 Defendant has repeatedly placed calls using an ATDS and containing a prerecorded  and/or artificial voice to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone (336) XXX-8932.    Plaintiff’s number was and is assigned to a cellular telephone service as specified in  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).      AMEX calls Plaintiff from telephone numbers 866-884-0976, 801-945-9064 and  800-528-4800.    AMEX has inserted Plaintiff’s telephone number in an automated calling campaign  to further its efforts to contact “Jessica,” a person who Plaintiff does not have any relationship with  and does not know.     AMEX has bombarded the Plaintiff with multiple daily automated and prerecorded  message calls throughout January 2018 regarding “Jessica.”     Nevertheless, the calls to Plaintiff at the -8932 number have persisted and  continued.      At all times mentioned herein, AMEX called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using  an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“autodialer”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).   When Plaintiff answered calls from AMEX, he heard a prerecorded greeting from AMEX before  the call would be routed to a live agent.  This is indicative of AMEX’s use of a “predictive  dialer.”     The Federal Communications Commission has defined ATDS under the TCPA to  include “predictive dialers.”  See In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the  Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 23 F.C.C.R. 559, at ¶ 12, 2008 WL 65485 (F.C.C.)  (2008).    In addition, upon information and belief the hardware and software combination  utilized by AMEX has the capacity to store and dial sequentially generated numbers, randomly  generated numbers or numbers from a database of numbers.     Defendant uses prerecorded and artificial messages when it calls the Plaintiff’s  cellular telephone.  As noted, when Plaintiff answers AMEX’s calls, he heard an artificial and/or  prerecorded voice stating the call was from AMEX and the call may be recorded.     The same message has been used by the Defendant on multiple occasions.     Defendant did not have Plaintiff’s prior express consent to place automated calls to  Plaintiff on her cellular telephone.    Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf  of herself and all others similarly situated.    Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the following two classes:    Class A   All persons within the United States to whom AMEX or its agent/s and/or  employee/s called said person’s cellular telephone through the use of any  automatic telephone dialing system within the four years prior to the filing of  the Complaint where such person was not a customer of AMEX.  Class B  All persons within the United States to whom AMEX or its agent/s and/or  employee/s called said person’s cellular telephone with an artificial or  prerecorded voice within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint  where such person was not a customer of AMEX.    Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Classes. Plaintiff  does not know the number of members in the Classes, 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.  B. Numerosity    Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed automated and/or prerecorded  message calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers, after being  informed it was calling the wrong party, throughout the United States.  The members of the  Classes, therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.    There are questions of law and fact common to the Classes that predominate over  any questions affecting only individual Class members.  These questions include:  a. Whether Defendant made calls to Plaintiff and Class members’ cellular  telephones using an ATDS;  b. Whether Defendant made calls to Plaintiff and Class members’ cellular  telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice;  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 willful, and/or negligent;  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 automated and prerecorded 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’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all  based on the same factual and legal theories.  E. Protecting the Interests of the Class Members     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 AMEX 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.    Defendant negligently placed multiple automated and prerecorded/artificial voice  calls to cellular numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes without  their prior express consent.    Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a negligent violation of  the TCPA.    Additionally, Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.    Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and do seek a declaration that:  a. Defendant violated the TCPA;  b. Defendant utilized an ATDS to call Plaintiff and the Classes;   c. Defendant placed artificial and prerecorded voice calls to Plaintiff and the  Classes;   d. Defendant placed automated and artificial and prerecorded voice calls to the  Plaintiff and the Classes 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 automated and  prerecorded/artificial voice calls to cellular numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other  members of the Classes without their prior express consent.    Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing and/or  willful violation of the TCPA.    As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of treble damages up to $1,500.00 for each call in  violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).    Plaintiff and the Classes are also entitled to and do seek a declaration that:  a. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA;  b. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully used an ATDS to call Plaintiff and the  Classes;   c. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed artificial and prerecorded voice  calls to Plaintiff and the Classes;  d. Defendant willfully placed artificial and prerecorded voice calls to non- customers such as Plaintiff and the Classes, knowing it did not have prior  express consent to do so; and  e. It  is  Defendant’s  practice  and  history  to  place  automated  and  artificial/prerecorded voice calls to non-customers without their prior express  consent.   A. The Class   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.  