10.  Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone numbers  confirmed to belong to Defendant, including and not necessarily limited to (424) 332-5843.   11.  Defendant’s calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined  by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   12.  Defendant’s calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone  service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).    13.  During all relevant times, Defendant did not possess Plaintiff’s “prior express  consent” to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded  voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   14.  Further, Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in -0838 was added to the  National Do-Not-Call Registry.   15.  Defendant placed calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on her cellular telephone  ending in -0838 in or around September of 2016.   16.  Such calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) as they  were attempts to promote or sell Defendant’s services.   17.  Plaintiff received solicitation calls from Defendant within a 12-month period.   18.  Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in  violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.   19.  Upon information and belief, and based on Plaintiff’s experiences of being called  by Defendant after being on the National Do-Not-Call list for several years prior to Defendant’s  initial call, and at all relevant times, Defendant failed to establish and implement reasonable  practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the  regulations prescribed under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).  20.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,  as a member the two proposed classes (hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Classes”).    22.  The class concerning the National Do-Not-Call violation (the “DNC Class”) is  defined as follows:  All persons within the United States registered on the National Do- Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who had not granted  Defendant prior express consent nor had a prior established business  relationship, who received more than one call made by or on behalf  of Defendant that promoted Defendant’s products or services,  within any twelve-month period, within four years prior to the filing  of the complaint.   23.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the ATDS Class, consisting of all persons  within the United States who received any collection telephone calls from Defendant to said  person’s cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an  artificial or prerecorded voice and such person had not previously not provided their cellular  telephone number to Defendant within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.   24.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the DNC Class, consisting of all persons  within the United States registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who  had not granted Defendant prior express consent nor had a prior established business relationship,  who received more than one call made by or on behalf of Defendant that promoted Defendant’s  products or services, within any twelve-month period, within four years prior to the filing of the  complaint.   26.  The Classes are so numerous that the individual joinder of all of its members is  impractical.  While the exact number and identities of the Classes members are unknown to  Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff is  informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Classes includes thousands of members.   Plaintiff alleges that the Classes members may be ascertained by the records maintained by  Defendant.   27.  Plaintiff and members of the ATDS Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in  at least the following ways: Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff and ATDS Class members via  their cellular telephones thereby causing Plaintiff and ATDS Class members to incur certain  charges or reduced telephone time for which Plaintiff and ATDS Class members had previously  paid by having to retrieve or administer messages left by Defendant during those illegal calls, and  invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and ATDS Class members.   28.  Common questions of fact and law exist as to all members of the ATDS Class which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the ATDS Class.  These  common legal and factual questions, which do not vary between ATDS Class members, and which  may be determined without reference to the individual circumstances of any ATDS Class  members, include, but are not limited to, the following:  a.  Whether, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint,  Defendant made any telemarketing/solicitation call (other than a call made  for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called  party) to an ATDS Class member using any automatic telephone dialing  system or any artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number  assigned to a cellular telephone service;  b.  Whether Plaintiff and the ATDS Class members were damaged thereby, and  the extent of damages for such violation; and  c.  Whether Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in  the future.   30.  Plaintiff and members of the DNC Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in  at least the following ways: Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff and DNC Class members via  their telephones for solicitation purposes, thereby invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and the  DNC Class members whose telephone numbers were on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.   Plaintiff and the DNC Class members were damaged thereby.   31.  Common questions of fact and law exist as to all members of the DNC Class which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the DNC Class.  These  common legal and factual questions, which do not vary between DNC Class members, and which  may be determined without reference to the individual circumstances of any DNC Class members,  include, but are not limited to, the following:  a.  Whether, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint,  Defendant or its agents placed more than one solicitation call to the  members of the DNC Class whose telephone numbers were on the National  Do-Not-Call Registry and who had not granted prior express consent to  Defendant and did not have an established business relationship with  Defendant;  b.  Whether Defendant obtained prior express written consent to place  solicitation calls to Plaintiff or the DNC Class members’ telephones;  c.  Whether Plaintiff and the DNC Class member were damaged thereby, and  the extent of damages for such violation; and  d.  Whether Defendant and its agents should be enjoined from engaging in such  conduct in the future.   33.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of The  Classes.  Plaintiff has retained attorneys experienced in the prosecution of class actions.   34.  A class action is superior to other available methods of fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy, since individual litigation of the claims of all Classes members is  impracticable.  Even if every Classes member could afford individual litigation, the court system  could not.  It would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which individual litigation of numerous  issues would proceed.  Individualized litigation would also present the potential for varying,  inconsistent, or contradictory judgments and would magnify the delay and expense to all parties  and to the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same complex factual issues.  By  contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action presents fewer management difficulties,  conserves the resources of the parties and of the court system, and protects the rights of each  Classes member.   35.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual Classes members would create a  risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the  interests of the other Classes members not parties to such adjudications or that would substantially  impair or impede the ability of such non-party Class members to protect their interests.   36.  Defendant has acted or refused to act in respects generally applicable to The  Classes, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief with regard to the members of the  Classes as a whole.  37.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of his Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   38.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple  negligent violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the above- cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   40.  Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.  41.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of his Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   42.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple  knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of  the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   43.  As a result of Defendant's knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et  seq., Plaintiff and the class are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each  and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   44.  Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.  45.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of his Complaint as  though fully stated herein.                     46.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple  negligent violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the above  cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), and in particular 47 U.S.C. § 227 (c)(5).   48.  Plaintiff and the DNC Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future.  49.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of his Complaint as  though fully stated herein.                     50.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple  knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of  the above cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), in particular 47 U.S.C. § 227 (c)(5).   51.  As a result of Defendant's knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c),  Plaintiff and the DNC Class members are entitled an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for  each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   52.  Plaintiff and the DNC Class members are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future.  8.  Beginning in or around September 2016, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in -0838, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase  Defendant’s services.  Plaintiff received such call from Defendant while within the County of Los  Angeles, California.   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS  OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. §227 et seq.  On Behalf of the DNC Class   NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. §227(c) et seq.  On Behalf of the DNC Class  