15.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly  situated (“The Class”).   16.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, The Class defined as follows:   “All persons in  California whose inbound and outbound telephone conversations were monitored,  recorded, eavesdropped upon and/or wiretapped without their consent by Defendant  within the four years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in this action.”     26.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   27.  Californians have a constitutional right to privacy.  Moreover, the California Supreme  Court has definitively linked the constitutionally protected right to privacy within the  purpose, intent and specific protections of the Privacy Act, including specifically, Penal  Code § 632.  “In addition, California’s explicit constitutional privacy provision (Cal.  Const., 1 § 1) was enacted in part specifically to protect California from overly intrusive  business practices that were seen to pose a significant and increasing threat to personal  privacy. (Citations omitted).  Thus, we believe that California must be viewed as having a  strong and continuing interest in the full and vigorous application of the provisions of  section 632 prohibiting the recording of telephone conversations without the knowledge  or consent of all parties to the conversation. Kearney v. Salmon Smith Barney, Inc.,  (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 95, 125.   28.  California Penal Code § 632 prohibits one party to a telephone call from intentionally  recording the conversation without the knowledge or consent of the other party.  Penal  Code § 632 is violated the moment the recording is made without the consent of all  parties thereto, regardless of whether it is subsequently disclosed that the telephone call  was recorded.  The only intent required by Penal Code § 632 is that the act of recording  itself be done intentionally.  There is no requisite intent on behalf of the party doing the  surreptitious recording to break California law or any other law, or to invade the privacy  right of any other person.   36.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   37.  Defendant invaded Plaintiff the members of The Class’ right to privacy by intentionally  allowing the unauthorized eavesdropping, wiretapping, recording, and listening of the  telephone conversation with Plaintiff and the members of The Class and negligently  maintaining the confidentiality of the information of Plaintiff and the members of The  Class, as set for above.   38.  The intrusion through the unauthorized eavesdropping, wiretapping, recording, and  listening of the telephone conversations with Plaintiff and the members of The Class and  the negligently maintaining of the confidentiality of the information of Plaintiff and The  Class, was offensive and objectionable to Plaintiff, the Class, and to a reasonable person  of ordinary sensibilities.    39.  The intrusion was into a place or thing which was private and which is entitled to be  private, in that Plaintiff and The Class’ personal conversations and information provided  to Defendant were made privately, were intended not to be recorded, and were intended  to be kept confidential and protected from unauthorized disclosure.   40.  As a proximate result of Defendant’s above acts, Plaintiff and The Class’ personal  conversations and information were intentionally wire-tapped, eavesdropped, recorded,  and listened to, and then distributed and used by persons without prior written  authorization, and Plaintiff and The Class suffered general damages in an amount to be  determined at trial according to proof.   43.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully stated herein.   44.  Defendant, as aforesaid herein, has various statutory and common law duties not to  engage in the aforementioned wire-tapping, eavesdropping, recording, and listening  conduct such that Plaintiff and The Class’ rights to privacy were invaded and breached.   45.  Defendant negligently and recklessly engages in the aforementioned eavesdropping,  wiretapping, recording, and listening conduct of Plaintiff and The Class.   46.  These activities of Defendant as aforesaid in this cause of action and in this Complaint,  legally caused actual, statutorily-imposed and/or demonstrable damages to Plaintiff and  The Class.   47.  As a result of Defendant’s activities as aforesaid in this cause of action and Complaint,  Plaintiff and The Class suffered damage as a result of the conduct of Defendant.  Plaintiff  and The Class are entitled to their damages in an amount according to proof at the time of  trial.  8.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was an individual residing within the State of California.     9.  On or about February 23, 2012 Plaintiff had a telephone communication with certain  employees, officers and/or agents of Defendant that were initiated by Defendant.  This  conversation with Plaintiff was, without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, recorded,  monitored, and/or eavesdropped upon by Defendant, causing harm and damage to  Plaintiff.  Only at the end of the conversation, when Plaintiff asked defendant’s  representative, “Justin”, whether the call was being recorded, did Defendant, via its  representative, informed Plaintiff that some calls were recorded.  At no time during these  calls did Plaintiff give his consent for the telephone calls to be monitored, recorded  and/or eavesdropped upon.     Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing  (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause: VII.  REQUESTED IN INVASION OF PRIVACY: COMMON LAW   INVASION OF PRIVACY: VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE § 630 ET SEQ.   NEGLIGENCE   UNLAWFUL, FRAUDULENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS ACTS AND PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF  CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, ET SEQ.  