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;   10.  On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff brings this case as a  class action asserting claims against Defendant under the JFPA.   11.  Defendant’s facsimile transmissions were and are being done in the same or  similar manner. That is, Defendant used the same equipment to send a facsimile to Plaintiff as it  used to send facsimiles to everyone else. As such, this action is based on the same legal theory,  namely liability under the JFPA stemming from the same faxes being sent from the same  equipment. This action seeks relief expressly authorized by the JFPA: (i) injunctive relief  enjoining Defendant, its employees, agents, representatives, contractors, affiliates, and all  persons and entities acting in concert with them, from sending unsolicited advertisements in  violation of the JFPA; and (ii) an award of statutory damages in the minimum amount of $500  for each violation of the JFPA, and to have such damages trebled, as provided by § 227(b)(3) of  the Act.  12.  On or about April 18, 2018, Defendant caused an unsolicited facsimile to be  transmitted by telephone facsimile machine to Plaintiff.     13.  A copy of the August 18, 2016 facsimile is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   14.  CIR profited by and received the benefits of marketing of its products and is a  responsible party under the JFPA.    15.  Defendant created or caused to be made the faxes contained in Exhibit A, which  Defendant knew or should have known advertise Defendant’s goods or products (namely its  roofing services) that Defendant intended to and did in fact distribute Exhibit A to Plaintiff and  the other members of the Class. Further, Defendant profited from and received the benefits of  5  marketing its products and services by fax and is a responsible party under the JFPA.   16.  The fax contained in Exhibit A is part of Defendant’s work or operations to  market Defendant’s goods or services that are performed by Defendant and/or on behalf of  Defendant. Therefore, Exhibit A constitutes material furnished in connection with Defendant’s  work or operations.   17.  Plaintiff has never consented or invited or given permission to Defendant to send  the faxes and had no prior relationship with Defendant.   18.  On information and belief, Defendant faxed the same or substantially similar  unsolicited facsimile to Plaintiff and more than 40 other recipients without first receiving the  recipients’ express permission or invitation.   19.  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 actually desire and consent to receive.   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.  Further, Defendant’s facsimile did not display an opt-out notice as required by 47  C.F.R. 64.1200. Among other things, it did not provide a cost-free mechanism for recipients to  opt-out.  21.  In accordance with Fed. 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 classes of persons:  No Consent Class: All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of  this action, (2) were sent, by Defendant or on Defendant’s behalf an unsolicited  telephone facsimile message substantially similar to Exhibit A, (3) from whom  Defendant claims it obtained prior express permission or invitation to send those  faxes in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to  fax the Plaintiff.  6   22.  The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents  have a controlling interest and its 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 class; (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 definition following appropriate  discovery.   23.  Numerosity: 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 in the hundreds and potentially  in the thousands.   24.  Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact apply to  the claims of all class members that are central to each class members’ claim. Common material  questions of fact and law include, but are not limited to:  (a)  Whether the Defendant sent an unsolicited fax advertisement;   (b)  Whether the Defendant’s fax advertised the commercial availability of  property, goods, or services;  (c)  Whether Defendant obtained prior express consent from the recipients to  send the faxes;  7  (d)  Whether the Defendant faxed advertisements without first obtaining the  recipient’s prior permission or invitation;  (e)  Whether the Defendant sent the faxed advertisements knowingly;  (f)  Whether the Defendant violated the provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  and the regulations promulgated thereunder;  (g)  Whether the Faxes contained an “opt-out notice” that complies with the  requirements of § 227(b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and  the effect of the failure to comply with such requirements;  (h)  Whether the Defendant should be enjoined from faxing advertisements in  the future;  (i)  Whether the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are entitled to  statutory damages; and  (j)  Whether the Court should award treble damages.   25.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of all class members. The  Plaintiff received the Fax sent by or on behalf of the Defendant advertising goods and services of  the Defendant 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 Defendant  has acted the same or in a similar manner with respect to the Plaintiff and all the class members.   