 At all times relevant, Plaintiff was an individual residing in the State of  Tennessee. Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C.  § 153(39).  2 The Bipartisan Budget Act of  2015 (114 P.L. 74, 129 Stat. 584, 2015 Enacted H.R. 1314, 114 Enacted H.R. 1314),  enacted into law on November 2, 2015, amends the Communications Act of 1934 to exempt calls made solely  pursuant to the collection of a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.    3 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278,  Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014 (2003).  4 In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“FCC  Declaratory Ruling”), 23 F.C.C.R. 559, 23 FCC Rcd. 559, 43 Communications Reg. (P&F) 877, 2008 WL 65485   Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other persons  similarly situated (hereinafter referred to as “the Class”).    Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Class, but based upon  the representations of Defendants as to their market share, Plaintiff reasonably believes that  Class members number at minimum in the thousands. This Class size includes consumers  holding loans owned or serviced by Defendants, persons who co-signed loans owned or serviced  by Defendants, and all other persons who Defendants (mis)dialed. This Class size also includes  consumers who received calls from other affiliates or subsidiaries of Defendants.     Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed by the acts of  Defendants and/or of other affiliates or subsidiaries of Defendants.    This Class Action Complaint seeks money damages and injunctive relief.    There are well defined, nearly identical questions of law and fact affecting all  parties. The questions of law and fact involving the class claims predominate over questions  which may affect individual Class members. Those common questions of law and fact include,  but are not limited to, the following:  a.  Whether, beginning on December 21, 2011, Defendants and/or other  affiliates or subsidiaries of Defendants made non-emergency calls to  Plaintiff and Class members’ cellular telephones using an automatic  telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice;  b.  Whether Defendants and/or other affiliates or subsidiaries of Defendants  can meet their burden of showing they obtained prior express consent (i.e.,  consent that is clearly and unmistakably stated) to make such calls;  c.  Whether the complained of conduct was knowing and/or willful;  d.  Whether Defendants are liable for damages, and if so the amount of such  damages; and  e.  Whether Defendants and/or other affiliates or subsidiaries of Defendants  should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the future.    As a person who received numerous and repeated telephone calls using an  automatic telephone dialing system, without his prior express consent within the meaning of the  TCPA, Plaintiff asserts claims that are typical of each Class member. Plaintiff will fairly and  adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class, and he has no interests which are  antagonistic to any member of the Class.    Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims  involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes such as the TCPA.    Defendants and/or other affiliates or subsidiaries of Defendants have acted on  grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making final injunctive relief and  corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole appropriate. Moreover, on  information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the TCPA violations complained of herein are  substantially likely to continue in the future if an injunction is not entered.   Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as  if fully stated herein.    The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple knowing  and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the above cited  provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227.    As a result of the alleged knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227,  Plaintiff and each member of the Class is entitled to treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each  and every call in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).    Plaintiff and all Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA in the future.    Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to an award of attorney fees and  costs.  COUNT:  NEGLIGENT  VIOLATIONS  OF  THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  