16.  The COBRA amendments to ERISA included certain provisions relating to  continuation of health coverage upon termination of employment or another “qualifying  event” as defined by the statute.   17.  Among other things, COBRA requires the plan sponsor of each group health  plan normally employing more than 20 employees on a typical business day during the  preceding year to provide “each qualified beneficiary who would lose coverage under the  plan as a result of a qualifying event … to elect, within the election period, continuation  coverage under the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1161. (Emphasis added).   18.  Notice is of enormous importance. The COBRA notification requirement  exists because employees are not expected to know instinctively of their right to continue  their healthcare coverage.   19.  Moreover, existing case law makes it ostensibly clear that notice is not only  required to be delivered to covered employees but to qualifying beneficiaries, as well.   20.  COBRA further requires the administrator of such a group health plan to  provide notice to any qualified beneficiary of their continuation of coverage rights under  COBRA upon the occurrence of a qualifying event. 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a)(4). This notice  must be “[i]n accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary” of Labor. 29  U.S.C. § 1166(a).   22.  To facilitate compliance with these notice obligations, the United States  Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued a Model COBRA Continuation Coverage  Election Notice (“Model Notice”), which is included in the Appendix to 29 C.F.R. §  2590.606-4. It is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The DOL website states that the DOL  “will consider use of the model election notice, appropriately completed, good faith  compliance with the election notice content requirements of COBRA.”   23.  In the event that a plan administrator declines to use the Model Notice  and fails to meet the notice requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1166 and 29 C.F.R. §  2590.606-4, the administrator is subject to statutory penalties of up to $110 per  participant or beneficiary per day from the date of such failure. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1).  In addition, the Court may order such other relief as it deems proper, including but not  limited to injunctive relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) and payment of  attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). Such is the case here.  Defendant failed to use the Model Notice and failed to meet the notice requirements of  29 U.S.C. § 1166 and 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4, as set forth below.  Defendant’s Notice Is Inadequate and Fails to Comply with COBRA   26.  As a result, Plaintiff could not make an informed decision about his  health insurance and lost health coverage.  Plaintiff’s First Concrete Injury: Informational Injury   27.  Furthermore, Defendant’s deficient COBRA notice caused Plaintiff an  informational injury when Defendant failed to provide him with information to which  he was entitled to by statute, namely a compliant COBRA election notice containing  all information required by 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4) and 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a).  Through ERISA and then COBRA, Congress created a right—the right to receive the  required COBRA election notice—and an injury—not receiving a proper election  notice with information required by 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4) and 29 U.S.C. §  1166(a). Defendant injured Plaintiff and the class members he seeks to represent by  failing to provide all information in its notice required by COBRA.  Plaintiff’s Second Concrete Injury: Loss of Insurance Coverage   29.  Plaintiff Dau Pham is former employee of Defendant and was a  participant in Defendant’s health plan.   30.  Plaintiff’s employment was terminated on September 20, 2017.  Importantly, he was not terminated for gross misconduct.   31.  Following this qualifying event, Defendant mailed Plaintiff the deficient  COBRA enrollment notice.    32.  Defendant cannot cure its first form’s deficiencies with a “follow up” form.  Contrary to Defendant’s multi-form system, the applicable regulation mandates use of a  single “notice” rather than the dual “notices” Defendant uses. See 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606- 4(b)(4)(1) (“The administrator shall furnish to each qualified beneficiary, not later than 14  days after receipt of the notice of qualifying event, a notice meeting the requirements of  paragraph (b)(4) of this section.) (Emphasis added).   33.  The deficient COBRA notice that Plaintiff received was violative of  COBRA’s mandates for the reasons set forth above.   34.  Defendant has in place no administrative remedies Plaintiff were required  to exhaust prior to bringing suit.   35.  Additionally, because no such administrative remedies exist, any attempt to  exhaust the same would have been futile.  41.  No administrative remedies exist as a prerequisite to Plaintiff’s claims on  behalf of the Putative Class. As such, any efforts related to exhausting such non-existent  remedies would be futile.   42.  Numerosity: The Class is so numerous that joinder of all Class members is  impracticable. On information and belief thousands of individuals satisfy the definition  of the Class.   43.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The COBRA notice  that Defendant sent to Plaintiff was a form notice that was uniformly provided to all Class  members. As such, the COBRA notice that Plaintiff received were typical of the COBRA  notices that other Class Members received and suffered from the same deficiencies.   44.  Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of  the Class members, he has no interests antagonistic to the class, and has retained counsel  experienced in complex class action litigation.   45.  Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members  of the Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the  Class, including but not limited to:  a. Whether the Plan is a group health plan within the meaning of 29 