12.  In January of 2018, Defendant transmitted by telephone facsimile  machine two unsolicited faxes to Plaintiff. (See Ex. A.)   13.  On January 15, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Plaintiff received an unsolicited fax  from Defendant.    14.  On January 30, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Plaintiff received another unsolicited  fax from Defendant.   15.  True and accurate copies of the January 15, 2018 facsimile and the  January 30, 2018 facsimile are attached hereto as Exhibit A.    16.  Dental City profited from and received the benefits of marketing of its  products and is a responsible party under the JFPA.   17.  Defendant created or made Exhibit A, which Defendant knew or should  have known advertises Defendant’s goods or products (namely, its dental equipment  and products) that Defendant intended to and did in fact distribute to Plaintiff and the  other members of the Classes.   18.  Exhibit A is part of Defendant’s work or operations to market  Defendant’s goods or services, which are performed by Defendant and/or on behalf  of Defendant. Therefore, Exhibit A constitutes material furnished in connection with  Defendant’s work or operations.   19.  Plaintiff has never invited or given permission to Defendant to send the  faxes, nor did Plaintiff have any prior relationship with Defendant at the time the  faxes were sent (or at any other time).   24.  In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings  this class action for claims under the JFPA, on behalf of the following two classes:  Junk Fax Class: All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the  filing of this action through the date on which notice is sent to the Class,  (2) were sent, by Defendant or on Defendant’s behalf, (3) a telephone  facsimile message substantially similar to Exhibit A, (4) 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 permission to fax the Plaintiff.  No Opt-Out Notice Class: All persons who (1) on or after four years  prior to the filing of this action through the date on which notice is sent  to the Class, (2) were sent, by Defendant or on Defendant’s behalf, (3)  a telephone facsimile message substantially similar to Exhibit A, (4)  which did not display an opt-out notice.   33.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully  set forth herein.   34.  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).   35.  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).   46.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully  set forth herein.   6.  This case challenges Defendant’s practice of sending unsolicited fax  advertisements.   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Junk Fax Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the No Opt-Out Notice Class)  