 Yet in violation of this rule, Defendant fails to obtain any express written consent  prior to sending autodialed text messages to consumers, such as Plaintiff.    In placing the calls that form the basis of this Complaint, Defendant utilized an  automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS” or “autodialer”) in violation of the TCPA.  Specifically, the hardware and software used by Defendant has the capacity to generate and store  random numbers, and/or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such numbers,  en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention. Defendant’s automated dialing  equipment also is, or includes features substantially similar to, a predictive dialer, meaning that it  is capable of making numerous phone calls simultaneously and automatically connecting  answered calls to then available callers and disconnecting the rest (all without human  intervention).    An IMC Sales Representative is expected to initiate between 55-65 dials per hour:  6    Upon information and belief, including complaints about IMC’s telemarketing  calls and Plaintiff’s experience, IMC contact center agents place calls to consumers using an  autodialer.    IMC also sends unsolicited, autodialed text messages to consumers like the ones  Plaintiff received.    There are a number of online complaints about Defendant’s calls to consumers  who never gave consent to be called, including consumers that requested Defendant stop calling  only to receive more calls:  •  7  • “I have asked over and over to stop calling…”8  • “Iconic mortgage, these people will not stop.calling and switch numbers after you block  them, all times of the night and day and weekends, never had any dealings with them but  they seem adamant on calling”9  • “Robocall. Non-stop calls. Always a pause when I answer. Definite robocaller.”10  • “Unwanted Call”11   On February 27, 2019 Plaintiff registered her phone number on the DNC.    Plaintiff uses her cell phone for personal use only. It is not used for business  purposes.    On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff received an unsolicited call from IMC using  phone number 540-215-1008 to her cell phone. This call was not answered.    Plaintiff called 540-215-1008 on December 9, 2019 at 2:25 PM and spoke to a  live agent, specifically asking for the calls to stop.    Despite her clear opt-out request, Plaintiff received an unsolicited, autodialed call  to her cell phone from Defendant using phone number 540-215-1008 on December 13, 2019 at   The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents  have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors; (3)  Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion  from the Classes; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded  persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated  and/or released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following  appropriate discovery.    Numerosity: On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands of  members of the Classes such that joinder of all members is impracticable.    Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting  this action on behalf of the members of the Classes, and have the financial resources to do so.  Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel has any interest adverse to the Classes.    Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.    Defendant and/or its agents made unwanted solicitation telephone calls/text  messages to phone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed No  Consent Class using an autodialer.     These solicitation calls/texts were made/sent en masse without the consent of the  Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent Class to receive such solicitation  calls.    Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent Class are  each entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages, and up to $1,500 in damages, for each violation.   Plaintiff repeats and realleges the paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.    The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), 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.”    47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that § 64.1200(c) is “applicable to any person or  entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone numbers.”14    Any “person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month  period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this  subsection may” may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were  promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone  solicitations to which they object.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c).    Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated,  phone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class  members who registered their respective phone numbers on the DNC, a listing of persons who do  not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.     Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Do Not Call Registry Class are each  entitled to up to $1,500 in damages for each violation.   Plaintiff repeats and realleges the paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.    Defendant made marketing calls to Plaintiff and members of the Internal DNC  Class without implementing internal procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not  to be called by the entity and/or by implementing procedures that do not meet the minimum  requirements to allow Defendant to initiate telemarketing calls. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(1)-(6).    The TCPA provides that any “person who has received more than one telephone  call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations  prescribed under this subsection may” bring a private action based on a violation of said  regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid  receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).    Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Internal Do Not Call Class are each  entitled to up to $1,500 per violation.  Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiff’s TCPA Claims Arising From IMC’s Calls    IMC Repeatedly Called and Texted Plaintiff Without Consent,   Despite Plaintiff Having Registered Her Phone Number on the DNC   IMC Markets its Products and Services by Making Autodialed Calls to Consumers  Without Consent, Regardless of Whether Their Numbers are Registered on the DNC   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Correll and the Autodialed No Consent Class)  