30.  Plaintiff still has and had, at all relevant times to this action, telephone  facsimile service at (714) 633-7470 at its place of business at 436 South Glassell St.,  Orange, CA 92666.    31.  Plaintiff receives facsimile transmissions (“faxes”) at this number, using a  telephone facsimile machine (“fax machine”).   32.  On May 17, 2017, Defendant, without Plaintiff’s express invitation or  permission, arranged for 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.   33.  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.   34.  Exhibit A identifies property, goods, or services advertised by Defendant,  including an open bar and a happy hour.   35.  Exhibit A is not the only recent unsolicited faxed advertisement from  Defendant to Plaintiff.  37.  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.   38.  Numerosity: At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact number of  Class Members, but among other things, given the nature of the claims and that  Defendant’s conducted consisted of a standardized fax campaign and widely  disseminated standardized fax electronically sent to particular telephone numbers,  Plaintiff believes, at a minimum, there are hundreds of Class Members. Plaintiff  believes that the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members of the Class is  impracticable and the disposition of their claims in a class action rather than  incremental individual actions will benefit the Parties and the Court by eliminating the  possibility of inconsistent or varying adjudications of individual actions.   39.   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.   42.  One or more questions or issues of law 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).   43.  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.   44.  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 opt-out notice with a facsimile number, which  Defendant sent or caused to be sent to Plaintiff and the members of the Class.   45.  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 competent and experienced in litigation in  the federal courts, TCPA litigation, and class-action litigation.   47.  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 have 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.  48.  Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in all of the above  paragraphs and incorporates such allegations by reference.   49.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class defined  above against Defendant for violation of the TCPA and the rules prescribed under it by  the FCC.   51.  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.   52.  Each of the foregoing unsolicited 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).   53.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to  statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b).   54.  If it is found that Defendant willfully or knowingly sent 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)   