26.  On or about January 23, 2019, Defendant sent or caused to be sent to  the following text message to the 7119 Number:   27.  As is apparent, the text message above advertises the commercial  availability of Defendant’s property, goods, and services and encourages the future  purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff jewelry.        29.  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.     30.  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.     31.  Upon information and belief, Defendant sent the same message it sent  to Plaintiff on January 23, 2019 to at least 100 other cell phone numbers.    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 source of each of the unsolicited SMS text messages sent by  Defendant to the 7119 Number was 553935, 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 campaign, including the sending of SMS text  messages telemarketing and advertising various of Defendant’s goods and services.   34.  The source of each of the unsolicited SMS text messages sent by  Defendant, i.e., short code telephone number 553935, is a short code telephone  number that is registered with Telcordia Technologies, Inc. (“Telcordia”) as having  been assigned to Kay Jewelers.    36.  In addition, Telcordia’s records confirm that “Kay Jewelers is using their  non-vanity short code 553935, to send retail SMS coupons and promotions.”    37.  Telcordia’s records also state that “[w]hile Kay Jewelers will not disclose  how large their retail SMS campaign has become, it’s very common for retailers to  exceed over 1 million … subscribers.”    38.  All telephone contact by Defendant and/or affiliates, subsidiaries, or  agents of Defendant to Plaintiff at the 7119 Number occurred via an ATDS  (“automated telephone dialing system”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) because  the unsolicited telemarketing SMS text messages were sent from 553935, which is a  short code telephone number used to message consumers en masse, and because the  hardware and software used by Defendant to send such messages have the capacity  to store, produce, and dial either random or sequential numbers, and to dial such  numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention. Further,  the complained of SMS text messages were written in a generic and impersonal  manner, thus demonstrating that the text messages were sent to numerous other  consumers.    39.  The complained of SMS text message sent to the 7119 Number did not  constitute a call made for an emergency purpose as defined by 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(i).    41.  Plaintiff has no reason to believe, that absent a Court Order, that  Defendant would voluntarily stop violating the TCPA.  42.  Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of herself  individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  The “Class” Plaintiff seeks to represent is  comprised of and defined as:   All persons who received an SMS text message, sent by or  on behalf of Defendant or an agent of Defendant from a  short code telephone number, including the short code  telephone number 553935.   43.   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.”    44.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the definition of the Class (or add  one or more subclasses) after further discovery.    46.  Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages on behalf of  herself and the Class.   47.  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.    48.  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.    49.  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.    51.  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.    52.  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.    55.  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.    56.  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.    58.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-57 as if fully stated herein.    59.  The foregoing acts and omissions constitute violations of the TCPA,  including but not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227.    60.  Because of the Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, Plaintiff and  all Class Members are entitled to, and seek, injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct  violating the TCPA in the future.    61.  Plaintiff and all Class Members are also entitled to, and seek, an award  of $500.00 in statutory damages for each SMS message transmitted in violation of  the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).    62.  Plaintiff and Class Members also seek an award of attorneys’ fees and  costs.  63.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1–57 as if fully stated herein.    64.  The foregoing acts and omissions constitute knowing and/or willful  violations of the TCPA, including but not limited   to  each  of  the  above-cited  provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227.    66.  Plaintiff and all Class Members are also entitled to, and seek, treble  damages of up to $1,500.00 for each SMS message transmitted in violation of the  TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).    67.  Plaintiff and Class Members also seek an award of attorneys’ fees and  costs.   68.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1–57 as if fully stated herein.    69.  The foregoing acts constitute a temporary electronic intrusion, by  Defendant, onto Plaintiff’s cellular phone and interfered with her ability to use it by  temporarily occupying the telephone line.    70.  The foregoing acts also caused Defendant to take up storage space on  Plaintiff’s cellular phone and drew down on its battery reserves.   71.  Defendant did not have consent to interfere with Plaintiff’s use or  enjoyment of her cell phone.    72.  Defendant’s interference with Plaintiff’s cell phone was not justified.    73.  Plaintiff has been harmed as a result of Defendant’s actions.    74.  The foregoing acts constitute a trespass to chattels by Defendant.    76.  Because of Defendant’s conduct, which is continuing or poses the threat  of continuation in the future, Plaintiff and all Class Members are entitled to, and  seek, injunctive relief prohibiting such future conduct.   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATION   OF THE TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Against Defendant)   TRESPASS TO CHATTELS  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Against Defendant)   VIOLATION OF THE TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Against Defendant)  