10.  Furthermore, as explained by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)  in its 2012 order, the TCPA requires “prior express written consent for all autodialed or  prerecorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and residential lines.” In the Matter of Rules  and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG No. 02-278,  FCC 12-21, 27 FCC Rcd. 1830 ¶ 2 (Feb. 15, 2012).   11.  Yet, in violation of this rule, Defendant fails to obtain any prior express written  consent to send solicitation text messages to consumers’ cellular telephone numbers.   12.  At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant was and is fully aware that  unsolicited telemarketing text messages are being sent to consumers’ cellular telephones.   14.  On October 25, 2017 at 2:37 p.m., Defendant, using an automated text-messaging  platform, caused the following text message to be transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone  number ending in 6444 (the “6444 Number”):   15.  The text message constitutes telemarketing because it promoted Defendant’s fitness  facility and services.      17.  Plaintiff received the subject text message within this judicial district and, therefore,  Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.  Upon information and belief,  Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district.   18.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent  to be contacted by text using an ATDS.     19.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 6444 Number, and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 6444 Number.    20.  The impersonal and generic nature of the text messages, as well as the use of a  short-code, demonstrates that Defendant utilized an ATDS in transmitting the messages.  See  Jenkins v. LL Atlanta, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-2791-WSD, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30051, at *11 (N.D.  Ga. Mar. 9, 2016)(“These assertions, combined with the generic, impersonal nature of the text  message advertisements and the use of a short code, support an inference that the text messages  were sent using an ATDS.”) (citing Legg v. Voice Media Grp., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 3d 1370, 1354  (S.D. Fla. 2014) (plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to infer text messages were sent using ATDS;  use of a short code and volume of mass messaging alleged would be impractical without use of an  ATDS); Kramer v. Autobytel, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1171 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (finding it  “plausible” that defendants used an ATDS where messages were advertisements written in an  impersonal manner and sent from short code); Hickey v. Voxernet LLC, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1125,  1130 (COURT YEAR) (PARANTHETICAL); & Robbins v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 13-CV-132-IEG  NLS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72725, 2013 WL 2252646, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 22, 2013) (observing  that mass messaging would be impracticable without use of an ATDS)).     22.  Defendant’s unsolicited text message caused Plaintiff actual harm, including  invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.   Defendant’s text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life.   See Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. Zoeller, No. 16-2059, 2017 WL 25482, at *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 3, 2017)  (“Every call uses some of the phone owner’s time and mental energy, both of which are  precious.”).    23.  Plaintiff bring this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and  Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and seek certification of the  following Class:  All persons within the United States who, within the four years  prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a text message made  through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an  artificial or prerecorded voice, from Defendants or anyone on  Defendants’ behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone number,  without emergency purpose and without the recipient’s prior  express consent.   25.  Numerosity: The exact size of the Class is unknown and not available to Plaintiff  at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief,  Defendant sent text messages to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the Class.   Members of the Class can be easily identified through Defendant’s records.   26.  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) whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA;  (b) whether Defendant utilized an automatic telephone dialing system to send text  messages to members of the Classes on their cellular telephones; and  (c) whether Defendant obtained prior express written consent to contact any class  members.    27.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no defenses  unique to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action  on behalf of the members of the Classes, and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff  nor his counsel has any interest adverse to the Classes.   29.  Plaintiff repeats and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   30.  Defendant sent marketing text messages to cellular telephone numbers belonging  to Plaintiff and other members of the Class without first obtaining prior express written consent to  receive such autodialed text messages.   32.  By sending the unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and the cellular telephones of  members of the Class without their prior express written consent, and by utilizing an automatic  telephone dialing system to make those calls, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   33.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Text  Message No Consent Class are each entitled to, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), a minimum of  $500.00 in damages for each violation of such act.   34.  In the event that the Court determines that Defendant’s conduct was willful and  knowing, it may, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Text Message No Consent Class.   8.  In recent years, companies such as Defendant have turned to unsolicited  telemarketing as a way to increase its customer base.    9.  Text messages, like the ones sent in the instant action, are considered calls under  the TCPA. See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of  1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, 14115, ¶ 165 (July 3, 2003);  see also Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that text  messaging is a form of communication used primarily between telephones and is therefore  consistent with the definition of a “call”).    Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  