16.  Prior to the collection activity hereinafter described, plaintiff had listed herself as  a credit reference for her son, Jeffrey Silverman, to obtain student loans from Sallie Mae for his  attendance at the University of Iowa (“the debt”).   17.  Plaintiff listed contact phone numbers on her son’s application for the debt which  did not include her cell phone number at issue in the instant complaint.   18.  Beginning April 20, 2016, Navient called Plaintiff multiple times on her cell  phone from telephone numbers 617-762-5962 and 607-271-6199, among others, including but  not limited to the aforesaid April call and another call in May 2016 reflected in the screen  captures from Plaintiff’s cell phone attached hereto as Ex. “A”.    2.   National Sub-Class: All cellular telephone subscribers in the United States  who from September __, 2012 to the present (the “Class Period”) (1) received an  autodialed call from Navient on their cellular telephone number without their  “prior express consent” regarding a debt they do not owe; and (2) directed  Navient not to call their cellular telephone number; and (3) thereafter received an  autodialed call from Navient on their cellular telephone number.   Excluded from the Classes are persons who provided prior express consent to receive calls from  Navient, unless that prior express consent had been revoked. Further excluded are Defendant and  its subsidiary(ies), officers, directors, employees, partners and co-venturers. Also excluded are  any federal, state, or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action  and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this  action.    20.  Neither plaintiff, nor anyone else with authority to consent on Plaintiff’s behalf,  ever provided Navient with “prior express consent” to call plaintiff on her cellular telephone  number.    21.  Each of the unwanted autodialed calls at issue occupied Plaintiff’s cellular  telephone line, even when the call was not answered, rendering the line unavailable for Plaintiff  to use for any other purpose and creating a significant and material safety risk by making the line  unavailable for emergency use. Plaintiff considered these unwanted autodialed calls to be  intrusive, annoying and an invasion of her privacy.   22.  Navient’s corporate policy is structured to continue to make autodialed calls to  cellular telephone numbers of non-borrowers like the Plaintiff, despite its knowledge that these  individuals are non-borrowers that have not provided Navient with prior express consent to make  such autodialed calls, and despite these individuals’ instructions to stop calling.    23.  Defendant Navient followed its corporate policies when attempting to  communicate with the Plaintiff by initiating autodialed calls to her cellular telephone number, as  described herein.   24.  Defendant Navient has been the recipient of numerous complaints from non- debtors across the country, similar to those alleged in this action by Plaintiff.  25.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a),  23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on her own behalf and behalf of the following Classes of similarly-situated  persons defined as follows:   26.  The Classes satisfy the FED. R. CIV. P. 23 numerosity, commonality, typicality,  adequacy, predominance, superiority and ascertainability requirements.   27.  Plaintiff does not know the exact size or identities of the members of the proposed  Class, since such information is in the exclusive control of Defendant and its agents.  However,  Plaintiff reasonably believes that the Classes encompass at minimum many thousands of  consumers.     29.  The joinder of all members of the Classes is impracticable due to the size and  relatively modest value of each individual claim.  The disposition of the claims in a class action  will provide substantial benefit to the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical  suits.  The identities of the Class members can be readily ascertained from Navient and its  agents’ call records.    30.  There are well-defined, nearly identical, questions of law and fact affecting all  parties.  Common question of law and fact raised in this action concerning the Classes’ claims  include the following:  (a)  Whether the calls made to Plaintiff and members of the Classes’ cellular  telephone numbers were made using an automated telephone dialing system or  predictive dialer as defined by the TCPA and the FCC;  (b)  Whether the calls by Navient to the Plaintiff and members of the Classes’ cellular  telephone numbers were made with prior express consent;   (c)  Whether such calls were made by or on behalf of Navient;  (d)  Whether such calls were made for an emergency purpose;  (e)  Whether Navient violated the TCPA;  (f)  Whether Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to damages, declaratory relief  and/or injunctive relief as a result of Defendant’s violations of the TCPA;   (g)  Whether Navient’s conduct was willful or knowing; and    (h)  Whether the calls Navient makes are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to  or guaranteed by the United States government.   32.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes. Plaintiff  has retained able counsel with extensive experience in prosecuting class action claims involving  violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes, including claims under the TCPA.  Plaintiff’s interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of the Classes.   33.  The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Classes  predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members, including legal and  factual issues relating to liability and damages.   34.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Classes would  create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Class members,  which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.    35.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Class wide relief is essential to compel Defendant to comply  with the TCPA.  Since the damages, or statutory damages, suffered by individual members of the  Classes may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it  impossible for the members of the Class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. The  Classes are readily definable, and prosecution of this action as a class action will eliminate the  possibility of repetitious litigation.  Plaintiff will encounter no difficulty in managing this action  as a class action.   37.  The allegations above are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.   38.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class and Sub-Class are “called part[ies]”  under the TCPA.   39.  The foregoing acts and omissions of defendant constitute numerous and  multiple strict liability violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to 47  U.S.C.§227(b)(1)(iii), by each and every call made in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47  U.S.C.§227(b)(1)(B).   40.  The TCPA provides Plaintiff and the Non-Borrower Call Class with a private  right of action against Defendant Navient for its strict liability violations of the TCPA, as  described herein, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). Plaintiff and the Non-Borrower Call  Class are entitled to both injunctive relief and statutory damages of $500 per call made by  Navient in violation of the TCPA.   41.  Plaintiff and the Non-Borrower Call Class are also entitled to an award of  attorneys’ fees and costs on an equitable basis to be paid through a “common fund,” or similar  theory.  42.  The allegations above are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.   44.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitutes numerous and multiple  willful or knowing violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to 47 U.S.C.§227(b)(1)(iii)  by each and every call in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§227(b)(1)(B).   45.  “Willful” is defined as “the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of  such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any . . . rule or regulation of the Commission . . . .”  47 U.S.C. § 312 (f)(1).    46.  Defendant intentionally and voluntarily made at least two (2) calls to plaintiff’s  cell phone   47.  Defendant willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA with respect to Plaintiff  and the Willful or Knowing Call Class by voluntarily placing non-emergency calls to the  cellular telephone number of the Plaintiff using an automated telephone dialing system with  knowledge that it did not have the prior express consent of the Plaintiff, and after being  instructed to stop calling.    48.  The TCPA provides Plaintiff with a private right of action against Defendant  Navient for its willful and/or knowing violations of the TCPA, as described herein, pursuant  to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). Plaintiff are entitled to both injunctive relief and statutory damages  of up to $1,500 per call made by Navient that willfully or knowingly violated of the TCPA.   STRICT LIABILITY VIOLATIONS OF   THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT   WILLFUL OR KNOWING VIOLATIONS   OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  