10.  On or about March 7, 2011, Defendants transmitted by telephone facsimile  machine an unsolicited fax to Plaintiff.  A copy of the facsimile is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   11.  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.   12.  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.   13.  Plaintiff had not invited or given permission to Defendants to send the faxes.     14.  On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and similar unsolicited  facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without first receiving the recipients’  express permission or invitation.     15.  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.    16.  Defendants’ facsimiles did not display a proper opt out notice as required by 64  17.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   18.  In accordance with FRCP 23, Plaintiff brings Count I pursuant to the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, 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) with respect to whom  Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation for  the sending of such faxes, (4) with whom Defendants did not have  an established business relationship, and (5) which did not display  a proper opt out notice.  Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their employees, agents and members of the  Judiciary.   19.  Commonality [Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (A) (2):   Common questions of law and fact  apply to the claims of all class members. Common material questions of fact and law include, but  are not limited to, the following:  a)  Whether the Defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements;  b)   Whether the Defendants’ faxes advertised the commercial availability of property,  goods, or services;  c)  The manner and method the Defendants used to compile or obtain the list of fax  numbers to which it sent Exhibit "A" and other unsolicited faxed advertisements;  d)  Whether the Defendants faxed advertisements without first obtaining the  recipient's prior permission or invitation;  e)  Whether the Defendants sent the faxed advertisements knowingly;  5 f)   Whether the Defendants violated the provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227;  g)  Whether the Defendants should be enjoined from faxing advertisements in the  future;  h)  Whether the Plaintiff and the other members of the class are entitled to statutory  damages;   i)  Whether Exhibit A and Defendants’ other advertisements displayed a proper opt  out notice as required by 64 C.F.R. 1200; and  j)  Whether the Court should award treble damages.   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 a fax sent 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  federal statute. The Defendants have acted the same or in a similar manner with respect to the  Plaintiff and all the class members.    21.  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. It is interested in this matter,  has no conflicts and has retained experienced class counsel to represent the class.   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.  6  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.   24.  Predominance and Superiority [Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (B) (3):   Common questions of  law and fact predominate and a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication:  a)  Proof of the claims of the Plaintiff will also prove the claims of the class without  the need for separate or individualized proceedings;  b)  Evidence regarding defenses or any exceptions to liability that the Defendants  may assert and prove will come from the Defendants’ records and will not require  individualized or separate inquiries or proceedings;  c)   The Defendants have acted and are continuing to act pursuant to common policies  or practices in the same or similar manner with respect to all class members;  d) The amount likely to be recovered by individual class members does not support  protested individual litigation. A class action will permit a large number of relatively  small claims involving virtually identical facts and legal issues to be resolved efficiently  in one (1) proceeding based upon common proofs;  e)  This case is inherently managed as a class action in that:  (i)  The Defendants identified persons or entities to receive the fax  transmissions and it is believed that the Defendants’ computer and business records will  enable the Plaintiff to readily identify class members and establish liability and  damages;  7 (ii)  Liability and damages can be established for the Plaintiff and the class  with the same common proofs;  (iii)  Statutory damages are provided for in the statute and are the same for all  class members and can be calculated in the same or a similar manner;  (iv)  A class action will result in an orderly and expeditious administration of  claims and it will foster economics of time, effort and expense:  (v)  A class action will contribute to uniformity of decisions concerning the  Defendants’ practices; and  (vi)  As a practical matter, the claims of the class are likely to go unaddressed  absent class certification.    25.  The TCPA makes unlawful the "use of any telephone facsimile machine,  computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile  machine…" 47 U.S.C. § 227.   26.  The TCPA 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 express invitation or permission." 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a) (4).   27.  The TCPA provides:  "3. Private right of action.   A person may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or  rules of court of a state, bring in an appropriate court of that state:  (A)  An action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations  prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation;  (B)  An action to recover actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to  receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or  8 (C)  Both such actions."   28.  The TCPA is a strict liability statute, so the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff  and the other class members even if its actions were only negligent.   29.  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) that the Plaintiff and the other  class members did not have an established business relationship; and c) that Exhibit "A" is an  advertisement.   30.  The Defendants’ actions caused damages to the Plaintiff and the other class  members. Receiving the Defendants’ junk faxes caused the recipients to lose paper and toner  consumed in the printing of the Defendants’ faxes. Moreover, the Defendants’ faxes used the  Plaintiff's fax machine. The Defendants’ faxes cost the Plaintiff time, as the Plaintiff and its  employees wasted their time receiving, reviewing and routing the Defendants’ illegal faxes. That  time otherwise would have been spent on the Plaintiff's business activities.  