28.  Plaintiff still has and had, at all relevant times to this action, telephone  facsimile service at 760-406-9889 at its place of business at Whiting Family Dental,  16127 Kasota Road, Suite 103, Apple Valley, California 92307.  Plaintiff receives  facsimile transmissions (“faxes”) at this number, using a telephone facsimile machine  (“fax machine”).   29.  Upon information and belief, on or about February 13, 2013, 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.   31.  Plaintiff brings this class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of itself and of a similarly situated “Class”  or “Class Members” defined as:  All persons in the United States who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing  of this action, (2) were sent a telephone facsimile message of material  advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or  services by or on behalf of Defendant, (3) with respect to whom Defendant  cannot provide evidence of prior express invitation or permission for the sending  of such faxes, (4) with whom Defendant does not have an established business  relationship, or (5) which did not display a clear and conspicuous opt-out notice  on the first page stating that the recipient may make a request to the sender of  the advertisement not to send any future advertisements to a telephone facsimile  machine or machines and that failure to comply, within 30 days, with such a  request meeting the requirements under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(v) is  unlawful.  Excluded from the Class are: any Defendant, and any subsidiary or affiliate of  that Defendant, and the directors, officers and employees of that Defendant or its  subsidiaries or affiliates, and members of the federal judiciary.   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.   43.  Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in all of the above  paragraphs and incorporates such allegations by reference.   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)   