28.  Plaintiff still has and had, at all relevant times to this action, telephone  facsimile service at (714) 333-1840 at its place of business at 2240 N. Harbor Blvd.,  Suite 110, Fullerton, CA 92835.  Plaintiff receives facsimile transmissions (“faxes”) at  this number, using a telephone facsimile machine (“fax machine”).   29.  Upon information and belief, on or about May 19, 2014, Defendant,  without Plaintiff’s express invitation or permission, arranged for and/or caused a  telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited fax  advertisement, advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,  goods, or services, to Plaintiff’s fax machine located at its principal place of business.  A copy of the fax advertisement is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated  herein by reference.   30.  Exhibit A was wholly unsolicited in that Defendant sent it to Plaintiff  without Plaintiff’s express invitation or permission. In addition, as stated above,  Exhibit A does not contain the opt-out notice required by the TCPA.  32.  This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class  action against Defendant pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  because there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed  Class is easily ascertainable. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definition if  discovery and further investigation reveal that any Class should be expanded or  otherwise modified.   34.   Upon information and belief, a more precise Class size and the identities  of the individual members thereof are ascertainable through Defendant’s records,  including, but not limited to Defendant’s fax and marketing records.   35.  Members of the Class may additionally or alternatively be notified of the  pendency of this action by techniques and forms commonly used in class actions, such  as by published notice, e-mail notice, website notice, fax notice, first class mail, or  combinations thereof, or by other methods suitable to this class and deemed necessary  and/or appropriate by the Court.   37.  One or more questions or issues of law and/or fact regarding Defendant’s  liability are common to all Class Members and predominate over any individual issues  that may exist and may serve as a basis for class certification under Rule 23(c)(4).   38.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of  the Class. The claims of the Plaintiff and members of the Class are based on the same  legal theories and arise from the same course of conduct that violates the TCPA.   39.  Plaintiff and members of the Class each received at least one fax  advertisement, advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,  goods, or services, which contained no purported opt-out notice, which Defendant sent  or caused to be sent to Plaintiff and the members of the Class.   40.  Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of  the Class because Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the interests of the members  of the Class. Plaintiff will fairly, adequately and vigorously represent and protect the  interests of the members of the Class and has no interests antagonistic to the members  of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel, who are competent and experienced in  litigation in the federal courts, TCPA litigation, and class-action litigation.   42.  Class-Wide Injunctive Relief and Rule 23(b)(2): Moreover, as an  alternative to or in addition to certification of the Class under Rule 23(b)(3), class  certification is warranted under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted on grounds  generally applicable to Plaintiff and members of Class, thereby making appropriate  final injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and Class Members as a whole.  Plaintiff  seeks injunctive relief on behalf of Class Members on grounds generally applicable to  the entire Class in order to enjoin and prevent Defendant’s’ ongoing violations of the  TCPA, and to order Defendant to provide notice to them of their rights under the  TCPA to statutory damages and to be free from unwanted faxes.  44.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class defined  above against Defendant for its violation of the TCPA and the rules prescribed under it  by the FCC.   45.  At all times material to this action, Defendant was a person that used or  caused to be used a “telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device” to send,  to a “telephone facsimile machine” an “unsolicited advertisement” or an  “advertisement” within the meaning of the TCPA and its regulations.   46.  Defendant sent or caused to be sent hundreds or thousands of these  advertisements exemplified by Exhibit A.  Plaintiff and each Class Members received  at least one of them.   47.  Each of the foregoing advertisements violated the TCPA because they  failed to contain the opt-out notice required by 47 U.S.C § 227(b)(1)(C)(iii); 47 C.F.R.  § 64.1200(a)(4)(iv); and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iii).   48.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to  statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b).   49.  If it is found that Defendant willfully and/or knowingly sent and/or caused  to be sent fax advertisements to Plaintiff and the members of Class in violation of the  TCPA, Plaintiff requests an increase by the Court of the damage award against  Defendant, described in the preceding paragraph, to three times the amount available  under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), as authorized by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) for willful or  knowing violations.   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)   