1.  a statement that the recipient is legally entitled to opt-out of receiving  future faxed advertisements – knowing that he or she has the legal right to request  an opt-out gives impetus for recipients to make such a request, if desired;   13.  On information and belief, between October, 2014 and January, 2015,  Defendants transmitted by telephone facsimile machine a facsimile to Plaintiff.  A copy of the  facsimile is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   14.  On information and belief, Defendants receive some or all of the revenues from  the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A.  On information and  belief, Defendants profit and benefit from the sale of the products, goods and services  advertised on Exhibit A.   15.  Plaintiff had not invited or given permission to Defendants to send the fax.    16.  On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited  facsimiles without the required opt-out language to Plaintiff and more than 25 other recipients  or sent the same and other advertisements by fax with the required opt-out language but  without first receiving the recipients’ express permission or invitation.    17.  There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other class member) to avoid  receiving unauthorized faxes. Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the urgent  communications their owners desire to receive.    19.  In accordance with F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this  class action pursuant to the JFPA, on behalf of the following class of persons:  All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of  this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of  material advertising the commercial availability of any property,  goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) which  Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation, or  (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice.  Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their employees, agents and members of the  Judiciary. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition upon completion of class  certification discovery.   2.  a statement that the sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within  30 days and the sender’s failure to do so is unlawful – thereby encouraging  recipients to opt-out, if they did not want future faxes, by advising them that their  opt-out requests will have legal “teeth”;   20.  Class Size (F. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)): Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon  such information and belief avers, that the number of persons and entities of the Plaintiff Class is  numerous and joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and  upon such information and belief avers, that the number of class members is at least forty.   22.  Typicality (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (3)):  The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the  claims of all class members. The Plaintiff received the same faxes as the faxes sent by or on  behalf of the Defendants advertising goods and services of the Defendants during the Class  Period. The Plaintiff is making the same claims and seeking the same relief for itself and all class  members based upon the same federal statute. The Defendants have acted in the same or in a  similar manner with respect to the Plaintiff and all the class members by sending Plaintiff and  each member of the class the same faxes.   24.  Need for Consistent Standards and Practical Effect of Adjudication (F. R. Civ. P.  23 (b) (1)):  Class certification is appropriate because the prosecution of individual actions by  class members would: (a) create the risk of inconsistent adjudications that could establish  incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) as a practical matter,  adjudication of the Plaintiff's claims will be dispositive of the interests of class members who are  not parties.   25.  Common Conduct (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2)):  Class certification is also appropriate  because the Defendants have acted and refused to act in the same or similar manner with respect  to all class members thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate. The Plaintiff  demands such relief as authorized by 47 U.S.C. §227.   27.  The JFPA makes it unlawful for any person to “use any telephone facsimile  machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited  advertisement . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).   29.  Opt-Out Notice Requirements. The JFPA strengthened the prohibitions against  the sending of unsolicited advertisements by requiring, in § (b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that senders  of faxed advertisements place a clear and conspicuous notice on the first page of the transmission  that contains the following among other things (hereinafter collectively the “Opt-Out Notice  Requirements”):   31.  The Fax. Defendants sent the between October, 2014 and January, 2015,  advertisement via facsimile transmission from telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other  devices to the telephone lines and facsimile machines of Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff  Class. The Fax constituted an advertisement under the Act. Defendants failed to comply with the  Opt-Out Requirements in connection with the Fax. The Fax was transmitted to persons or entities  without their prior express permission or invitation and/or Defendants are precluded from  asserting any prior express permission or invitation because of the failure to comply with the  Opt-Out Notice Requirements. By virtue thereof, Defendants violated the JFPA and the  regulations promulgated thereunder by sending the Fax via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff  and members of the Class.   33.  The TCPA/JFPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf  of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class to redress Defendants’ violations of the Act, and provides for  statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The Act also provides that injunctive relief is  appropriate. Id.   34.  The JFPA is a strict liability statute, so the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff  and the other class members even if their actions were only negligent.   36.  The Defendants’ actions caused damages to the Plaintiff and the other class  members. Receiving the Defendants’ junk faxes caused the recipients to lose paper and toner  consumed in the printing of the Defendants’ faxes. Moreover, the Defendants’ faxes used the  Plaintiff's and the other class members’ telephone lines and fax machine. The Defendants’ faxes  cost the Plaintiff and the other class members time, as the Plaintiff and the other class members  and their employees wasted their time receiving, reviewing and routing the Defendants’  unauthorized faxes. That time otherwise would have been spent on the Plaintiff's and the other  class members’ business activities. The Defendants’ faxes unlawfully interrupted the Plaintiff's  and other class members' privacy interests in being left alone. Finally, the injury and property  damage sustained by Plaintiff and the other class members from the sending of Defendants’  advertisements occurred outside of Defendants’ premises.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JWD AUTOMOTIVE, INC. d/b/a NAPA AUTO CARE OF  CAPE CORAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, demands judgment  in its favor and against Defendants, DJM ADVISORY GROUP LLC, BANNER LIFE 