Plaintiff received a series of automated calls on his cell phone seeking to sell him life insurance including at least the following: August 11, 2016, at 11.04 am from 978-213-8332 (Exhibit A); a. August 10, 2016, at 9.52 am from 517-208-0209 (Exhibit B); b. August 10, 2016 at 11.43 am from 952-777-1698 (Exhibit C); c. August 10, 2016, at 11.09 am from 303-214-0430 (Exhibit D); d. August 5, 2016 at 3.14 pm from 303-214-0430 (Exhibit D); e. August 5, 2016 at 2.46 pm from 603-263-3019 (Exhibit E); f. August 4, 2016, at 4.35 pm from 303-214-0430 (Exhibit D).  Each call began with a pause and then delivered a recorded message.  A person who calls 517-208-0209 or  603-263-3019 or 952-777-1698 or  303- 214-0430 gets a recorded message inviting the caller to press “1” in order to learn about saving money on life insurance, substantially as follows: 2 Hello.  I’m calling because I believe I can save you money on your life insurance.  If you can spare a few seconds, we offer a valuable free service.  Studies have shown that people are paying up to 40% too much for life insurance and they’re very happy to find out that they may be able to pay a lot less for the same or better coverage.  We are local representatives for a major insurer and we offer a free comparison quote just to see if we can save you money.  There is no cost or obligation.  If you would like a free quote on life insurance, please press the “1” key on your telephone now. You may also press “9” to be added to our no call list, but press “1” to hear more.  On information and belief, based on the content of the message (“I’m calling . . . ”), the identical message is played regardless of whether one answers or returns the call.  A person who presses “1” is transferred to a live person who, if the caller expresses interest, transfers the caller to an insurance representative at the Life Insurance Center, who takes down information about the proposed insured and type and amount of coverage sought.  The insurance representative provides 800-286-7842 as a callback number.  The number 800-286-7842 is issued to or used by The Life Insurance Center, LLC.  (Exhibit F)  The Life Insurance Center, LLC is held out (Exhibit F) as “division of InsureNOW Direct”.    InsureNOW Direct is a trade name used by Crump Life Insurance Services, Inc. (Exhibit G).  The relationship between Crump Life Insurance Services, Inc., and The Life Insurance Center, LLC is described in Exhibit H.  Crump Life Insurance Services, Inc., is therefore liable for the conduct of its “division,” The Life Insurance Center, LLC.  On information and belief, the calls were placed using an automated dialer and a recorded voice.    Plaintiff did not authorize the automated placement of calls to his cell phone.  Plaintiff may have received other automated calls from the same source.   Plaintiff did not furnish his cell phone number to defendant. 3  Defendants’ calls harmed plaintiff by causing the very harm Congress sought to prevent – a “nuisance and invasion of privacy.”   Defendants’ calls harmed plaintiff by intruding upon his seclusion.  Defendants’ calls harmed plaintiff by distracting him from work and causing him aggravation and annoyance.  Defendants’ calls harmed plaintiff by wasting his time.  Defendants’ calls harmed plaintiff by using data storage space and the battery on the cellular telephone.   Plaintiff and each class member is entitled to statutory damages.  Defendants violated the TCPA even if their actions were only negligent.  Defendants should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the future. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-32.  The TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §227, provides: §  227.  Restrictions on use of telephone equipment  . . . (b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment.    (1) Prohibitions. It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States–       (A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice–          (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call; . . .   The TCPA,  47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3), further  provides: Private right of action. 4 A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State– (A)  an action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation, (B)  an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or (C)  both such actions. If the Court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under the subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.  Defendant violated the TCPA by placing automated calls using a recorded message to plaintiff’s cell phone.  Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-32.  Defendants engaged in unfair acts and practices, in violation of ICFA §2, 815 ILCS 505/2, by making unauthorized robocalls to plaintiff’s cell phone.  Defendants’ conduct is contrary to public policy, as set forth in the TCPA.  Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of receipt of the call.   Defendants engaged in such conduct in the course of trade and commerce.  Defendants should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the future. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of a class, consisting of (a) all persons with phone numbers in the Illinois area codes (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) received calls on their cell phones soliciting business for the Life Insurance Center, (d) placed using an automated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice.  The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.  Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that there are more than 40 members of the class.  There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.  The predominant common questions include: a. Whether defendants engaged in a pattern of using automated equipment to place calls to cellular telephones; b. The manner in which defendants compiled or obtained their list of telephone numbers; and c. Whether defendants thereby violated the ICFA.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business practices.  Neither plaintiff nor plaintiff’s counsel has any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.   Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members.  All are based on the same factual and legal theories.  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 prosecution of separate claims against defendant is small because it is not economically feasible to bring individual actions.  Management of this class action is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties that those presented in many class actions, e.g. for securities fraud. 8 WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class and against defendants for: (1) Statutory damages; (2) An injunction against further violations; (3) Costs of suit; (4) Such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper. s/ Daniel A. Edelman Daniel A. Edelman Daniel A. Edelman Cathleen M. Combs Julie Clark Michelle A. Alyea  7 