24.  Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly  situated.   25.  Plaintiffs propose the following Class definition, subject to amendment as  appropriate:  All persons within the United States who (a) received a telephone call; (b) on his or her  cellular telephone or residential telephone line; (c) made by or on behalf of Defendant;  (d) for whom Defendant had no record of prior express written consent; (e) at any time in  the period that begins four years before the filing of the complaint in this action to the  date that class notice is disseminated.”    26.  Plaintiffs represent, and are members of, the proposed Class.  Excluded from the  Class are Defendant and any entities in which Defendant has a controlling interest, Defendant’s  agents and employees, any Judge and/or Magistrate Judge to whom this action is assigned, and  any member of such Judges’ staffs and immediate families.   27.  Numerosity.  Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of members in the  proposed Class, but reasonably believes, based on the scale of Defendant’s business, that the  Class are so numerous that individual joinder would be impracticable.   29.  The disposition of the claims in a class action will provide substantial benefit to  the parties and the Court in avoiding a plethora of identical suits.   30.  The proposed Class can be easily identified through records maintained by  Defendant.   31.  There are well defined, nearly identical, questions of law and fact affecting all  parties.  The questions of law and fact involving the class claims predominate over questions  which may affect individual members of the proposed Class.  Those common question of law  and fact include, but are not limited to, the following:  a. Whether Defendant made calls to Plaintiffs and the Class using an ATDS and/or  an artificial or prerecorded call without their prior express written consent;  b. Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and/or willful;  c. Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  d. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the  future.   32.  Typicality.  Plaintiffs assert claims that are typical of each member of the Class  because they are all persons who received calls on their cellular or landline telephones and were  not the intended recipient of those calls, nor did they consent to those calls.   34.  Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims  involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes.   35.  Superiority.  A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Class wide relief is essential to compel Defendant to comply  with the TCPA.     36.  The interest of the members of the proposed Class in individually controlling the  prosecution of separate claims against Defendant is small because the statutory damages in an  individual action for violation of the TCPA are relatively small.   37.  Management of these claims is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties  than are presented in many class claims because members of the Class, by definition, did not  provide the prior express written consent required under the statute to authorize calls to their  cellular or landline telephones.   38.  Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the proposed Class,  thereby making final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the  proposed Class as a whole appropriate.   39.  Moreover, upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the TCPA violations  complained of herein are substantially likely to continue in the future if an injunction is not  entered.  41.  Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendant on behalf of themselves, and  members of the Class.   42.  Defendant made numerous unauthorized calls to Plaintiffs’ cell phone using an  artificial or pre-recorded voice and/or an ATDS without prior express consent.   43.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple  violations of the TCPA.   44.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., and 47 C.F.R.  §64.1200, et seq., Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are entitled to an award of  $500.00 in statutory damages for each and every call made in violation of the statute, pursuant to  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   45.  Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are also entitled to, and do, seek  injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendant in the future.   46.  Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are also entitled to an award of  attorneys’ fees and costs.  47.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as  if fully stated herein.   48.  Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendant on behalf of themselves, and  members of the Class.   50.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. §§ 227  et seq. and 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200, et seq., Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are  entitled to treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each and every call made in violation of the  statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and (C).   51.  Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are also entitled to and do seek  injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendant in the future.   52.  Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are also entitled to an award of  attorneys’ fees and costs.  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER  PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,   47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq.  