 Plaintiff is an individual, employed as a real estate agent.     One aspect of Plaintiff’s job is that he must be constantly available via his cell  phone    Plaintiff frequently receives calls from numbers not saved in the contact list of  known callers on his phone. He feels obligated to answer all calls received, in order to ensure he  gives his clients and potential clients the best service possible. Likewise, he must ensure that his  voicemail box maintains sufficient capacity for incoming calls.    At all times relevant herein Plaintiff has owned and maintained a cell phone, and  subscribed to cellular telephone phone service associated with the number XXX-XXX-0714, for  which he was and is charged a monthly fee. He uses this cell phone for personal and professional  purposes.    At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff maintained exclusive custody and control over  the cellular telephone and number at issue.    Plaintiff maintains service for this cell phone via a “cellular telephone service” as  described in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).     Plaintiff is the subscriber of services that relate to the cellular service associated  with XXX-XXX-0714,    At some unknown time, ACI began to attempt to collect a debt associated with one  “John Carlson.”    Plaintiff has never heard of a “John Carlson.”    Plaintiff has no relationship to anyone named “John Carlson.”    Plaintiff does not have an “established business relationship” with ACI as that term  is defined in 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(2).    Plaintiff does not owe any money to ACI.     Plaintiff never gave ACI his cell phone number.     At no point did Plaintiff provide prior express consent for ACI to call his cell  phone.     None of the calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone were placed for an “emergency  purpose” or with “prior express consent of the called party” within the meaning of 47 U.S.C.  §227(b)(1)(A).    In early 2016, Plaintiff began receiving pre-recorded voice messages from ACI.  These calls referenced one “John Carlson,” reference number XXXX-881.     ACI used an ATDS to place these calls.     Plaintiff received no less than 30 calls from ACI to his cellular telephone that  utilized an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice beginning in or about early 2016.     After ACI began placing calls to Plaintiff, Plaintiff notified ACI that its calls for  “John Carlson” were not reaching their intended recipient. Plaintiff also notified ACI that he had  no relationship with ACI or “John Carlson.”     Plaintiff demanded that ACI stop calling his cell phone.     Notwithstanding receipt of Plaintiff’s requests that the calls stop, ACI continued to  place calls to Plaintiff using an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice.     These unauthorized calls harmed Plaintiff because they caused him to suffer a  nuisance and an invasion of privacy. Further, the calls wasted Plaintiff’s time and money, as they  required him to take time out of his schedule to deal with them, they trespassed on his use of the  phone for which he was charged a monthly fee, they used up space on his voicemail, and they  depleted the battery on his cellular telephone.   B.  Common Allegations    ACI used equipment that has or had the capacity to store or produce telephone  numbers to be called, using random or sequential number generator and to dial such numbers, to  place calls and/or text messages to the cellular telephone number belonging to Plaintiff, and thus  constituted an “automatic telephone dialing system,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1).    ACI uses an ATDS and/or artificial or pre-recorded voice to contact large numbers  of persons in the process of debt collection     ACI does not use ATDS and/or artificial or pre-recorded voice for “emergency  purposes” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(I).     ACI regularly contacts people who have not consented to be called by ACI using  both prerecorded messages and an ATDS.     ACI’s ATDS and customer service representative have the capacity to identify  those individuals who have been wrongly contacted by ACI concerning an account which is  associated with a different individual. However, ACI does not disassociate a wrong number from a  customer in its ATDS database.     Thus, wrongly targeted cell phone subscribers, whose names or cell phone numbers  are associated with particular debtors of ACI may expect to receive calls even after they have  complained asked ACI to stop the wrong number calls.     There is no exception or justification of the numerous violations of the TCPA by   Plaintiff and the putative class members have a legally protected privacy interest  arising out of the TCPA to be free from unwanted calls and prerecorded messages to their cellular  phones.    That protected interest bars ACI from intruding upon the Plaintiff’s and the  putative class members’ privacy. Specifically, the TCPA bars ACI from calling these individuals  on their cellular phones using restricted technology, unless ACI first obtained express consent.     Plaintiff and each putative class members received calls placed to their cell phones  by ACI.     Such harm was proximately caused by ACI’s violation of the TCPA all as more  particularly set forth herein.    Accordingly, the acts and misconduct of ACI have caused the Plaintiff and each  putative class member to have suffered injury in fact.    It is ACI’s policy and practice to place, in the course of business, to place calls  using an ATDS and/or artificial or pre-recorded voice to individuals who have not consented to  such calls, including those whose cellular telephone numbers are not assigned to a debtor’s  account.     Therefore, Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all  other persons similarly situated as members of the proposed class, pursuant to Federal Rule of  Civil Procedure 23. This action satisfied the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy,  predominance, and superiority requirements of Rule 23.     The proposed ATDS Class consists of all persons in the United States excluding  the Court and its staff:  (a)  To whose cellular telephone ACI placed one or more nonemergency call  within four (4) years prior to the filing of this complaint;   (b)  To whom ACI used an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”);   (c)  Who did not provide their prior express consent for such calls; and   (d)  Who are not the actual account holders that ACI sought to contact in  relation to the call.    The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all claims would be  impracticable. While the exact number of class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, that  number exceeds 40 persons.     There are questions of law and fact common to the class, which predominate over  any questions affecting individual class members. The predominant common questions include:  (a)  Whether ACI used an ATDS, or an artificial or prerecorded voice within the  meaning of the TCPA and applicable FCC regulations, to place calls to the  class;  (b)  Whether the class members gave consent to be called by ACI, since they  were not party to any agreement with ACI;  (c)  The means used by ACI to identify class members as potential targets for  calls concerning ACI’s borrowers; and  (d)  Damages, including whether the violations were negligent, willful or  knowing.    Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the class. ACI’s  conduct has caused Plaintiff and members of the class to sustain the same or substantially similar  injuries and damages. ACI’s conduct has caused each member of the class to suffer a nuisance or  invasion of privacy, intrusion upon their seclusion and use of the cell phones for which they paid a  subscriber fee. ACI has acted in a uniform manner with respect to Plaintiff and the other class  members. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the interests of the other members of the class.    Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the class. Plaintiff is a member of the class and does not have any conflict of interest  with other class members. Plaintiff has retained and is represented by competent counsel who are  experienced in complex class action litigation and claims involving violations of the TCPA.   A.  ACI’s Calls to Plaintiff   