14.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Florida.  Plaintiff is, and  at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (39).    15.  Blowoutpicks.com is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation and  “persons,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (39).    16.  At all times relevant Blowoutpicks.com conducted business in the State of Florida  and in Broward County, within this judicial district.    17.  Blowoutpicks.com utilizes bulk SPAM text messaging, or SMS marketing, to send  unsolicited text messages, marketing and advertising of Blowoutpicks.com’s sports gambling  prediction services, including at least 6 unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff.    20.  Plaintiff was at no time given an option to “opt-out” of receiving future unsolicited  text messages from Blowoutpicks.com.    21.  At no time did Plaintiff provide Plaintiff’s cellular phone number to  Blowoutpicks.com through any medium, nor did Plaintiff consent to receive such an unsolicited  text message.    22.  Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used, Blowoutpicks.com’s services,  and has never had any form of business relationship with Blowoutpicks.com.    23.  Through the unsolicited SPAM text messages, Blowoutpicks.com contacted  Plaintiff several times on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone regarding an unsolicited service via an  “automatic telephone dialing system,” (“ATDS”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) and  prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).    24.  Upon information and belief, this ATDS has the capacity to store or produce  telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.    25.  Upon information and belief, this ATDS has the capacity to store numbers on a list  and to dial numbers from a list without human intervention.   26.  The telephone number Blowoutpicks.com called was assigned to a cellular  telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1).   27.  This text message constituted a call that was not for emergency purposes as defined  by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).    28.  Plaintiff did not provide Blowoutpicks.com or its agents prior express consent to  receive text messages, including unsolicited text messages, to his cellular telephone, pursuant to  32.  Plaintiff brings this class action under rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) & (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, within the four years prior to the filing of  this Complaint, were sent a text message, from Defendant or anyone on  Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone number, advertising  Defendant’s services, without the recipients’ prior express written consent.   33.  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.   35.  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 Blowoutpicks.com’s  conduct consisted of a standardized SPAM text messaging campaign electronically sent to  particular telephone numbers, Plaintiff believes, at a minimum, there are greater than forty (40)  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.   36.  Upon information and belief, a more precise Class size and the identities of the  individual members thereof are ascertainable through Blowoutpicks.com’s records, including, but  not limited to Blowoutpicks.com’s text and marketing records.   37.  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.   40.  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.   41.  Plaintiff and members of the Class each received at least one SPAM text  advertisement, advertising the casino and betting services, which contained no purported opt-out  notice, which Blowoutpicks.com sent or caused to be sent to Plaintiff and the members of the  Class.   42.  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,  who are competent and experienced in litigation in the federal courts, TCPA litigation and class  action litigation.   44.  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 Blowoutpicks.com has 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 Blowoutpicks.com’s ongoing violations of the TCPA, and to order Blowoutpicks.com  to provide notice to them of their rights under the TCPA to statutory damages and to be free from  unwanted text messages.  45.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1  through 44 of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.    47.  “Automatic telephone dialing system” refers to any equipment that has the  “capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.” See, e.g., Hicks v. Client Servs., Inc., No.  07-61822, 2009 WL 2365637, at *4 (S..D. Fla. June 9, 2009) (citing FCC, In re: Rules and  Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991: Request of ACA  International for Clarification and Declaratory Ruling, 07-232, Par. 12, n.23 (2007)).   48.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment having the  capacity to dial numbers without human intervention to make non-emergency telephone calls to  the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class defined above.   49.  These calls were made without regard to whether or not Defendant had first  obtained express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not  have prior express consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative  Class when its calls were made.   50.  Defendant has, therefore, violated Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  automatic telephone dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express written consent.   51.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Blowoutpicks.com constitutes numerous and  multiple violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the above- cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.    52.  As a result of Blowoutpicks.com’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.,  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every  violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).    54.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1  through 44 and 46 – 48 of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.    55.  At all relevant times, Defendant knew or should have known that its conduct as  alleged herein violated the TCPA.   56.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these calls, and  knew or should have known that its conduct was a violation of the TCPA.   57.  Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members  did not give prior express consent to receive autodialed calls, the Court should treble the amount  of statutory damages available to Plaintiff and members of the putative Class pursuant to §  227(b)(3) of the TCPA.   58.  As a result of Blowoutpicks.com’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b), Plaintiff and The Class are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for  each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)   VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  