15.  Plaintiff never provided her cellular telephone number to RCI and never provided  her consent – written or otherwise – to RCI to be contacted on her cellular telephone.    16.  Nonetheless, within the last four years RCI began calling Plaintiff’s cellular  telephone, number 614-xxx-0632, from numerous different telephone number.   17.  Plaintiff was physically located in this District when she received some of RCI’s  calls.    18.  When  Plaintiff answered the calls from RCI, she heard an identical prerecorded  and/or artificial female robotic-sounding voice stating the message was from “Marriott Hotels”  and telling her that she had purportedly been chosen for a complimentary vacation.    19.  The recording further advised Plaintiff that she could press 0 or 1 for more  information or could “press 2” to be placed on a “do-not-call list.”   20.  Plaintiff has repeatedly listened to the above recordings and then pressed ‘2’ to be  placed on a do-not-call list and to ask RCI to cease calling her.   21.  Nonetheless, RCI’s calls persisted.   22.  Following her receipt of several calls from RCI after asking RCI to stop the calls,  Plaintiff pressed ‘0’ in order to speak to a live representative and determine the identity of the  caller.  After waiting on the line for an extended period of time, Plaintiff was eventually  transferred to a live RCI representative who disclosed that RCI was the caller placing the above  calls.    23.  RCI’s calls directly interfered with Plaintiff’s right to peacefully enjoy a service  that Plaintiff paid for and caused Plaintiff a significant amount of anxiety, frustration,   annoyance, and anger.  24.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf  of herself and all others similarly situated.   25.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the following classes (the “Classes”):  Prior Express Written Consent Class: All persons within the United States to  whom (1) RCI placed one or more prerecorded or artificial voice telemarketing  calls, (2) to said person’s cellular telephone, (3) without prior express written  consent, (4) within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint.  Do-Not-Call Class: All persons within the United States to whom (1) RCI placed  one or more prerecorded or artificial voice telemarketing calls, (2) to said person’s  cellular telephone, (3) after advising RCI to place them on a ‘do-not-call list,’ (4)  within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint.   26.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Classes. Plaintiff  does not know the number of members in the Classes but believes the class members number in  the several thousands, if not more. Thus, this matter should be certified as a class action to assist  in the expeditious litigation of this matter.  B. Numerosity   27.  Upon information and belief, Defendant placed prerecorded and artificial voice  calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of persons throughout the United  States where it lacked prior express written consent to place such calls and/or such persons had  previously requested to be placed on RCI’s ‘do-not-call’ list.  The members of the Classes,  therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   28.  The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time  and can only be ascertained through discovery.  Identification of the Class members is a matter  capable of ministerial determination from Defendant’s records.   C. Common Questions of Law and Fact    29.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Classes that predominate over  any questions affecting only individual Class members.  These questions include:  a. Whether RCI’s calls to members of the Classes were placed for telemarketing  purposes;  b. Whether RCI placed prerecorded and artificial voice calls to persons’ cellular  telephones after said persons requested to put on RCI’s ‘do-not-call’ list;  c. Whether RCI can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior express written  consent to place each telemarketing call;  d. Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and/or willful;  e. Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages;  and  f. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   30.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers.  If  Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely places prerecorded and artificial voice calls to cellular  telephone numbers without prior express consent, and over requests to stop the calls is accurate,  Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of being efficiently  adjudicated and administered in this case.   D. Typicality    31.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all  based on the same factual and legal theories.  E. Protecting the Interests of the Class Members    32.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has  retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business  practices.  Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel has any interests which might cause them not to  vigorously pursue this action.  F. Proceeding Via Class Action is Superior and Advisable    33.  A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecutions of  separate claims against Defendant is small because it is not economically feasible for Class  members to bring individual actions.  34.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   35.  Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of herself and the Classes.    36.  Defendant placed telemarketing calls using a prerecorded and/or an artificial  voice to cellular telephones belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes without  their prior express written consent and not for any emergency purpose.   37.  Moreover, Defendant placed telemarketing calls using a prerecorded and/or an  artificial voice to cellular telephones belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes  after they asked to be put on RCI’s ‘do-not-call’ list.   38.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a violation of the  42.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   43.  Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of herself and the Classes.    44.  Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed telemarketing calls using a  prerecorded and/or an artificial voice to cellular numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class without their prior express written consent and not for any emergency  purposes.   45.  Moreover, Defendant knowing and/or willfully placed telemarketing calls using a  prerecorded and/or an artificial voice to cellular telephones belonging to Plaintiff and the other  members of the Classes after they asked to be put on RCI’s ‘do-not-call’ list.   46.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing and willful  violation of the TCPA.   47.  Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to an award of up to $1,500.00 in statutory  damages for each message sent in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).   48.  Additionally, Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.   49.  Further, Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to and seek a declaration from  Defendant that:   Defendant knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA;   Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed prerecorded and/or artificial voices  to calls to Plaintiff and the Classes who had previously asked to be placed on  RCI’s ‘do-not-call’ list;    Defendant willfully placed calls to Plaintiff and the Classes without prior express  consent; and    It is Defendant’s practice and history to place prerecorded and artificial voice  telemarketing calls to persons  without their prior express consent.  A. The Classes   VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,   47 U.S.C. § 227, ET SEQ.   WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,   47 U.S.C. § 227, ET SEQ.  