12.  On information and belief, on or about September 5, 2017, Defendants transmitted  by telephone facsimile machine an unsolicited facsimile to Plaintiff.  A copy of the facsimile is  attached hereto as Exhibit A.   13.  On information and belief, Defendants receive some or all of the revenues from the  sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A, and Defendants profit and benefit  from the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A.   14.  Plaintiff did not give prior express invitation or permission to Defendants to send  the faxes.    15.  On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited  facsimiles with opt-out language identical or substantially similar to the opt-out language of the  fax advertisement attached hereto as Exhibit A to Plaintiff and at least 40 other recipients or sent  the same and other advertisements by fax with the required opt-out language but without first  receiving the recipients’ express invitation or permission or without having an established business  relationship as defined by the TCPA and its regulations.   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’ facsimile attached as Exhibit A does not display a proper opt-out  notice as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.  19.  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 Classes  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 at least forty.   22.  Fair and Adequate Representation (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4)):  The Plaintiff will  fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class members. 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 (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.   24.  Common Conduct (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2)):  Class certification is also  appropriate because the Defendants have acted 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.  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).   27.  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).   31.  Defendants’ Other Violations. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such  information and belief avers, that during the period preceding four years of the filing of this  Complaint and repeatedly thereafter, Defendants have sent via facsimile transmissions from  telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to telephone facsimile machines of  members of the Plaintiff Class other faxes that constitute advertisements under the JFPA that were  transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express invitation or permission (and/or that  Defendants are precluded from asserting any prior express invitation or permission or that  Defendants had an established business relationship because of the failure to comply with the Opt- Out Notice Requirements in connection with such transmissions).  By virtue thereof, Defendants  violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiff is informed and believes,  and upon such information and belief avers, that Defendants may be continuing to send unsolicited  advertisements via facsimile transmissions in violation of the JFPA and the regulations  promulgated thereunder, and absent intervention by this Court, will do so in the future.   32.  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 Defendants knew or should have known that (a) the Plaintiff and the other class  members had not given prior express invitation or permission for the Defendants or anybody else  to fax advertisements about the Defendants’ products, goods or services; (b) the Plaintiff and the  other class members did not have an established business relationship; (c) Defendants transmitted  advertisements;  (d) the Faxes did not contain the required Opt-Out Notice; and (e) Defendants’  transmission of advertisements that did not contain the required opt-out notice or were sent without  prior express invitation or permission was unlawful.  