12.  On information and belief, on or about March 14, 2011, April-May, 2012, May  10, 2012, October 19, 2012, September 30, 2013 and October 8, 2013, Defendants  transmitted by telephone facsimile machine seven (7) unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff.   Copies of the facsimiles are attached hereto as Exhibit A.   13.  Plaintiff did not invite or give permission to Defendants to send the faxes.    14.  On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited  facsimiles without the required opt out language to Plaintiff and more than 25 other recipients  without first receiving the recipients’ express permission or invitation.    16.  Defendants’ facsimile did not display a proper opt-out notice as required by 47  17.  In accordance with Fed. 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 in the United States who (1) on or after four years  prior to the filing of this action until the date of class  certification, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of  material advertising the commercial availability of any property,  goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) which  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.   18.  Class Size (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)): Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon  such information and belief avers, that the number of persons and entities of the Plaintiff Class is  numerous and joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and  upon such information and belief avers, that the number of class members is more than 100.   20.  Typicality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (3)):  The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the  claims of all class members. The Plaintiff received the same faxes as the 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 in the same or in a  similar manner with respect to the Plaintiff and all the class members by sending Plaintiff and  each member of the class the same faxes.   22.  Need for Consistent Standards and Practical Effect of Adjudication (Fed. 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.   23.  Common Conduct (Fed. 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.   25.  All Paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference.   26.  The JFPA makes it 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).   30.  The Faxes. Defendants, upon information and belief, sent on or about March 14,  2011, April-May, 2012, May 10, 2012, October 19, 2012, September 30, 2013 and October  8, 2013, advertisements via facsimile transmission from telephone facsimile machines,  computers, or other devices to the telephone lines and facsimile machines of Plaintiff and  members of the Plaintiff Class. The Faxes constituted an advertisement under the Act.   Defendants failed to comply with the Opt-Out Requirements in connection with the Faxes. 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.    31.  Defendants violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder by  sending the Faxes via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff and members of the Class.   33.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief avers,  that Defendants may be continuing to send unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission  in violation of the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and absent intervention by  this Court, will do so in the future.   34.  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.   35.  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.  