17. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of and all others  similarly situated (“The Class and Subclass One”).  18. Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, The Class, consisting “of all persons  within the United States who received any telephone call from Defendant  to said person’s cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic  telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, within the  four years prior to the filing of this Complaint regarding the collections  of alleged debt/s for Wells Fargo credit card accounts”.   19. Defendant, its employees and agents are excluded from The Class.   Plaintiff  does not know the number of members in The Class, but believes The Class  number in the tens of thousands, if not more.   Thus, this matter should be  certified as a Class action to assist in the expeditious litigation of this matter.  20. Plaintiff and members of The Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in  at least the following ways: Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff and Class  members via their cellular telephones thereby causing Plaintiff and Class  members to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular  telephone time for which Plaintiff and Class members previously paid, by  having to retrieve or administer messages left by Defendant during those  illegal calls, and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and Class members.   Plaintiff and The Class were damaged thereby.  22. The joinder of the Class members is impractical and the disposition of their  claims in the Class action will provide substantial benefits both to the parties  and to the court.  The Class can be identified through Defendant’s records.  23. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact  involved affecting the parties to be represented.  The questions of law and fact  to the Class predominate over questions which may affect individual Class  members, including the following: a. Whether, within the four years prior to the filing of this  Complaint, Defendant made any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of  the called party) to a Class member using any automatic  telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to  any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service. b. Whether Plaintiff and the Class 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.   24. As people that received numerous calls using an automatic telephone dialing  system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without Plaintiff’s express prior  consent, Plaintiff is asserting claims that are typical of the Class.  Plaintiff  will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class in  that Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to any member of the Class.    26. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims and  claims involving violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.   27. A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy.  Class-wide damages are essential to induce Defendant to  comply with federal and California law.  The interest of Class members in  individually controlling the prosecution of separate claims against Defendant  is small because the maximum statutory damages in an individual action for  violation of privacy are minimal.  Management of these claims is likely to  present significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many class  claims.   28. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby  making appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief  with respect to the Class as a whole. 29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this  Complaint as though fully stated herein.   30. 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.   31. As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq,  Plaintiff and The Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages,  for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Complaint  as though fully stated herein.   34. 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.  35. As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227  et seq., Plaintiff and the The Class are entitled to treble damages, as provided by  statute, up to $1,500.00, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   36. Plaintiff and The Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future. 8. At all times relevant, Plaintiff Lillian Franklin was an individual residing  within the County of San Diego in the State of California.  Plaintiff Lillian  Franklin is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ. • As a result of Defendant’s willful and/or knowing violations of 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1), Plaintiff seeks for herself and each Class member treble damages,  as provided by statute, up to $1,500.00 for each and every violation, pursuant  to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C). • Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future. • Any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. �������������������������������������������������������(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)� � ���������������������������