21.  All conditions precedent to the filing of this Complaint have been  performed or have occurred.   22.  Conn’s, its agents, and/or vendors, violated the TCPA by placing  unlawful telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, including the number  ending in -6546.   23.  Conn’s, at all material times, was attempting to collect a debt.   24.  On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff received an e-mail from  AcceptanceNOW stating she was “APPROVED for a lease-purchase agreement for  up to $2,500 worth of merchandise” from AcceptanceNOW (approval #2566416).  See Exhibit 1, approval e-mail from AcceptanceNOW.   25.  The approval for purchasing “up to $2,500 worth of merchandise” was  only valid at a Conn’s Home Plus store, located at 120 S. Rainbow Blvd., Las  Vegas, NV 89145. Id.   26.  The phone number listed for Conn’s Home Plus was (702) 240-8382.  See Exhibit 1, approval e-mail from AcceptanceNOW.   28.  On December 1, 2016, Plaintiff received an e-mail from  AcceptanceNOW acknowledging her order and purchase from AcceptanceNOW.  See Exhibit 2, purchase order acknowledgement e-mail from AcceptanceNOW.   29.  Plaintiff signed the Lease-Purchase Agreement with AcceptanceNOW  on December 1, 2016 via the “click-through AcceptanceNOW web portal.” See  Exhibit  3,  Lease-Purchase  Agreement  with  AcceptanceNOW  (agreement  #hxj00508).   30.  The  Lease-Purchase  Agreement  is  between  Plaintiff  and  AcceptanceNow, despite being physically present in the Conn’s Home Plus store at  the time of purchase. See Exhibit 3, Lease-Purchase Agreement with  AcceptanceNOW (agreement #hxj00508).   31.  On December 1, 2016, Plaintiff also signed a Consumer Arbitration  Agreement with AcceptanceNOW as part of her purchase of the laptop. See Exhibit  4, Consumer  Arbitration Agreement with AcceptanceNOW  (“Arbitration  Agreement”).   32.  The Arbitration Agreement only covers disputes between Plaintiff and  AcceptanceNOW. Id.   33.  Plaintiff has never signed any agreement or contract with defendant  Conn’s.   34.  Defendant Conn’s is not a party to the Arbitration Agreement. Id.   35.  Defendant Conn’s is not relying on any representations in the  Arbitration Agreement. Id.   37.  In or around late December of 2016, defendant Conn’s began calling  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone without her consent demanding payment for the laptop  computer that Plaintiff purchased from AcceptanceNOW.   38.  In or around late December of 2016, Plaintiff verbally spoke with  Conn’s and told Conn’s to stop calling her cellular telephone.   39.  However, defendant Conn’s continued calling Plaintiff’s cellular  telephone despite Plaintiff’s request for Conn’s to stop calling.   40.  On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff received an e-mail from  AcceptanceNOW demanding payment for her purchase. See Exhibit 6,  AcceptanceNOW e-mail demanding payment on her account with AcceptanceNOW.   41.  The harassing phone calls from Conn’s to Plaintiff’s cell phone were  made through an automated telephone dialing system; and were so severe in volume  that Plaintiff felt compelled to file a formal complaint against Conn’s with the  Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) (reference #90635152). See Exhibit 7,  Plaintiff’s FTC complaint against Defendant Conn’s.   42.  According to Conn’s statements and representations to the U.S.  Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), AcceptanceNow is a third-party  “payment solutions provider not affiliated with us [Conn’s].” See Exhibit 8, Conn’s  SEC 10-K excerpts.   43.  Plaintiff never consented to receive automated dialing system calls  from Conn’s or its agents.   44.  Plaintiff is the regular user and carrier of her cellular telephone  number, including but not limited to the number ending in -6546, and she is the  called party/recipient of telephone calls from Conn’s automatic telephone dialing  system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice messages.   46.  Conn’s knowingly and/or willfully harassed and abused Plaintiff by  calling Plaintiff’s cellular telephone multiple times per day after Plaintiff revoked  any alleged consent for Conn’s to contact Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.   47.  Conn’s used an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or  pre-recorded voice to place telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.   48.  Conn’s has possession and control of call logs, account notes, auto- dialer reports, and other records detailing the total number of all calls made to  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number.   49.  Conn’s automatic phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone included  delays in time before the telephone calls were transferred to a representative to begin  speaking.   50.  Some of the Conn’s representatives who called Plaintiff’s cellular  telephone sounded like an artificial or pre-recorded voice.   51.  