful conduct during transactions with Plaintiff  and the Class.   32.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex  class actions.  Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff.   34.  Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because class  proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy given that joinder of all parties is impracticable.  The damages suffered by the  individual members of the Class will likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and  expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions.   Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Class to obtain effective  relief from Defendant’s misconduct.  Even if members of the Class could sustain such individual  litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action, because individual litigation would  increase the delay and expense of all parties due to the complex legal and factual controversies  presented in this Complaint.  By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management  difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and  comprehensive supervision by a single court for the Class.  Economies of time, effort and  expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions ensured.    35.  Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-34.   37.  Defendant made unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls to cellular  telephone service numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, without  their prior express written consent, in an effort to sell its products and services.   38.  Defendant did not have the prior express consent of Plaintiff and other members  of the Class to make these telephone calls.    39.  None of the calls made by Defendant to Plaintiff and other members of the Class  were initiated for emergency purposes or exempted by rule or order of the Federal  Communications Commission.   40.  Defendant made the telephone calls using equipment that had the capacity to store  or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator,  and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse.   41.  Defendant utilized equipment that made the telephone calls to Plaintiff and other  members of the Class simultaneously and without human intervention.   42.  By making unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff and members of the Class’s  cellular telephones without their prior express consent, and by utilizing an ATDS, Defendant  violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   43.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Class suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive the unsolicited telephone  calls on their cellular phones and, under Section 227(b)(3)(B), are entitled to, inter alia, a  minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.   6.  Defendant supplies retail electricity to residential, business and government  customers.  Founded in 2001, by CEO David Hernandez, “after separating from Enron in 2001,”1  and current President Alberto Daire,2 Defendant claims to currently serve “hundreds of  thousands of customers across the nation.”3    8.  Unfortunately for consumers, Defendant utilized (and continues to utilize) a  sophisticated telephone dialing system to call cellular telephone service subscribers en masse to  promote and market its services.     9.  That is, in Defendant’s overzealous attempts to market its services, it placed (and  continues to place) phone calls to consumers that never provided consent to call and to  consumers with whom it had no prior relationship.  Additionally, Defendant placed (and  continues to place) repeated and unwanted calls to consumers whose cellular telephones service  numbers are listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.  Consumers place their phone numbers  on the Do Not Call Registry for the express purpose of avoiding unwanted telemarketing calls  like those alleged here.   Violation OF 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) et seq.  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  