14.  Defendants sent advertisements by facsimile to Plaintiff and  a class of similarly-situated persons. Whether Defendants did so  directly or with the assistance of a third party (yet unknown to  Plaintiffs), Defendants are directly liable for violating the TCPA.   15.  Plaintiff  has  received  at  least  one  of  Defendants’  advertisements by facsimile. A true and correct copy of the fax Plaintiff  received on February 26, 2013 is attached as Exhibit A.    17.  Exhibit A is a one-page document Defendants sent by fax  advertising Defendants’ continuing education vacation packages.    18.  Exhibit A states “St. John’s University & Getaway Seminars  Inc. Present Continuing Education Vacation Seminars.” Exhibit A.    19.  Exhibit A informs recipients that the continuing education  programs have flexible schedules and that participants need not attend  all three days. Exhibit A.    20.  Exhibit A advertises the quality of each vacation destination,  describing vacation destinations as having the “best pool”, being the  “place to be”, “perfect for romance or family fun”, and “a perfect way to  end the year.” Exhibit A.    21.  Exhibit A contains a telephone number and website to  register for Defendants’ vacation packages. Exhibit A.   23.  The Contact Us page of the website listed on Defendants’ fax  advertisement includes the address, telephone number, and email  address for St. John’s University College of Pharmacy and Health  Sciences. Exhibit B.   24.  Exhibit A does not include the mandatory opt-out notice  required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4).   25.  Plaintiff did not expressly invite or give permission to  anyone to send Exhibit A or any other advertisement from Defendants  to Plaintiff’s fax machine.   26.  On information and belief, Defendants sent advertisements  by facsimile to Plaintiff and more than 39 other persons in violation of  the TCPA.    27.  Plaintiff and the other class members owe no obligation to  protect their fax machines from Defendants. Their fax machines are  ready to send and receive their urgent communications, or private  communications about patients’ medical needs, not to receive  Defendants’ unlawful advertisements.   29.  Excluded from the class are Defendants, any entity in which  either Defendant has a controlling interest, each of Defendants’ officers,  directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, and any  Judge assigned to this action, including his or her immediate family.   3.    Private right of action.  A person may,  if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of  court of a state, bring in an appropriate court of  that state:  (A)  An action based on a violation of  this subsection or the regulations prescribed  under this subsection to enjoin such  violation,  (B)  An action to recover for actual  monetary loss from such a violation, or to  receive $500 in damages for each such  violation, whichever is greater, or  (C)  Both such actions.  47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).   30.  On information and belief, Defendants’ fax advertising  campaigns involved other, substantially-similar advertisements also  sent without the opt-out notice required by the TCPA. Plaintiff intends  to locate those advertisements in discovery.   32.  Numerosity/impracticality of joinder. On information and  belief, the class consists of more than 39 persons and, thus, is so  numerous that individual joinder of each member is impracticable. The  precise number of class members and their identities are unknown to  Plaintiffs, but will be obtained from Defendants’ records or the records  of third parties.   34.  Typicality of claims. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the  claims of the other class members, because Plaintiff and all class  members were injured by the same wrongful practices. Plaintiff and the  members of the class received Defendants’ advertisements by facsimile  and those advertisements did not contain the opt-out notice required by  the TCPA. Under the facts of this case, because the focus is upon  Defendants’ conduct, if Plaintiff prevails on its claims, then the other  putative class members will prevail as well.   35.  Adequacy of representation. Plaintiff is an adequate  representative of the class because its interests do not conflict with the  interests of the class it seeks to represent. Plaintiff has retained counsel  competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and TCPA  litigation in particular, and Plaintiff intends to vigorously prosecute  this action. Plaintiff and its counsel will fairly and adequately protect  the interest of members of the class.   38.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.   39.  Plaintiff brings Count I on behalf of itself and a class of  similarly situated persons against Defendants.   40.  The TCPA prohibits the “use of any telephone facsimile  machine, computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement  to a telephone facsimile machine….” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (1).   41.  The TCPA 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 express invitation or permission.”  47 U.S.C. § 227 (a) (4).   42.  Exhibit A advertises Defendants’ continuing education  vacation packages. Exhibit A.   43.  Defendants sent Exhibit A to Plaintiff and the fax machines  of other health professionals to promote their vacation packages.   45.  The Court, in its discretion, may treble the statutory  damages if it determines that a violation was knowing or willful.  47  U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).   46.  Here, Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (1) (C) by  sending advertisements by facsimile (such as Exhibit A) to Plaintiff and  the other class members without their prior express invitation or  permission.   50.  Here, Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (1) (C) by  sending an advertisement by facsimile (such as Exhibit A) to Plaintiff  and the other class members without their prior express invitation or  permission.   51.  Furthermore, Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D)  and (E) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii) & (v) by failing to include a  compliant opt-out notice. Exhibit A.   52.  In violation of the TCPA, Defendants’ fax does not inform  recipients that Defendants’ failure to comply with an opt-out request  within 30 days is unlawful.   54.  Contrary to the TCPA, the Defendants’ faxes fail to provide  recipients two methods for opting out, instead providing only a  telephone number. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) (iv) (I). Furthermore, it is  unclear whether Defendants’ telephone number is available twenty-four  hours a day, seven days a week as required.    56.  Defendants’ failure to include a compliant opt-out notice on  their fax advertisements makes irrelevant any express consent or  established business relationship (“EBR”) that otherwise might have  justified Defendants’ fax advertising campaigns. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a)  (4).   57.  The TCPA is a strict liability statute and Defendants are  liable to Plaintiff and the other class members even if Defendants’  actions were negligent. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).    58.  If Defendants’ actions were knowing or willful, then the  Court has the discretion to increase the statutory damages up to three  times the amount. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).   60.  St. John’s is liable for the fax advertisements at issue  because it approved the faxes to be sent, participated in the activity  giving rise to or constituting the violation, the faxes were sent on its  behalf, or under general principles of vicarious liability, including  actual authority, apparent authority and ratification.   61.  Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and  the other class members had not given express invitation or permission  for Defendants or anybody else to fax advertisements about Defendants’  goods, products, or services, that Plaintiff and the other class members  did not have an established business relationship with Defendants, that  Exhibit A is an advertisement, and that Exhibit A did not display a  compliant opt-out notice as required by the TCPA.   63.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs  as though fully set forth herein.   64.1200 (a) (4) (iii).   64.  Plaintiff brings Count II on behalf of itself and a class of  similarly situated persons and against Defendants.   65.  By  sending  advertisements  to  their  fax  machines,  Defendants improperly and unlawfully converted the class’s fax  machines to Defendants’ own use. Where printed (as in Plaintiff’s case),  Defendants also improperly and unlawfully converted the class  members’ paper and toner to Defendants’ own use. Defendants also  converted Plaintiff’s time to Defendants’ own use, as Defendants did  with the valuable time of the other class members.    66.  Immediately prior to the sending of the unsolicited faxes,  Plaintiff and the other class members each owned an unqualified and  immediate right to possession of their fax machines, paper, toner, and  employee time.   68.  Defendants knew or should have known that their  misappropriation of paper, toner, and employee time was wrongful and  without authorization.   69.  Plaintiff and the other class members were deprived of the  use of the fax machines, paper, toner, and employee time, which could  no longer be used for any other purpose. Plaintiff and each class  member thereby suffered damages as a result of their receipt of  unsolicited fax advertisements from Defendants.   CONVERSION   TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227  