None of Conn’s telephone calls placed to Plaintiff were for  “emergency purposes” as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   52.  None of Conn’s telephone calls placed to Plaintiff were made with  Plaintiff’s “prior express consent” as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   53.  In order to redress injuries caused by Conn’s violations of the TCPA,  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals, brings suit  under the TCPA, which prohibits unsolicited voice and text calls to cell phones.   54.  On behalf of the Class, Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring  Conn’s to cease all TCPA violations and an award of statutory damages to the class  members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  55.  All conditions precedent to the filing of this class action Complaint  have been performed or have occurred.  82.  Common issues predominate when, as here, liability can be determined  on a class wide basis, even where there will be some individualized damages and  determinations.   83.  This action is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of the Class of individuals  defined as (i) all persons to whom a call was initiated by either Conn’s or its agent  (ii) to such person’s cellular telephone number (iii) using an automatic telephone  dialing system, (iv) in the four year period preceding the filing of this action (v) and  where Conn’s did not have permission to make the call (vi) or the person revoked  consent to receive future calls.   85.  When determining whether common questions predominate, courts  focus on the liability issue, and, if the liability issue is common to the class, common  questions will be held to predominate over individual questions. In this case, each  proposed class member owed a debt related to a home furnishings account, which  Conn’s was attempting to collect.   86.  At some point during the life of the customers’ home furnishings  account Conn’s contacted the customers via cellular telephone in an attempt to  collect the consumer debt; however, the customer revoked any alleged express  consent to be contacted via cellular telephone.   87.  Despite the revocation of express consent to be contacted via cellular  telephone, Conn’s continued to call the customer’s cellular telephones using an  automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.   88.  There are uniform and statutory damages available to class members  for the Conn’s knowing non-compliance with the TCPA.   90.  Plaintiff brings this action against Conn’s pursuant to Federal Rule of  Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of herself and all others similarly  situated. Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class:  All persons within the United States who received a non-emergency  telephone call from Conn’s to a cellular telephone using an automatic  telephone dialing system where Conn’s did not have consent to make  such calls.   91.  Excluded from this class are Defendant Conn’s, its affiliates,  subsidiaries, agents, board members, directors, officers, and employees, and  Plaintiff’s counsel.   92.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definitions of the  proposed Class before the Court determines whether certification is appropriate.   93.  The individual class members are numerous, and joinder of all  members is impracticable.   94.  The individual class members are ascertainable because the names and  addresses of all class members can be identified in the business records maintained  by the Conn’s.  Plaintiff does not anticipate any difficulties in the management of  the action as a class action.   95.  Plaintiff is a member of the Class.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the  claims of the Class because of the similarity, uniformity, and common purpose of  the unlawful conduct of Conn’s.  Each class member has sustained and will continue  to sustain damages in the same manner as Plaintiff as a result of Conn’s wrongful  conduct.   97.  A class action is superior to individual actions in part because of the  non-exhaustive factors listed below:  (a) Individual claims by class members are impractical because the  costs to pursue individual claims exceed the value of what any one  class member has at stake.  As a result, individual class members  have no interest in prosecuting and controlling separate actions,  yet if the action is not prosecuted, Conn’s will continue its  wrongful actions;  (b) There are no known individual class members who are interested  in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;  (c) The interests of justice will be well served by resolving the  common disputes of potential class members in one forum;  (d) Individual suits would not be cost effective or economically  maintainable as individual actions;  (e) The action is manageable as a class action; and  (f) Attorney’s fees are not recoverable under the TCPA, making it  unlikely for individual claims to be prosecuted.  98.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding  paragraph as though set forth at length herein.  