11.  On or about March 10, 2010, Defendants transmitted by telephone facsimile  machine an unsolicited fax to Plaintiff.  A copy of the facsimile is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   12.  Defendants created or made Exhibit A which Defendants knew or should have  known is a good or product which Defendants intended to and did in fact distribute to Plaintiff  and the other members of the class.   13.  Exhibit A is part of Defendants’ work or operations to market Defendants’ goods  or services which were performed by Defendants and on behalf of Defendants.  Therefore,  Exhibit A constitutes material furnished in connection with Defendants’ work or operations.   15.  On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and similar unsolicited  facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 40 other recipients without first receiving the recipients’  express permission or invitation.     16.  There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other class member) to avoid  receiving unauthorized faxes.  Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the urgent  communications their owners desire to receive.    17.  Defendants’ facsimiles did not display a proper opt-out notice as required by 47  18.  In accordance with F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this  class action pursuant to the JFPA, on behalf of the following class of persons:  All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this  action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material  advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or  services by or on behalf of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants  did not obtain prior express permission or invitation to send those  faxes, (4) with whom Defendants did not have an established  business relationship, and (5) did not display a proper opt-out  notice.    Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their employees, agents and members of the  Judiciary.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition upon completion of class  certification discovery.   2.  a statement that the sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within  30 days and the sender’s failure to do so is unlawful – thereby encouraging  recipients to opt-out, if they did not want future faxes, by advising them that their  opt-out requests will have legal “teeth”;   21.  Typicality (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (3)):   The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the  claims of all class members. The Plaintiff received faxes sent by or on behalf of the Defendants  advertising goods and services of the Defendants during the Class Period. The Plaintiff is making  the same claims and seeking the same relief for itself and all class members based upon the same  federal statute. The Defendants have acted the same or in a similar manner with respect to the  Plaintiff and all the class members.    22.  Fair and Adequate Representation (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4)):   The Plaintiff will  fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. It is interested in this matter,  has no conflicts and has retained experienced class counsel to represent the class.   23.  Need for Consistent Standards and Practical Effect of Adjudication (F. R. Civ. P.  23 (b) (1)):   Class certification is appropriate because the prosecution of individual actions by  class members would: (a) create the risk of inconsistent adjudications that could establish  incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) as a practical matter,  adjudication of the Plaintiff's claims will be dispositive of the interests of class members who are  not parties.   24.  Common Conduct (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2)):   Class certification is also  appropriate because the Defendants have acted and refused to act in the same or similar manner  with respect to all class members thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate.  The Plaintiff demands such relief as authorized by 47 U.S.C. §227.   26.  Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class reassert and incorporate herein by reference the  averments set for in paragraphs 1-25 above.   27.  The JFPA makes unlawful for any person to "use any telephone facsimile  machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited  advertisement …" 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).   28.  The JFPA defines "unsolicited advertisement" as "any material advertising the  commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any  person without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise." 47  U.S.C. § 227 (a) (5).   29.  Opt-Out Notice Requirements.  The JFPA strengthened the prohibitions against  the sending of unsolicited advertisements by requiring, in §(b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that senders  of faxed advertisements place a clear and conspicuous notice on the first page of the transmission  that contains the following among other things (hereinafter collectively the “Opt-Out Notice  Requirements”):   3.  a statement advising the recipient that he or she may opt-out with respect  to all of his or her facsimile telephone numbers and not just the ones that receive a  faxed advertisement from the sender – thereby instructing a recipient on how to  make a valid opt-out request for all of his or her fax machines;   The requirement of (1) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act.  The  requirement of (2) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act and the rules and  regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) in ¶31 of its 2006 Report  and Order (In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer  Protection Act, Junk Prevention Act of 2005, 21 F.C.C.R. 3787, 2006 WL 901720, which rules  and regulations took effect on August 1, 2006).  The requirements of (3) above are contained in §  (b)(2)(E) of the Act and incorporated into the Opt-Out Notice Requirements via § (b)(2)(D)(ii).   Compliance with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements is neither difficult nor costly.  The Opt-Out  Notice Requirements are important consumer protections bestowed by Congress upon the  owners of fax machines giving them the right, and means, to stop unwanted faxed  advertisements.    31.  The Fax.  Defendant sent the March 10, 2010 Fax via facsimile transmission  from telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to the telephone facsimile  machines of Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class.  The Fax constituted advertisements  under the Act.  Defendants failed to comply with the Opt-Out Requirements in connection with  the Fax, which contained no Opt-Out notice whatsoever.  The Faxes were transmitted to persons  or entities without their prior express permission or invitation and/or Defendants are precluded  from asserting any prior express permission or invitation because of the failure to comply with  the Opt-Out Notice Requirements.  By virtue thereof, Defendants violated the JFPA and the  regulations promulgated thereunder by sending the Faxes via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff  and members of the Class.   33.  The TCPA/JFPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf  of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class to redress Defendants’ violations of the Act, and provides for  statutory damages.  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The Act also provides that injunctive relief is  appropriate.  Id.   34.  The JFPA is a strict liability statute, so the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff  and the other class members even if their actions were only negligent.   35.  The Defendants knew or should have known that (a) the Plaintiff and the other  class members had not given express invitation or permission for the Defendants or anybody else  to fax advertisements about the Defendants’ goods or services; (b) the Plaintiff and the other  class members did not have an established business relationship; (c) Defendants transmitted an  advertisement; and (d) the Fax did not contain the required Opt-Out Notice.   Claim for Relief for Violation of the JFPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.  