10.  Yet in violation of this rule, Defendant fails to obtain any express written consent  prior to making prerecorded collection calls to cellular telephone numbers such as Plaintiff’s.   11.  Huntington Bank openly admits on its website that it places prerecorded calls and  calls using an automatic telephone dialing system.1   12.  Huntington is also open about the fact that it engages in skip-tracing – i.e., that it  has employees that do research to try to identify additional phone numbers for clients that are in  default on debt in connection with Huntington Bank’s debt collection efforts.  In fact, Huntington  Bank has employees whose job title is “Skip Tracer.”2   13.  Not surprisingly, there are many online complaints about Defendant’s collection  calls to consumers who were not Huntington Bank clients when called:   • “They call and say they are with Huntington National Bank and no one here has ever had  anything to do with Huntington Bank!!”3  • “Rec’d call at 7:36 pm on 3/29/2019, was not home at time, so message was left. Could  tell it was a recorded message and no name was given by lady as to who to call back. Son  deals with real Huntington Bank, not me, but they keep calling me. I take this message as  a threat.”4  • “Huntington Bank left vague voice mail”5  • “constantly calling claiming I have a car loan with them. I don’t own a car at all.”6  1 https://www.huntington.com/Personal/mobile-banking/alert-text-services  2 https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Huntington-National-Bank-Skip-Tracer-Salaries-E1496_D_KO25,36.htm  3 https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-877-477-6855/5  4 https://www.shouldianswer.com/phone-number/8774776855  5 Id.  6 Id.  Case: 2:19-cv-01789-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/06/19 Page: 3 of 9  PAGEID #: 3 4  14.  On April 13, 2019, Plaintiff received a phone call from Huntington Bank on his  cellular phone using phone number 877-477-6855. Plaintiff did not answer this call, but a  prerecorded voicemail was left stating the following:  “This message is for Kenneth Cousins. Please contact Huntington Bank at 877-477-6855  as soon as possible. Our normal hours of operation are Monday through Thursday 8:00  AM to 11:00 PM, Friday 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM and Saturday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM  Eastern Standard Time. Again, you can reach us toll free at 877-477-6855. This message  is for Kenneth Cousins. Please contact Huntington Bank at 877-477-6855 as soon as  possible. Our normal hours of operation are Monday through Thursday 8:00 AM to 11:00  PM, Friday 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM and Saturday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Eastern Standard  Time. Again, you can reach us toll free at 877-477-6855.”   15.  On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff received a second prerecorded debt collection call  from Defendant on his cellular phone, again using phone number 877-477-6855. The call was  not answered, but Defendant left exactly the same prerecorded message again on Plaintiff’s  voicemail stating:  “This message is for Kenneth Cousins. Please contact Huntington Bank at 877-477-6855  as soon as possible. Our normal hours of operation are Monday through Thursday 8:00  AM to 11:00 PM, Friday 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM and Saturday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM  Eastern Standard Time. Again, you can reach us toll free at 877-477-6855. This message  is for Kenneth Cousins. Please contact Huntington Bank at 877-477-6855 as soon as  possible. Our normal hours of operation are Monday through Thursday 8:00 AM to 11:00  Case: 2:19-cv-01789-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/06/19 Page: 4 of 9  PAGEID #: 4 5  PM, Friday 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM and Saturday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Eastern Standard  Time. Again, you can reach us toll free at 877-477-6855.”   16.  Huntington Bank shows on its website that 877-477-6855 is a phone number it  controls/owns for Loan Payment Assistance:  7   17.  Plaintiff does not have a relationship with Huntington Bank or any of its affiliated  companies, and has never consented to any contact from Defendant.    18.  Simply put, Huntington Bank did not obtain Plaintiff’s prior express consent to  place prerecorded collection calls to him on his cell phone number.    19.  The unauthorized telephone calls made by Huntington Bank, as alleged herein,  have harmed Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed  Throndson’s use and enjoyment of his cellular phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the  phones’ hardware (including the phones’ battery) and the consumption of memory on the phone.    20.  Seeking redress for these injuries, Throndson, on behalf of himself and Class of  similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47  U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits unsolicited, prerecorded calls to cell phone numbers.  7 https://www.huntington.com/customer-service/contact-us  Case: 2:19-cv-01789-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/06/19 Page: 5 of 9  PAGEID #: 5 6  21.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and seeks certification of the  following Class:  All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action  (1) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant) called, (2) on the person’s  cellular telephone number, (3) using a prerecorded voice message, and (4) for  whom Defendant claims (a) it obtained prior express consent in the same manner  as Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to call Plaintiff, or (b)  Defendant did not obtain prior express consent.   22.  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 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 Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated and/or  released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following appropriate  discovery.   23.  Numerosity: On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands of  members of the Class such that joinder of all members is impracticable.   24.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of 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:  Case: 2:19-cv-01789-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/06/19 Page: 6 of 9  PAGEID #: 6 7  (a) whether Defendant placed calls using a prerecorded message to Plaintiff and  the members of the Class;  (b) whether Defendant placed calls using a prerecorded message to Plaintiff and  members of the Class without prior express consent to make the calls;   (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.   25.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his 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 nor his counsel has any interest adverse to the Class.   26.  Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification because  Defendant has 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. 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.  Case: 2:19-cv-01789-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/06/19 Page: 7 of 9  PAGEID #: 7 8  Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions will be  ensured.  27.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.   28.  Defendant and/or its agents made unwanted, prerecorded collection calls to  cellular telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.    29.  These collection telephone calls were made en masse without the consent of the  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.   30.  Defendant’s conduct was negligent or wilful and knowing.   31.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are each entitled to a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation of such act.   32.  In the event that the Court determines that Defendant’s conduct was wilful and  knowing, it may treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class.  9.  Under the TCPA, Huntington Bank must have a consumer’s prior express consent  prior to placing prerecorded debt collection calls to the consumer’s cellular phone number.   Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiff’s TCPA Claim   Huntington Bank Places Unsolicited, Prerecorded Collection Calls to the   Cellular Phone Numbers of Consumers Who are Not Huntington Bank Clients    Huntington Bank Repeatedly Called Plaintiff’s Cell Phone Number  Using a Prerecorded Message Without Plaintiff’s Consent   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  