12.  Synergy Capital’s overall marketing plan involves placing prerecorded calls and  autodialed phone calls to consumers without consent, regardless of whether those consumers  have their phone numbers registered with the DNC.   13.  Synergy Capital places incessant calls to individuals across the United States,  until a sale is achieved. As former employees of Synergy Capital explain:  • “The management tells [their] worker to lead people to believe that they would  not stop calling them until they sign up.”7  • “call[ing] 4-8 times a day with everyone calling the same lists.”8  • “The company encourages utilizing false sales pitches and salespeople  misrepresent their function in order to get in touch with decision makers.  Salespeople will stop at nothing to get through, and cannot accept no as an  answer.”9   16.  By placing the unsolicited telephone calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendant  caused the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes actual harm and cognizable legal  injury.    17.  This includes the aggravation and nuisance and invasions of privacy that result  from the unsolicited prerecorded and autodialed telephone calls that are being made to cellular  phones, and a loss of the use and enjoyment of their phones, including wear and tear to the  related data, memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among other harms.   18.  In response to the unlawful conduct of Defendant, the Plaintiffs file this action  seeking an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unwanted prerecorded and autodialed  calls, and calls to phone numbers registered on the DNC, and an award of statutory damages to  the members of the Classes under the TCPA.  19.  On May 9, 2018, Plaintiff Dillon received a prerecorded phone call on his cellular  phone from Defendant using the phone number 646-661-2726 at 1:18 PM. Plaintiff pressed the  button that the prerecorded message indicated would lead to a live agent and Plaintiff then asked  the agent to stop calling him once he confirmed that the company name calling him was Synergy  Capital.    21.  On May 14, 2018 Plaintiff Dillon received 5 more calls from Defendant at 9:05  AM, 1:07 PM, 2:06 PM, 4:28 PM and 5:00 PM. Plaintiff answered the prerecorded calls at 1:07  PM and 2:06 PM, and both times requested for the calls to stop.    22.  In addition to the aforementioned calls, Plaintiff also received calls from  Defendant on April 30, 2018, May 1, 2018, May 4, 2018 and May 9, 2018. None of these calls  were answered and all of them were from Defendant using phone number 646-661-2726.   23.  The calls that Plaintiff Dillon received caused great frustration as they interfered  with his ability to use his phone.   24.  Plaintiff Dillon has never provided his phone number to Defendant or any other  party from which Defendant’s agents may have purchased leads from regarding business loans.   Simply put, Dillon has never provided his prior express written consent to Defendant to place  prerecorded solicitation telephone calls to him.   25.  Plaintiff Long registered her cellular number on the National Do Not Call  Registry on April 21, 2005 in order to avoid receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls.   26.  On March 5, 2018 Plaintiff received an autodialed call to her cellular phone from  Defendant using phone number 718-310-3227. When Plaintiff answered the call, there was dead  air before the call ended, a common sign of an autodialer.   27.  Plaintiff received a second autodialed call on March 14, 2018 at 9:10 AM from  Defendant, this time using phone number 646-661-2726. Plaintiff answered this call, but there  was again dead air and no agent came on the line and the call automatically ended.    29.  On March 16, 2018 at 10:23 AM and again on March 20, 2018 at 9:43 AM,  Plaintiff received additional dead air calls from Defendant using phone number 646-661-2726.    30.  Defendant continued to call Plaintiff’s cellular phone number on the following  dates using phone number 646-661-2726:  March 27, 2018 – 5:24 PM  April 4, 2018 – 4:36 PM  April 6, 2018 – 11:12 AM  April 9, 2018 – 3:53 PM  April 16, 2018 – 4:43 PM  April 27, 2018 – 11:51 AM  April 30, 2018 – 6:03 PM (called twice, back-to-back)  May 1, 2018 – 1:31 PM (called twice, back-to-back)  May 2, 2018 – 6:57 PM  May 3, 2018 – 2:07 PM (called twice, back-to-back)  May 4, 2018 – 2:06 PM  May 7, 2018 – 11:40 AM  May 9, 2018 – 4:03 PM  May 10, 2018 – 3:29 PM  May 14, 2018 – 5:02 PM  May 15, 2018 – 9:51 AM  May 31, 2018 – 6:15 PM (called twice, back-to-back)  June 6, 2018 – 3:59 PM  June 11, 2018 – 9:30 AM  June 13, 2018 – 9:30 AM  June 19, 2018 – 1:34 PM  June 20, 2018 – 6:08 PM  June 27, 2018 – 6:57 PM  June 28, 2018 – 6:39 PM   31.  Voicemail messages were left for a number of the calls Plaintiff received,  especially when she was called in June, 2018. All of the voicemails Plaintiff received contained  background sounds, but no messages were left by an agent, another sign that the calls were  automatically made.   32.  Plaintiff Long does not currently own a business and has not been seeking  business loans.   34.  The unauthorized telephone calls made by Defendant Synergy Capital, as alleged  herein, have harmed the Plaintiffs in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy,  and disturbed their use and enjoyment of their phones, in addition to the wear and tear on the  phone hardware (including the phone’s battery) and the consumption of memory on the phones.    35.  Seeking redress for these injuries, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and Classes  of similarly situated individuals, bring suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47  U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits unsolicited prerecorded calls and unsolicited autodialed  calls to cellular telephones and unsolicited calls to telephone numbers registered on the DNC.  37.  The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, their  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or their  parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors;  (3) Plaintiffs’ attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion  from the Classes; (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. Plaintiffs anticipate the need to amend the Class definitions following  appropriate discovery.   38.  Numerosity: On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands of  members of the Classes such that joinder of all members is impracticable.    