29.  As is apparent on the face of the text messages, the messages advertise the  commercial availability of Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services and encourage the future  purchase or investment in property, goods, and/or services.    30.  Plaintiff received the subject text in Miami-Dade County, which is within this  judicial district and, therefore, Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.    31.  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused other text messages identical to the  one above to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district and throughout the United  States.    32.  The Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 7119 Number and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 7119 Number.    33.  The 7119 Number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since December  15, 2004.     34.  The 7119 Number begins with area code 305.  Thus, Defendant knew or should  have known that it was transmitting a text message to an individual located in Florida prior to  transmitting the message.   35.  The source of each of the unsolicited SMS text messages sent by Defendant to the  7119 Number was 774-53, which is an SMS short code owned or leased by or on behalf of  Defendant or Defendant’s agent(s) or affiliate(s), and is used for operating Defendant’s text  message campaigns, including the sending of SMS text messages telemarketing and advertising  various of Defendant’s goods and services.    37.  To send the text messages, Defendant used a messaging platform (the “Platform”)  that permitted Defendant to transmit thousands of automated text messages without any human  involvement.     38.  The Platform has the capacity to store telephone numbers.   39.  The Platform has the capacity to generate sequential numbers.   40.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers in sequential order.     41.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers from a list of numbers.   42.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.     43.  The Platform has the capacity to schedule the time and date for future transmission  of text messages, which occurs without any human involvement.   45.  The above execution of Defendant’s instructions occurred seamlessly, with no  human intervention, and almost instantaneously.  Indeed, the Platform is capable of transmitting  thousands of text messages following the above steps in minutes, if not less.     46.  The following graphic summarizes the above steps and demonstrates that the  dialing of the text messages at issue was done by the Platform automatically and without any  human intervention:    48.  Defendant’s text messages took up memory space on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone,  with each message taking up approximately 190 bytes.  The cumulative effect of unsolicited text  messages like Defendant’s poses a real risk of ultimately rendering the phone unusable for text  messaging purposes as a result of the phone’s memory being taken up.   49.  Defendant’s text messages also caused the depletion of Plaintiff’s cellular  telephone battery. The battery used to power Plaintiff’s cellular telephone can only be recharged a  limited number of times before the battery’s voltage begins to decrease, causing the cellular phone  to turn off completely, without warning, if the battery drops below the minimum voltage needed  to safely power Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.   50.  Plaintiff has no reason to believe, that absent a Court order, that Defendant would  voluntarily stop violating the TCPA.   52.  Excluded from the Class is Defendant, any entity in which the Defendant has a  controlling interest, or which has a controlling interest in the Defendant, and any of Defendant’s  legal representatives, assigns or successors. Also excluded is any judge presiding over this case  and any member of any such judge’s immediate family. Members of the Class are referred to as  “Class Members.”    53.  Plaintiff and all Class Members have been impacted and harmed by the acts of  Defendant and/or its agents, affiliates or subsidiaries.    54.  Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages on behalf of herself and the  Class.    55.  This action may properly be brought and maintained as a class action pursuant to  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). This class action satisfies the numerosity, typicality, adequacy,  commonality, predominance and superiority requirements.    56.  Upon application by Plaintiff’s counsel for certification of the Class, the Court may  also be requested to utilize and certify subclasses in the interests of manageability, justice, and/or  judicial economy.    57.  Numerosity. The number of persons within the Class is substantial, believed to  amount to thousands of persons dispersed throughout the United States. It is therefore  impracticable to join each member of the Class as a named plaintiff. Further, the size and relatively  modest value of the claims of the individual members of the Class renders joinder impracticable.  Accordingly, utilization of the class action mechanism is the most economically feasible means of  determining and adjudicating the merits of this litigation.    59.  Adequacy. As Class representative, Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to, or  conflict with, the interests of the absent Class Members and is able to fairly and adequately  represent and protect the interests of the Class Members. Plaintiff has raised viable claims of the  type reasonably expected to be raised by the Class Members and will vigorously pursue those  claims. If necessary, Plaintiff may seek leave to amend this Complaint to add additional  representatives of the Class or assert additional claims.    60.  Competency of Class Counsel. Plaintiff has retained and is represented by  experienced, qualified and competent counsel committed to prosecuting this action. These lawyers  are experienced in handling complex class action claims, including class actions alleging violations  of the TCPA, and have previously been appointed as class counsel in such cases.    63.  Additionally, the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members may  create a risk of multiple adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be  dispositive of the interests of other members of the Class who are not parties to such adjudications,  thereby substantially impairing or impeding the ability of such nonparty Class Members to protect  their interests. The prosecution of individual actions by Class Members could further establish  inconsistent results and/or establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.    64.  Defendant and/or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or agents have acted on grounds  generally applicable to the Class, thereby making final injunctive relief and corresponding  declaratory relief with respect to the Class appropriate.    65.  Moreover, on information and belief, the TCPA violations complained of herein  are substantially likely to continue in the future if an injunction is not entered.   66.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    68.  The TCPA defines an “automatic telephone dialing system” (hereinafter “ATDS”)  as “equipment which has the capacity – (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called,  using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.”  Id. at § 227(a)(1).   69.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment having the  capacity to store telephone numbers, using a random or sequential generator, and to dial such  numbers and/or to dial numbers from a list automatically, without human intervention, to make  non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the  Class.    70.  These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained  express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior  express written consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative  Class when its calls were made.    71.  Defendant violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an automatic  telephone dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of Plaintiff  and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express consent.    72.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an  injunction against future calls.    74.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.    75.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o  person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber  who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who  do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”    76.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that § 64.1200(c) and (d) “are applicable to any  person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone  numbers.”   77.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any  call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity  has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing  calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity.”    78.  Any “person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month  period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this  subsection may” may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were  promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone  solicitations to which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c).    80.  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class received more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf  of Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of Defendant’s  conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class suffered actual damages  and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled, inter alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for  such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.   81.  To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, the  Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.  Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent Class)   Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class)  