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;   11.  On information and belief, on or about August 19, 2015, Defendants transmitted  by telephone facsimile machine an unsolicited facsimile to Plaintiff.  A copy of the facsimile is  attached hereto as Exhibit A.   12.  On information and belief, Defendant receives some or all of the revenues from  the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A, and Defendant profits and  benefits from the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A.   14.  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 invitation or permission.    15.  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.    16.  Defendants’ facsimiles attached as Exhibit A did not display a proper opt-out  notice as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.  17.  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 or quality of any property,  goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) from  whom Defendants did not have prior express invitation or  permission, 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 seeks to certify a class which include but are not limited to the fax  advertisements sent to Plaintiff. 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.  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 or similar faxes as the faxes sent by  or on behalf of the Defendants advertising products, 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 or similar faxes or faxes which did not contain  the proper opt-out language or were sent without prior express invitation or permission.   21.  Fair and Adequate Representation (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4)):  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.   22.  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.  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).   26.  The JFPA defines “unsolicited advertisement” as “any material advertising the  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).   29.  The Fax. Defendants sent the on or about August 19, 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 invitation or permission and/or Defendants are precluded from asserting any  prior express invitation or permission or that Defendants had an established business relationship  with Plaintiff and other members of the class, 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.  Plaintiff seeks to certify a class which includes this fax and all others sent during  the four years prior to the filing of this case through the present.   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 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;   31.  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.   32.  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.   33.  The Defendants knew or should have known that (a) the Plaintiff and the other  class members had not given express invitation or permission for the Defendants or anybody else  to fax advertisements about the Defendants’ products, goods or services; (b) the Plaintiff and the  other class members did not have an established business relationship; (c) Defendants  transmitted advertisements;  (d) the Faxes did not contain the required Opt-Out Notice; and (e)  Defendants’ transmission of advertisements that did not contain the required opt-out notice or  were sent without prior express invitation or permission was unlawful.  