40.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes, and have retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to any of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously  prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Classes, and have the financial resources  to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any interest adverse to the Classes.   42.  Plaintiff Dillon repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.   43.  Defendant and/or its agents transmitted unwanted prerecorded solicitation  telephone calls to telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff Dillon and the other members of the  Prerecorded No Consent Class.    44.  At no time did Defendant obtain prior consent from the Plaintiff Dillon to receive  prerecorded solicitation telephone calls.    45.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), (B). As a result  of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff Dillon and the other members of the Prerecorded No Consent  Class are each entitled to, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), a minimum of $500.00 in damages for  each violation of such act.   47.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporate them by reference herein.   48.  Defendant and/or its agents transmitted unwanted autodialed calls to cellular  telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent  Class using equipment that, upon information and belief, had the capacity to store or produce  telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and/or receive  and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, without human  intervention.    49.  At no time did Defendant obtain prior consent from Plaintiffs, or the Autodialed  No Consent Class orally or in writing to receive solicitation autodialed calls.    50.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff Long and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent Class  are each entitled to, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each  violation of such act.   52.  Plaintiff Dillon repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.   53.  Defendant placed unsolicited and unwanted prerecorded phone calls to Plaintiff  Dillon and the other members of the Prerecorded Stop Class on their cellular telephones after  they had informed Defendant to stop calling them.   54.  By unwanted prerecorded phone calls to Plaintiff Dillon and other members of the  Prerecorded Stop Class’s telephones using an automated telephone dialing system after they  requested to no longer receive such calls, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B) by doing  so without prior express written consent.   55.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff Dillon and the members of  the Prerecorded Stop Class suffered actual damages  and, under Section 227(b)(3)(B), are each  entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.  Should the Court determine that Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing, the Court may,  pursuant to Section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiff  Dillon and the other members of the Prerecorded Stop Class.  56.  Plaintiff Long repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.   58.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o  person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber  who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons  who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”   59.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that § 64.1200(c) and (d) “are applicable to any  person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone  numbers to the extent described in the FCC’s July 3, 2003 Report and Order, which in turn,  provides as follows:  The Commission’s rules provide that companies making telephone solicitations to  residential telephone subscribers must comply with time of day restrictions and  must institute procedures for maintaining do-not-call lists. For the reasons  described above, we conclude that these rules apply to calls made to wireless  telephone numbers. We believe that wireless subscribers should be afforded the  same protections as wireline subscribers.17   60.   47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate  any call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or  entity has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive  telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must  meet the following minimum standards:   62.  Defendant also violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by failing to have a written policy  of dealing with do not call requests, by failing to inform or train its personnel engaged in  telemarketing regarding the existence and/or use of any do not call list, and by failing to  internally record and honor do not call requests.   63.  Defendant made more than one unsolicited telephone call to Plaintiff Long and  other members of the Do Not Call Registry Class within a 12-month period without their prior  express consent to receive such calls. Plaintiff Long and other members of the Do Not Call  Registry Class never provided any form of consent to receive telephone calls from Defendant  and do not have a current record of consent to place telemarketing calls to their registered phone  numbers.   64.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by initiating calls for telemarketing  purposes to residential and wireless telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff Long and the Do Not  Call Registry Class, without instituting procedures that comply with the regulatory minimum  standards for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls from  them.   66.  To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing,  the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.  Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiffs’ TCPA Claims Arising From Calls Made by  Defendant Synergy Capital   Synergy Capital Places Prerecorded and Autodialed Calls to Consumers Without Consent,  Regardless of Whether their Numbers are in the National Do Not Call Registry   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Dillon and the Prerecorded No Consent Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Long and the Do Not Call Registry Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Dillon and the Prerecorded Stop Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Autodialed No Consent Class)  