14.  Defendant Gutterbrush LLC sells a product called “Gutter Brush” that cleans household  gutter systems.   15.  As a cheap way to advertise, Defendant repeatedly called thousands of cellular and  residential phones at a time using an artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the TCPA.     16.  When the Class members answered their phones or listened to their messages, they heard  an artificial or prerecorded voice advertising Defendant’s products.   18.  On or about May 9, 2019 at 1:36 p.m., Plaintiff received a call on his cellular phone  number ending in 0181 from an unknown telephone phone number (401) 314-9431.   19.  When Plaintiff listened to the voice message, he heard a prerecorded message from  Defendant advertising Gutterbrush.   20.  The prerecorded voice message first said “Hi, my name is Alex from Gutterbrush.”    21.  The prerecorded voice message then said it was “offering information about a new  profitable product and solution for your customers, you probably haven’t seen it before, it’s called  Gutterbrush and it’s the simplest imaginable way of keeping commercial and residential gutters from  clogging.   It’s really different and it requires no tools, no fasteners to install, easy to maintain and  renew and keeps you want more information let me know where to send it, you can call me or text back  to this number 401-314-9431, you email me at alex@gutterbrush.com or you can see it at  gutterbrush.com… so thanks hope to hear from you and have a great day.”     22.  Plaintiff never requested that Defendant contact him in any manner, let alone pursuant to  a prerecorded message.   23.  Further, Plaintiff never consented to be contacted by Defendant using an artificial or  prerecorded voice message.    24.  Defendant violated Plaintiff’s statutory rights and his right to privacy.   26.  The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding  over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents,  successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling  interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute  and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have  been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s  counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.   27.  Numerosity: The exact number of the Class members is unknown and not available to  Plaintiff, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief, Defendant  placed telephone calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the Class. Members of  the Class can be identified through Defendant’s records.   28.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Class, in  that Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s uniform wrongful  conduct and unsolicited telephone calls.   30.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendant acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class as a  whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of  conduct toward the Class members and making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the  Class as a whole. Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to and affect the Class members  uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinge on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the  Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.   31.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact common to  the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may  affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class include, but are not  necessarily limited to the following:  i.  Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA;  ii.  Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA willingly and/or knowingly;  iii.  Whether Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system to place calls to  thousands of cell phones;  iv.  Whether Defendant used a prerecorded or artificial voice to contact any members of the  Class;  v.  Whether Defendant’s obtained prior written consent prior to contacting any members of  the Class;  vi.  Whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the knowingness  or willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.   33.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   34.  Defendant placed calls to Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ cellular and residential  telephones without having their prior express consent to do so.   35.  The calls were made for the purpose of advertising Defendant’s products.   36.  The calls used a prerecorded or artificial voice as proscribed by 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B).   38.  Defendant made the violating calls “willfully” and/or “knowingly” under 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(C).   39.  If the court finds that Defendant willfully and/or knowingly violated this subsection, the  court may increase the civil fine from $500 to $1500 per violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  Telephone Consumer Protection Act  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  