20.  Prior to the year 2020, Plaintiff successfully registered his cellular telephone  number ending in -7262 with the National Do-Not-Call Registry   21.  On or about December 11, 2020, Defendants began placing unsolicited, automated  telemarketing telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone numbers ending in -7262 and -1977.   22.  When Plaintiff answered Defendants’ calls, he heard a significant pause before he  was connected to a live representative, which is indicative of the use of an automatic telephone  dialing system, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) and as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   5   23.  When Plaintiff answered one of Defendants’ calls, the representative with whom  Plaintiff spoke stated that he was calling from the medical compensation department.   24.  Plaintiff received multiple unsolicited, automated telemarketing calls made by or  on behalf of Defendants, on or about December 11, 2020.   25.  The telephone numbers that Defendants, or their agent, called was assigned to a  cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).   26.  Defendants’ calls were not made for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(1)(A).   27.  Prior to receiving Defendants’ calls, Plaintiff had not previously sought out  Defendants’ services, nor had Plaintiff attempted to retrieve information from Defendants about  their services.   28.  During all relevant times, Defendants did not possess Plaintiff’s “prior express  consent” to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded  voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).   29.  Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief, including without limitation his  experiences as recounted herein, especially his experience of receiving Defendants’ calls despite  Defendants’ lack of express consent to call him, that Defendants lack reasonable policies and  procedures to avoid the violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection act herein described.   30.  As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions outlined above, Plaintiff and the  putative Class members have suffered concrete and particularized injuries and harm, which  include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) invasion of privacy; (b) intrusion upon and  occupation of the capacity of Plaintiff’s cellular telephone; (c) wasting Plaintiff’s time; and (d)  6  risk of injury due to interruption and distraction when receiving unwanted telephone calls from  Defendants.  31.   Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as  a member of the proposed class (the “ATDS Class”) defined as follows:   All persons within the United States who received any  solicitation/telemarketing calls from Defendants to said person’s  cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone  dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such person  had not previously consented to receiving such calls, or who had  revoked such consent, within the four years prior to the filing of this  Complaint through the date of class certification.   32.  Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,  as a member of the second proposed class (the “Do-Not-Call Class”) defined as follows:   All persons within the United States whose telephone numbers were  registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days,  who had not granted Defendants prior express consent nor had a  prior established business relationship with Defendants, or who had  revoked such consent or prior established business relationship, who  received more than one call made by or on behalf of Defendants that  promoted Defendants’ products or services, within any 12-month  period, within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through  the date of class certification.   33.  Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,  as a member of the third proposed class (the “Misrepresentation Class”) defined as follows:   All persons within the United States who had not granted  Defendants prior express consent nor had a prior established  business relationship with Defendants, or who had revoked such  consent or prior established business relationship, who received a  call made by or on behalf of Defendants that promoted Defendants’  products or services, during which Defendants misrepresented the  person or entity on whose behalf the call was being made, within  four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of  class certification.  7   34.  Defendants, their employees and agents are excluded from the Classes. Plaintiff  does not know the number of members in the Classes, but believes the Classes’ members number  in the hundreds, if not more. Thus, this matter should be certified as a Class Action to assist in the  expeditious litigation of the matter.   35.  The Classes are so numerous that the individual joinder of all of their members is  impractical. While the exact number and identities of the Classes’ members are unknown to  Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff is  informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Classes include hundreds, if not thousands of  members. Plaintiff alleges that the Classes’ members may be ascertained by the records maintained  by Defendants.   36.  This suit is properly maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)  because the Classes are so numerous that joinder of the Classes’ members is impractical and the  disposition of their claims in the Class Action will provide substantial benefits both to the parties  and the Court.   37.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Classes affecting the parties to  be represented. The questions of law and fact common to the Classes predominate over questions  which may affect individual members of the Classes and include, but are not necessarily limited  to, the following:  a.  Whether the ATDS Class members’ cellular telephone numbers were called  by Defendants using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial  or prerecorded voice without Defendants having obtained prior express  consent to place such calls;  8  b.  Whether the Do-Not-Call Class members’ telephone numbers were called  by Defendants for the promotion of Defendants’ products or services  without Defendants having obtained prior express consent or having a prior  established business relationship to place such calls;  c.  Whether the Misrepresentation Class members’ telephone numbers were  called by Defendants for the promotion of Defendants’ products or services  with the use of a name other than the actual person or entity on whose behalf  the calls were being made;  d.  Whether members of the Classes granted Defendants prior express consent  to place such calls to them and/or whether they revoked any such consent;   e.  Whether Plaintiff and the Classes’ members were damaged thereby, and the  extent of damages for such violations; and  f.  Whether Defendants should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in  the future.    38.  As a resident of the United States whose cellular telephone number was called by  Defendants using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on  multiple occasions without Plaintiff’s prior express consent, Plaintiff is asserting claims that are  typical of the ATDS Class.   39.  As a resident of the United States whose telephone number was registered on the  National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who had not granted Defendants prior express  consent nor had a prior established business relationship with Defendants, who received more than  one call made by or on behalf of Defendants within a 12-month period that promoted Defendants’  products or services, Plaintiff is asserting claims that are typical of the Do-Not-Call Class.  9   40.   As a resident of the United States who had not granted Defendants prior express  consent nor had a prior established business relationship with Defendants, who received a call that  promoted Defendants’ products or services, during which the person or entity on whose behalf the  call was being made was misrepresented, Plaintiff is asserting claims that are typical of the  Misrepresentation Class.   41.  Plaintiff has no interests adverse or antagonistic to the interests of the other  members of the Classes.   42.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the  Classes. Plaintiff has retained attorneys experienced in the prosecution of class actions.    43.  A class action is superior to other available methods of fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy, since individual litigation of the claims of all of the Classes’  members is impracticable. Even if every Class member could afford individual litigation, the court  system could not. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which individual litigation of  numerous issues would proceed. Individualized litigation would also present the potential for  varying, inconsistent or contradictory judgments and would magnify the delay and expense to all  parties, and to the court system, resulting from multiple trials of the same complex factual issues.  By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action presents fewer management difficulties,  conserves the resources of the parties and of the court system and protects the rights of each Class  member. Class treatment will also permit the adjudication of relatively small claims by many Class  members who could not otherwise afford to seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of herein.    44.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create a  risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the  10  interests of the other Class members not parties to such adjudications or that would substantially  impair or impede the ability of such non-party Class members to protect their interests.    45.  Defendants have acted or refused to act in respect generally applicable to the  Classes, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief with regard to the members of the  Classes as a whole.    46.  Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the TCPA, including but not  limited to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) and (c), and/or 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) and (d), as to all Class  members with respect to the above-alleged transactions.    47.  The TCPA, specifically 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), provides that:  It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any  person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United  States 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 an artificial or  prerecorded voice…to any telephone number assigned to a paging  service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service,  or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the  called party is charged for the call, unless such call is made solely  to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States…   48.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) provides that:  [n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation to…[a]  residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her  telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons  who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained  by the Federal Government.   49.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4) provides that:  A person or entity making a call for telemarketing purposes must  provide the called party with the name of the individual caller, the  name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made,  and a telephone number or address at which the person or entity may  be contacted.  11   50.  In multiple instances, Defendants placed calls to the Classes’ members in violation  of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.    51.  The size and definition of the Classes can be identified through Defendants’ records  and/or Defendants’ agents’ records.  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)  NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)  NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227(c) 