10.   Defendant used an “automatic telephone dialing system”, as defined  by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiffs seeking to solicit its services  to Plaintiffs    Case3:15-cv-00939-VC   Document1   Filed02/28/15   Page3 of 9 14.  Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all others  similarly situated, as a member of the proposed class (hereafter “The Class”)  defined as follows:  All persons within the United States who received any  solicitation/telemarketing  telephone  calls  from  Defendant 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 within the four years prior to the filing of this  Complaint   17.  Plaintiffs represent, and is a member of, The Class, consisting of All  persons within the United States who received any collection telephone calls from  Defendant 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 not provided their cellular telephone number to  Defendant within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.   18.  Defendant, its employees and agents are excluded from The Class.   Plaintiffs do not know the number of members in The Class, but believes the  Case3:15-cv-00939-VC   Document1   Filed02/28/15   Page4 of 9 7.    Beginning in or around October of 2014, Defendant began  contacting Plaintiff Barton on his cellular telephone number ending in 6675, in an  attempt to solicit Plaintiff Barton to utilize Defendant’s services in securing  Plaintiff Barton a college degree.  Defendant contacted or attempted to contact  Plaintiff Barton from telephone number (707)736-1580.   8.  On or around June 8, 2014, Plaintiff Barton inquired about the  services in which Defendant provides via a questionnaire which he submitted  online.  This online submission notwithstanding, Plaintiff Barton never, at any  time or through any medium, provided Defendant with his express consent to be  contacted via an “automated telephone dialing system.”  During all relevant  times, Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff Barton on at least  thirty-three (33) occasions using an “automated telephone dialing system,” since  October of 2014, a time span of approximately three (3) months.  Furthermore,  Plaintiff Barton informed Defendant to cease contacting him several times when  Defendant contacted him on several occasions.     9.  Beginning in or around November of 2014, Defendant began  contacting Plaintiff Abdullah on his cellular telephone number ending in 9885, in  an attempt to solicit Plaintiff Abdullah to utilize Defendant’s services in securing  Plaintiff Abdullah a college degree.       Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection  Act   47 U.S.C. §227 et seq.  • As a result of Defendant’s willful and/or knowing violations of 47  U.S.C. §227(b)(1), Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to   and request treble damages, as provided by statute, up to $1,500, for  each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(B) and  47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(C).   • Any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper.   ///  ///  ///  ///  Case3:15-cv-00939-VC   Document1   Filed02/28/15   Page8 of 9 Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. §227 et seq.  • As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C.  §227(b)(1), Plaintiffs and the Class members are entitled to and  request $500 in statutory damages, for each and every violation,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  227(b)(3)(B).   • Any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper.  