26.  Adequate Representation: The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the class. It is interested in this matter, has no conflicts and has retained  experienced class counsel to represent the class. Plaintiff is committed to keeping itself apprised  of the litigation and to representing the Class Members’ interests.   8   27.  Conduct Similar to the Class as a Whole: Class certification is appropriate  because the Defendant has 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(b)(3), et seq.   28.  Superiority and Manageability: Common questions of law and fact predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy because:  (a)  Proof of the claims of the Plaintiff will also prove the claims of the class  without the need for separate or individualized proceedings;  (b)  Evidence regarding defenses or any exceptions to liability that the  Defendant may assert and prove will come from the Defendant’s records and will not require  individualized or separate inquiries or proceedings;  (c)  The Defendant has acted and is continuing to act pursuant to common  policies or practices in the same or similar manner with respect to all class members;  (d)  The amount likely to be recovered by individual class members does not  support individual litigation. A class action will permit a large number of relatively small claims  involving virtually identical facts and legal issues to be resolved efficiently in one (1) proceeding  based upon common proofs. The common questions cut to the heart of the case and predominate  over any supposed individualized issues; and  9  (e)  This case is manageable and superior to maintain as a class action in that:   i.  The Defendant identified persons or entities to receive the fax  transmission and it is believed that the Defendant’s computer and business records will enable the  Plaintiff to readily identify class members and establish liability and damages;  ii.  Liability and damages can be established for the Plaintiff and the  classes with the same common proofs;  iii.  Statutory damages are provided for in the statute and are the same  for all class members and can be calculated in the same or a similar manner;  iv.  A class action will result in an orderly and expeditious  administration of claims and it will foster economics of time, effort and expense;  v.  A class action will contribute to uniformity of decisions concerning  the Defendant’s practices; and  vi.  As a practical matter, the claims of the class are likely to go  unaddressed absent class certification.  29.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   3.  a statement advising the recipient that he or she may opt-out  with respect to all of his or her facsimile telephone numbers and not just the  11  ones that receive a faxed advertisement from the sender – thereby  instructing a recipient on how to make a valid opt-out request for all of his  or her fax machines;   The requirement of (1) above is incorporated from § 227(b)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act. The  requirement of (2) above is incorporated from § 227(b)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act and the rules and  regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) in ¶ 31 of its 2006 Report and  Order (In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection  Act, Junk Prevention Act of 2005, 21 F.C.C.R. 3787, 2006 WL 901720, which rules and  regulations took effect on August 1, 2006). The requirements of (3) above are contained in §  227(b)(2)(E) of the Act and incorporated into the Opt-Out Notice Requirements via §  227(b)(2)(D)(ii). Compliance with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements is neither difficult nor  costly. The Opt-Out Notice Requirements are important consumer protections bestowed by  Congress upon the owners of fax machines giving them the right, and means, to stop unwanted  faxed advertisements. As a result of such requirements, a sender of a faxed advertisement who  fails to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements has, by definition, transmitted an  unsolicited advertisement under the JFPA. This is because such a sender can neither claim that  the recipients of the faxes advertisement gave “prior express permission or invitation” to receive  the Faxes nor can the sender claim the exemption from liability contained in § 227(b)(1)(C) of  the Act.    30.  The JFPA makes 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).   31.  The JFPA defines “unsolicited advertisement” as “any material advertising the  10  commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any  person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.” 47  U.S.C. § 227(a)(5).   32.  The faxes sent by Defendant advertised roofing services by Defendant, were  commercial in nature, and are advertisements under the TCPA.   33.  Plaintiff and the other class members never gave prior express consent, invitation  or permission to receive the faxes.   34.  Opt-Out Notice Requirements: The JFPA strengthened the prohibitions against the  sending of unsolicited advertisements by requiring, in § 227(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”).   35.  