25.  On or about January 5, 2019, Defendant called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number  ending in 6305 (“6305 Number”) with a pre-recorded message.    26.  Upon Plaintiff answering the phone, a pre-recorded message asked Plaintiff to press a  number to be connected to a live representative if he was interested in saving money on his energy bills.   27.  After Plaintiff pressed the number, he was connected to a live representative who  identified themselves as being with “my green energy”.     28.  After answering questions about his energy consumption, Plaintiff was given an  appointment for 8 pm on January 7, 2019 for a sales representative to come to the address (the “House”)  that Plaintiff had provided.   30.  Also on January 7, 2019, Defendant called Plaintiff at the 6305 Number, identified  himself as being with Sun-Tec, and notified Plaintiff that he had missed their scheduled appointment.   31.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 6305 Number.   33.  Plaintiff received the subject calls within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant’s  violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.     34.  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused similar calls to be sent to individuals  residing within this judicial district.     35.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express consent to be  contacted using a pre-recorded message.     36.  Defendant’s unsolicited calls caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion of his  privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.  Defendant’s calls  also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life.    37.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  himself and all others similarly situated.   38.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the below defined Class:  All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing  of this Complaint; were sent a pre-recorded call; from Defendant or anyone on  Defendant’s behalf; to said person’s cellular telephone number; using the same  equipment, or type of equipment, used to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.     39.  Defendant and their employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not  know the number of members in the Class but believes the Class members number in the several  thousands, if not more.  42.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  Among the questions of law and  fact common to the Class are:  (1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Class members’  cellular telephones using pre-recorded messages;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet their burden of showing that they obtained prior  express written consent to make such calls;  (3) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  (4) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  (5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   43.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s  claim that Defendants routinely calls telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephone services is  accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of being efficiently  adjudicated and administered in this case.  49.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded or artificial voice… to any telephone number  assigned to a … cellular telephone service ….” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    50.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used pre-recorded calls to  make non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and other members of  the Class.   51.  These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained  express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior  express consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class  when its calls were made.    52.  Defendant violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using a pre-recorded  message to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other  members of the putative Class without their prior express consent.    PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  