 At all times relevant, Plaintiff was the sole operator, possessor, and  subscriber of the number ending in 5290.    At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s number ending in 5290 was assigned to a  cellular telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    Plaintiff applied for and received a Mastercard issued by Celtic Bank  Corporation.    Over time, Plaintiff made personal charges on this credit card.    Plaintiff defaulted on payments.    Plaintiff’s account, once unpaid, was referred for collection.    Plaintiff started to receive phone calls from Defendant seeking to collect on  Plaintiff’s $746.71 balance.     On numerous occasions, Plaintiff answered.    Often times, Plaintiff was met by an automated, machine-operated voice  prompting Plaintiff to: “... please return this call …”    On multiple occasions, Plaintiff returned Defendant’s call only to tell them  to stop calling.    Unfortunately, these phone calls continue.    To date, dozens of phone calls have been received from number(s) leading  back to Defendant – including, (563) 217-4577 and (563)-514-4664.    Defendant’s phone calls resulted in aggravation that accompanies  persistent and unwanted phone calls, anxiety, distress, increased risk of personal injury  resulting from distraction, intrusion upon and occupation of Plaintiff’s cellular telephone  capacity, invasion of privacy, loss of concentration, nuisance, stress, and wasted time.    Accordingly, Plaintiff is forced to expend energy and/or time consulting with  attorneys to put an end to Defendant’s unlawful collection practices.   All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated  herein as though fully set forth herein.    Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3)  individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Putative Classes”) defined  as follows:  FDCPA Class  All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Defendant placed, or  caused to be placed, a call; (2) within the one year preceding the date of  this complaint through the date of class certification; (3) in connection with  the collection of a consumer debt; (4) after he/she requested that Defendant  cease calls to his/her telephone number.  TCPA Class  All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Defendant placed, or  caused to be placed, a call; (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular  telephone service; (3) using an artificial or prerecorded voice; (4) within the  four years preceding the date of this complaint through the date of class  certification; (5) after he/she requested that Defendant cease calls to his/her  telephone number.    Upon information and belief, the members of the Putative Classes are so  numerous that joinder of them is impracticable.    The exact number of the members of the Putative Classes is unknown to  Plaintiff at this time, and can be determined only through appropriate discovery.    The members of the Putative Classes are ascertainable because the  classes are defined by reference to objective criteria.    The members of the Putative Classes are identifiable in that their names,  addresses and telephone numbers can be identified in business records maintained by  Defendant.  B.  Commonality and Predominance    There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff  and the Putative Classes, and those questions predominate over any questions that may  affect individual members of the Putative Classes.    C.  Typicality    This case is also appropriate for class certification as class proceedings are  superior to all other available methods for the efficient and fair adjudication of this  controversy.      The damages suffered by the individual members of the Putative Classes  will likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and expense required for  individual prosecution.    By contrast, a class action provides the benefits of single adjudication,  economies of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court.      Economies of effort, expense, and time will be fostered and uniformity of  decisions ensured.  E.  Adequate Representation    Plaintiff will adequately and fairly represent and protect the interests of the  Putative Classes.    Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Putative Classes, and  Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.    Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced counsel in consumer  class action litigation.   In Colorado, “to prevail on a claim for intrusion upon seclusion as a violation  of one’s privacy, a plaintiff must show that another has intentionally intruded, physically  or otherwise, upon the plaintiff’s seclusion or solitude, and that such intrusion would be  considered offensive by a reasonable person.”  Doe v. High-Tech Inst., Inc., 972 P.2d  1060, 1065 (Colo. App. 1998), cert. denied (Colo. Mar. 1, 1999).    This tort can encompass conduct such as persistent and unwanted  telephone calls.  Quigley v. Rosenthal, 327 F.3d 1044, 1073 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing High- Tech Inst., 972 P.2d, at 1067.    Defendant’s persistent and unwanted phone calls to Plaintiff violated  Plaintiff’s right to privacy based on an intrusion upon her seclusion.  See Dunlap v.  McCarthy, 284 Ark. 5, 678 S.W.2d 361 (1984); see generally W. Prosser & W. Keeton,  Torts 117 (5th ed. 1984) (examples of intrusion upon seclusion include eavesdropping by  wiretapping and persistent and unwanted telephone calls).    All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated  herein as though fully set forth herein.  Violation(s) of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d    Section 1692d provides:  [a] debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence  of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the  collection of a debt.  Without limiting the general application of the foregoing,  the following conduct is a violation of this section:  (5)  Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in  telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent  to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.  15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5).    Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) by repeatedly or continuously  calling Plaintiff after being asked to stop.  See Chiverton v. Federal Financial Group, Inc.,  399 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D. Conn. 2005) (finding that repeated calls after the consumer had  asked debt collector to stop calling amounted to harassment).    The phone calls at issue were intended to be annoying, abusive, or  harassing.        All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated  herein as though fully set forth herein.    Defendant placed or caused to be placed dozens of non-emergency calls,  including but not limited to the aforementioned collection calls, to Plaintiff’s cellular  telephone utilizing an artificial or prerecorded voice without Plaintiff’s consent in violation  of 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(iii).    As plead above, Defendant used an artificial or pre-recorded voice which  automatically played once Plaintiff answered Defendant’s phone calls.    As result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. §227 (b)(1)(A)(iii). Plaintiff  is entitled to receive $500.00 in damages for each violation.     Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.)  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Members of FDCPA Class)   Invasion of Privacy by Seclusion  (On behalf of Plaintiff)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227 et. seq.)  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Members of TCPA Class)  