The Faxes. Defendant sent the April 18, 2018 fax via facsimile transmission from   telephone facsimile machines, computer, or other device to the telephone facsimile machines of  Plaintiff and members of the No Consent Class. The Fax constituted an advertisement under the  12  Act. The Faxes were transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express permission or  invitation and/or Defendant is precluded from asserting any prior express permission or  invitation because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements as explained  below. Defendant violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder by sending the  Faxes via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff and members of the No Consent Class.   36.  Defendant’s Other Violations of the TCPA. Plaintiff is informed and believes,  and upon such information and belief avers, that during the period preceding four years of the  filing of this Complaint and repeatedly thereafter, Defendant has sent via facsimile transmission  from telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to telephone facsimile machines  of members of the No Consent Class faxes that constitute advertisements under the JFPA that  were transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express permission or invitation  (and/or that Defendant is precluded from asserting any prior express permission or invitation  because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements in connection with such  transmissions). Defendant violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief avers, that Defendant is  continuing to send unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the JFPA  and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and absent intervention by this Court, will do so in  the future.   37.  The JFPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf of  Plaintiff and the No Consent Class to redress Defendant’s 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.  13   38.  The Defendant knew or should have known that (a) the Plaintiff and the other  members of the No Consent Class had not given express invitation or permission for the  Defendant or anybody else to fax advertisements about the Defendant’s goods or services; (b) the  faxes constituted an advertisement; and (c) the Fax did not apprise recipients of their legal right  to opt-out.   39.  The Defendant’s actions caused damages to the Plaintiff and the other class  members. Receiving the Defendant’s junk faxes caused the recipients to lose paper and toner  consumed in the printing of the Defendant’s faxes. Moreover, the Defendant’s faxes used the  Plaintiff's fax machine. The Defendant’s faxes cost the Plaintiff time, as the Plaintiff and its  employees wasted their time receiving, reviewing, and routing the Defendant’s unauthorized  faxes. That time otherwise would have been spent on the Plaintiff's business activities. The  Defendant’s faxes unlawfully invaded the Plaintiff’s and other No Consent Class members’  privacy interests in being left alone. Finally, the injury and property damage sustained by  Plaintiff and the other members of the No Consent Class from the sending of Defendant’s  advertisements occurred outside of Defendant’s premises.   40.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the No  Consent Class are each entitled to, under section 227(b)(3)(B), a minimum of $500.00 in  damages for each violation of such act.   41.  Furthermore, in the event the Court finds that Defendant’s conduct was willful  and knowing, the Court should, under section 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory  damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the No Consent Class.  14  6.  This case challenges Defendant’s practice of sending unsolicited fax  advertisements.   7.  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax  Prevention Act of 2005, 47 USC § 227, et seq. (“JFPA” or the “Act”), and the regulations  promulgated under the Act, prohibits a person or entity from faxing or having an agent fax  advertisements without the recipient’s prior express consent, invitation, and permission. The  JFPA provides a private right of action and provides statutory damages of $500 per violation.    8.  Defendant sent a facsimile transmission of an unsolicited advertisement to  Plaintiff and the Classes in violation of the JFPA, on April 18, 2018. (See “CIR Fax” a true and  accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The CIR Fax promotes the services and  goods of Defendant, specifically its roofing services. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon  such information and belief avers, that Defendant has sent, and continues to send, unsolicited  advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the JFPA to other persons as well.   9.  Unsolicited faxes cause harm to their recipients. A junk fax recipient loses the use  of its fax machine, paper, and ink toner. An unsolicited fax wastes the recipient’s time that would  have been spent on something else. A junk fax also interferes with, invades, and intrudes upon  the recipient’s privacy. Unsolicited faxes prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes,  prevent their use for authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the recipients’ fax  machines, and require additional labor to attempt to discern the source and purpose of the  unsolicited message.  4   Claim for Relief for Violation of the JFPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent Class)  