10.  The 2015 FCC Order also clarified that telephone calls and text messages have  the same protections under FCC rules, and that text messages are “calls” for purposes of the  39.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) &  (b)(3) on behalf of herself, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a member of the  “Class,” defined as follows:  All persons in the United States of America to whom Defendant has  placed any pre-recorded voice calls or sent any automated commercial text  message for whom Defendant has no record of prior express consent  and/or for whom Defendant has no record of providing the required  disclosures between October 16, 2013 and the date of class certification of  this action.   41.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or otherwise alter the class definition  presented to the Court at the appropriate time, or to propose or eliminate sub-classes, in response  to facts learned through discovery, legal arguments advanced by Defendant, or otherwise.   42.  Numerosity: Members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable. While the exact number of Class members is presently unknown, and can only  be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that Class members number in  the thousands of persons, if not more.   44.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action for the reasons set forth  herein.   45.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the  Class she seeks to represent because Plaintiff, like the Class members, received phone calls and  text messages from Defendant without providing prior express written consent to or receiving the  required disclosures from Defendant. Defendant’s practices were and are uniformly directed to  all consumers. Plaintiff and the Class sustained similar injuries arising out of Defendant’s  conduct in violation of federal law. Plaintiff and the members of the Class she represents  sustained the same types of damages and losses. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same practices  and course of conduct that give rise to the claims of the Class members and are based on the  same legal theories.   46.  Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class she seeks to  represent because her interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class members Plaintiff  seeks to represent. Plaintiff has retained highly competent counsel experienced in complex class  action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s  counsel have the necessary financial resources to adequately and vigorously litigate this class  action, and the interests of members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by  Plaintiff and her counsel.   48.  Certification of this class action is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) &  (b)(3) because the questions of law or fact common to the respective members of the Class  predominate over questions of law or fact affecting only individual members. Certification is  also appropriate because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to  the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive or equitable relief with respect to the Class  as a whole.   49.  Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for class-wide treatment is also appropriate  because Plaintiff can prove the elements of her claims on a class-wide basis using the same  evidence as would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same  claims.   51.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein.   52.  Defendant placed commercial phone calls and left commercial mails to the mobile  cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the Class.   53.  Defendant sent commercial text messages (“calls” in FCC parlance) to the mobile  cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the Class.   54.  On information and belief, Defendant used an ATDS to send commercial text  messages to the mobile cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the Class and used a pre-recorded  voice to make calls to the cellular telephones and landline phones of the Plaintiff and the Class.   55.  Defendant did not obtain express written consent prior to placing commercial  phone calls or sending commercial text messages to Plaintiff or the Class.   56.  Defendant did not provide to Plaintiff or the Class the disclosures required by the  FCC concerning the use of a pre-recorded voice or ATDS.   57.  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to, and seek, awards of $500.00 in statutory  damages for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   59.  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to, and seek, injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.   60.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and  costs.  8.  The purpose of the TCPA is to protect consumers from unwanted calls and text  messages, such as those Defendant sent and made to Plaintiff.   9.  Under the FCC’s July 10, 2015 Order (the “2015 FCC Order”) (Rules and  Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; American  Association of Healthcare Administrative Management, Petition for Expedited Declaratory  Ruling and Exemption; et al, Federal Communications Commission, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961 (July 10,  2015)), companies wishing to place certain call or text messages must obtain prior express  written consent.   Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq.  On behalf of Plaintiff and the Putative Class   The TCPA  