10. At no time did Plaintiff ever enter into a business relationship with  Defendant.   11. At no time did Plaintiff provide his current cellular telephone number to  Defendant through any medium.   12. Plaintiff had never heard of One Planet or its subsidiary “HomeGain” prior  to receiving the calls from them.    13. On or about November 7, 2019, at approximately 3:49 PM Defendant’s  subsidiary “HomeGain” contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending  in “0059” from the telephone number (925) 476-1983.    14. One Planet, through its subsidiary “HomeGain” called Mr. Hildre’s cellular  telephone in an effort to convince Plaintiff to market, purchase, or sell real  property thought its site & services.     15. Each time Defendant called there was a long pause on each of the calls after  Plaintiff answered.   16. Upon information and belief, the calls were placed via an “automatic  telephone dialing system,” (“ATDS”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a)(1),  as prohibited by 47 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).    31. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of and Class  Members of the proposed Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and/or (b)(2).    32. Plaintiff proposes to represent the following Class consisting of and defined  as follows:  All persons within the United States who received any  telephone call(s) from Defendant or its agent(s) and/or  employee(s), not for an emergency purpose, on said person’s  cellular telephone, made through the use of any automatic  telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice  without their consent in the four years prior the filing of this  Complaint.    43.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this  Complaint as though fully stated herein.   44.  One Planet repeated calls in a span of several months to Plaintiff’s cellular  phone without any prior express consent—and even after Plaintiff revoked  any consent that may have existed—constitute numerous and multiple  negligent violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and  every one of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   45.  As a result of One Planet, and One Planet’s agents, negligent violations of  47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of  $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   46.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future.  47.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this  Complaint as though fully stated herein.   9.  At all times relevant, One Planet conducted business in the State of  California and in the County and City of San Diego, within this judicial  district.   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE   TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT   47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.   NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.   OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  •  As a result of One Planet and one planet’s agent’s willful and/or knowing  violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), Plaintiff seeks for himself and each  Class member treble damages, as provided by statute, up to $1,500.00 for  each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  •  Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.  • Costs of suit.  • Attorneys’ fees pursuant to, inter alia, the common fund doctrine.  • Any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. 