11.  On August 30, 2017, Keyes sent an unsolicited text to Plaintiff’s cellular phone number  without Plaintiff’s consent:   12.  Keyes’ unsolicited text was a nuisance that aggravated Plaintiff, wasted his time,  invaded his privacy, diminished the value of the cellular services he paid for, caused him to  temporarily lose the use and enjoyment of his phone, and caused wear and tear to his phone’s data,  memory, software, hardware, and battery components.   13.  On information and belief, Keyes, or a third-party acting on its behalf, sent  substantively identical unsolicited text messages en masse to the cellular telephone numbers of  thousands of consumers.  To the extent the text messages were sent on Keyes’ behalf to consumers,  Keyes provided the third-party access to its records, authorized use of its trade name, otherwise  controlled the content of the messages, and knew of, but failed to stop, the sending of the text  messages in violation of the TCPA.   15.  Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and seeks certification  of the following Class:  All persons who, on or after four years prior to the filing of the complaint, (1) were  sent a text message to their cellular telephone number by or on behalf of Keyes, (2)  in the same manner that Keyes sent a text message to Plaintiff, and for whom (3)  Keyes claims to have obtained consent in the same manner it claims to have  obtained consent from Plaintiff, or Keyes does not claim to have obtained consent.   16.  The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its  parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and  directors; (3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely  request for exclusion from the Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of  any such excluded persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been  fully and finally adjudicated and/or released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the  class definitions following appropriate discovery.   17.  Numerosity: The exact size of the Class is unknown and unavailable to Plaintiff at this  time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief, Defendant  sent unsolicited text messages to thousands of individuals who fall into the Class definition. Class  membership can be easily determined from Defendant’s records.    19.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact common  to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that  may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class include, but are not  necessarily limited to the following:   a)  How Defendant gathered, compiled, or obtained the cellular telephone  numbers of Plaintiff and the Class;  b)  Whether the text messages were sent using an automatic telephone dialing  system;  c)  Whether Defendant sent some or all of the text messages without the  consent of Plaintiff and the Class; and   d)  Whether Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing such that Plaintiff  and the Class are entitled to treble damages.   20.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect  the interests of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class  actions. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no defenses  unique to Plaintiff.    21.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Class as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible  standards of conduct toward the members of the Class, and making final injunctive relief  appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to  and affect the members of the Class uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges  on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only  to Plaintiff.    23.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 22 of this  complaint and incorporates them by reference.   24.  Defendant and/or its agents agent transmitted text messages to cellular telephone  numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class using an automatic telephone  dialing system.   26.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), entitling Plaintiff and  the Class to a minimum of $500 in damages, and a maximum of $1,500 in damages, for each  violation.  8.  Keyes is a realty brokerage “with a breadth of product and service offerings usually  reserved for national, corporate firms, to provide a better experience for … its Realtors.”1   9.  This case arises from Keyes’ use of unsolicited autodialed text messages to market  itself to prospective agents and to obtain a split of those prospective agents’ commissions.    Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  