14.  Defendant North Star sells final expense insurance to consumers on the  telephone.3   15.  Defendant North Star uses telemarketing to solicit potential customers for its final  expense insurance packages.    16.  Defendant North Star calls consumers with a pre-recorded voice message without  first obtaining the consumer’s prior express written consent.    17.   Defendant North Star uses the name Senior Benefits while placing many of these  calls, just as they did in the calls they made to the Plaintiff.   18.  A former employee of the Defendant posted a review of their experience while  working for the Defendant, stating that their job entailed “Constantly harassing people about  ‘senior benefits.” 4  5  1 https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2016/07/22/cutting-robocalls  2 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advocacy_documents/comment-staff-ftc-bureau-consumer-protection- federal-communications-commission-rules-regulations/160616robocallscomment.pdf  3 https://northstaria.com/about/  4 https://www.indeed.com/cmp/North-Star-Insurance-Advisors,-LLC/reviews?fcountry=ALL&start=20  5 https://www.indeed.com/cmp/North-Star-Insurance-Advisors,-LLC/reviews?fcountry=ALL&start=20  4   19.  Other former employees of the Defendant have also made complaints online  about the cold calls that they were required to make on behalf of the Defendant, for instance:  6  7   20.  Multiple consumers have posted complaints online about receiving unwanted pre- recorded telemarketing calls from Defendant North Star, including:  • “Called in the early evening.  Caller ID listed "Carolina Bch, NC."  Left part of a  robo message asking the listener to listen to a 3-minute pre-recorded message.  . .  . Another website has identified the number with a senior scam!”8  • “Claims to be ‘Senior Benefits,’ a known scam preying on ‘Seniors.’  Give them  NO personal information.  They are just thieves.”9  • “They have called everyday now for a month now. I know it is some kind of scam  and I don’t know how to stop them from calling”10  • “’SENIOR BENEFITS’ SCAM. Sick of these CRIMINALS PREYING ON THE  ELDERLY and INNOCENT!”11  • “I press option #2 to remove me, but they still continue to call me.”12  6 https://www.indeed.com/cmp/North-Star-Insurance-Advisors,-LLC/reviews?fcountry=ALL  7 https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/North-Star-Insurance-Advisors-Reviews-E1053969_P3.htm  8 https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-910-216-2530  9 Id.  10 Id.  11 https://findwhocallsyou.com/9102162530  12 Id.  5  • “Called me a few times.”13  • “I press 2 but Senior Benefits just keeps on calling. These guys need to be  stopped!”14   21.  In response to these calls, Plaintiff Woods files this lawsuit seeking injunctive  relief requiring the Defendant to cease from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,  as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class and costs.  22.  On March 25, 2021 at 8:25 AM, Plaintiff Woods received a pre-recorded call to  her cell phone from phone number 660-460-4033 by the Defendant.   23.  The Plaintiff answered the call and a pre-recorded message began playing.   24.  The company name stated in the pre-recorded message was “Senior Benefits.”   25.  The pre-recorded message asked Plaintiff to press ‘2’ if she was interested in  learning more about final expense insurance.   26.  Plaintiff pressed ‘2’ and was transferred to a pre-qualifying agent named April.    27.  After answering a couple of questions, Plaintiff asked the agent what company  she was speaking with. The agent said that the Plaintiff had contacted Senior Benefits and then  proceeded to ask another question. Plaintiff Woods disconnected the call without answering any  more questions.   28.  Phone number 660-460-4033 is registered to Senior Benefits according to  Whitepages.15   29.  If one calls 660-460-4033, they will be transferred to speak with a pre-qualifying  agent of Defendant North Star.   30.  Plaintiff did not provide her consent to North Star to place pre-recorded calls to  her cell phone number.   31.  The unauthorized solicitation telephone call that Plaintiff received from  Defendant, as alleged herein, has harmed Plaintiff Woods in the form of annoyance, nuisance,  13 https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-660-460-4033  14 https://findwhocallsyou.com/6604604033?CallerInfo#Done  15 https://www.whitepages.com/phone/1-660-460-4033?fromPopSearch=true  6  and invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her phone, in addition to the  wear and tear on the phone’s hardware (including the phone’s battery) and the consumption of  memory on the phone.    32.  Seeking redress for these injuries, Plaintiff Woods, on behalf of herself and a  Class of similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the TCPA.  33.  Plaintiff Woods brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) and seeks certification of the following Class:  Pre-recorded No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who from four years  prior to the filing of this action through trial (1) Defendant (or an agent on Defendant’s  behalf) called on their cellular telephone number (2) using a pre-recorded voice message,  and (3) for whom the Defendant claims it obtained consent to call the person or the  person’s number in the same manner as Defendant claims it supposedly obtained consent  to call Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s number.   34.  The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which either Defendant or its  parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors;  (3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion  from the Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons;  and (6) persons whose claims against the Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated  and/or released. Plaintiff Woods anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following  appropriate discovery.   35.  Numerosity and Typicality: On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not  thousands of members of the Class such that joinder of all members is impracticable.    36.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of the Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class  include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:  7  (a)  whether the Defendant placed pre-recorded voice message calls to Plaintiff  Woods and members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class;   (b)  whether the calls were made without first obtaining prior express written consent  of Plaintiff Woods and members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class;  (c)  whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA; and  (d)  whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.   37.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff Woods will fairly and adequately represent  and protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. Plaintiff Woods has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Woods and her counsel are committed to vigorously  prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Class, and have the financial resources to  do so. Neither Plaintiff Woods nor her counsel have any interest adverse to the Class.   38.  Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification because  Defendant acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class and as a whole,  thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of  conduct toward the members of the Class and making final class-wide injunctive relief  appropriate. Defendant’s business practices apply to and affect the members of the Class  uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with  respect to the Class as wholes, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff Woods.  Additionally, the damages suffered by individual members of the Class will likely be small  relative to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation  necessitated by Defendant’s actions. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the members of  the Class to obtain effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct on an individual basis. A class  action provides the benefits of single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive  supervision by a single court.  39.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the prior paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.   40.  Defendant North Star transmitted unwanted solicitation telephone calls to Plaintiff  Woods and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class using a pre-recorded voice  message.    41.  These pre-recorded voice calls were made en masse without the prior express  written consent of the Plaintiff Woods and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent  Class.   42.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff Woods and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent  Class are each entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages, and up to $1,500 in damages, for each  violation.  8  Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Woods and the Pre-recorded No Consent Class)  