 Plaintiff is not a customer of Verde.    Plaintiff has not sought Verde’s services online or otherwise.    On or around September of 2015, Verde began calling Plaintiff’s cellular  telephone, number 413-xxx-4923.    Verde called Plaintiff from telephone number 978-253-4077.    At all times mentioned herein, Verde contacted Plaintiff using an automated  telephone dialer system (“ATDS” or “predictive dialer”) and/or by using an artificial or  prerecorded voice.    When Plaintiff answered calls from Verde, she heard a prerecorded message  instructing Plaintiff to hold for the next available operator.    Plaintiff did not provide her cellular telephone number to Verde and does not  know how they obtained it.    Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf  of himself and all others similarly situated.    Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the following class:  All persons within the United States to whom Defendant or its agent/s and/or  employee/s made telephone calls using an ATDS or prerecorded or artificial  messages and (1) such call was to a cellular telephone number and (2) such  person did not provide prior express consent to receive such a call.  The class  period encompasses the four year period preceding the filing of this  complaint.    Defendants and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff  does not know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number in  the several thousands, if not more.  Thus, this matter should be certified as a Class action to  assist in the expeditious litigation of this matter.    This suit seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury  on behalf of the Class, and it expressly is not intended to request any recovery for personal injury  and claims related thereto.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or expand the Class definitions  to seek recovery on behalf of additional persons as warranted as facts are learned in further  investigation and discovery.  B. Numerosity    The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time  and can only be ascertained through discovery.  Identification of the Class members is a matter  capable of ministerial determination from Defendant’s call records.   C. Common Questions of Law and Fact     There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over  any questions affecting only individual Class members.  These questions include:  a. Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Class  members’ cellular telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice;  b. Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and the Class  members’ cellular telephones using an ATDS;   c. Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior  express consent to make each call;  d. Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and/or willful;  e. Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such  damages; and  f. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.    The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers.  If  Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely places unauthorized automated calls to telephone  numbers assigned to cellular telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will  have identical claims capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.   D. Typicality     Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has  retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business  practices.  Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interests which might cause them not to  vigorously pursue this action.  F. Proceeding Via Class Action is Superior and Advisable     A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecutions of  separate claims against Defendant is small because it is not economically feasible for Class  members to bring individual actions.    Management of this class action is unlikely to present any difficulties.  Several  courts have certified classes in TCPA actions.  These cases include, but are not limited to:  Mitchem v. Ill. Collection Serv., 271 F.R.D. 617 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Sadowski v. Med1 Online, LLC,  2008 WL 2224892 (N.D. Ill., May 27, 2008); CE Design Ltd. V. Cy’s Crabhouse North, Inc.,  259 F.R.D. 135 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC, 2012 WL 1932283 (S.D.  Cal., May 29, 2012).   Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.    Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a negligent violation of  the TCPA.    Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages  for each call in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).    Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.    Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek a declaration that:  •  Defendant violated the TCPA;  •  Defendant used prerecorded voices and/or artificial voices; and  •  Defendant placed calls to the Plaintiff and the Class without prior express  consent.    Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.    Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed multiple prerecorded or artificial  calls to cellular numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class without their  prior express consent.    Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing and/or  willful violation of the TCPA.    Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.     Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek a declaration that:  •  Defendant knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA;  •  Defendant knowingly and/or willfully used prerecorded voices and/or  artificial voices on calls to Plaintiff and the Class;  •  Defendant knowingly and/or willfully obtained the cell phone numbers of  Plaintiff and the Class from third parties;  •  Defendant willfully placed automated calls to the Plaintiff and the Class at  the numbers received from those third parties, knowing it did not have prior  express consent to do so; and  •  It is Defendant’s practice and history to place automated telephone calls to  consumers without their prior express consent.  A. The Class   Dated: December 20, 2015  Respectfully submitted,  By     /s/ Sergei Lemberg                 Sergei Lemberg (BBO# 650671)  Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,  47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,  47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  