The Defendants’  faxes unlawfully interrupted the Plaintiff's and other class members' privacy interests in being  left alone.  Finally, the injury and property damage sustained by Plaintiff and the other class  members from the sending of Exhibit A occurred outside of Defendants’ premises.   31.  The Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., by transmitting Exhibit "A" to  the Plaintiff and the other members of the class without obtaining their prior express permission  or invitation.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TARGIN SIGN SYSTEMS, INC., individually and on behalf  of all others similarly situated, demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants, G.R.  9 SINAGRA CORPORATION d/b/a UNCLE PETE’S PIZZA SHOP OF ADDISON and GARY  R. SINAGRA, jointly and severally, as follows:  A.  That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be properly  maintained as a class action, appoint the Plaintiff as the representative of the class and appoint  the Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the class;  B.  That the Court award actual monetary loss from such violations or the sum of five  hundred dollars ($500.00) for each violation, whichever is greater;   C.  That Court enjoin the Defendants from additional violations; and  D.  That the Court award costs and such further relief as the Court may deem just and  proper.  32.  Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 3 and 4, and 6 through 15 as and for its  paragraph 32.    33.  In accordance with FRCP 23, Plaintiff brings Count II for conversion under the  common law for the following class of persons:  All persons who on or after a date five years prior to the filing of  this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages by or on behalf  of Defendants.   34.  A class action is proper in that:  (a)  On information and belief the class consists of forty or more persons and  is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   (b)  There are questions of fact or law common to the class predominating over  all questions affecting only individual class members, including:  10 (i)  Whether Defendants engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited  faxes;  (ii)  The manner and method Defendants used to compile or obtain the  list of fax numbers to which it sent Exhibit A and other unsolicited faxes; and  (iii)  Whether Defendants committed the tort of conversion.   35.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the other class  members.  Plaintiff has retained counsel who is experienced in handling class actions and claims  involving unlawful business practices.  Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel have any interests  adverse or in conflict with the class.   36  A class action is an appropriate method for adjudicating this controversy fairly  and efficiently.  The interest of the individual class members in individually controlling the  prosecution of separate claims is small and individual actions are not economically feasible.   37.  By sending Plaintiff and the other class members unsolicited faxes, Defendants  improperly converted their fax machines, toner and paper to its own use.  Defendants also  converted Plaintiff’s employees’ time to Defendants’ own use.    38.  Immediately prior to the sending of the unsolicited faxes, Plaintiff, and the other  class members owned an unqualified and immediate right to possession of their fax machines,  paper, toner, and employee time.   39.  By sending the unsolicited faxes, Defendants permanently misappropriated the  class members’ fax machines, toner, paper, and employee time to Defendants’ own use.  Such  misappropriation was wrongful and without authorization.     40.  Defendants knew or should have known that its misappropriation of paper, toner,  and employee time was wrongful and without authorization.    11  41.  Plaintiff and the other class members were deprived of the use of the fax  machines, paper, toner, and employee time, which could no longer be used for any other purpose.   Plaintiff and each class member thereby suffered damages as a result of their receipt of  unsolicited faxes from Defendants.     42.  Each of Defendants’ unsolicited faxes effectively stole Plaintiff’s employees’  time because multiple persons employed by Plaintiff were involved in receiving, routing, and  reviewing Defendants’ unauthorized faxes.  Defendants knew or should have known employees’  time is valuable to Plaintiff.      43.  Defendants’ actions caused damages to Plaintiff and the other members of the  class because their receipt of Defendants’ unsolicited faxes caused them to lose paper and toner  as a result.  Defendants’ actions prevented Plaintiff’s fax machines from being used for  Plaintiff’s business purposes during the time Defendants were using Plaintiff’s fax machines for  Defendants’ unauthorized purpose.  Defendants’ actions also cost Plaintiff employee time, as  Plaintiffs’ employees used their time receiving, routing, and reviewing Defendants’ unauthorized  faxes, and that time otherwise would have been spent on Plaintiff’s business activities.    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TARGIN SIGN SYSTEMS, INC., individually and on behalf  of all others similarly situated, demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants, G.R.  SINAGRA CORPORATION d/b/a UNCLE PETE’S PIZZA SHOP OF ADDISON and GARY  R. SINAGRA, jointly and severally, as follows:  A.  That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be properly  maintained as a class action, appoint Plaintiff as the representative of the class, and appoint  Plaintiff’ counsel as counsel for the class;  B.  That the Court award appropriate damages;   12 C.  That the Court award costs of suit; and  D.  Awarding such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, but in any  event, not more than $75,000.00 to any individual class member.    44.  Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 3 and 4, and 6 through 15 as though fully set  forth herein.    45.  In accordance with 735 ILCS 5/2-801, Plaintiff, on behalf of the following class  of persons, brings Count III for Defendant’s unfair practice of sending unsolicited and  unauthorized faxes:  All persons in Illinois who on or after a date three years prior to the  filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages by or  on behalf of Defendant.   46.  A class action is proper in that:  (a)  On information and belief, the class consists of thousands of persons in  Illinois and throughout the United States and is so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable.   (b)  There are questions of fact or law common to the class predominating over  all questions affecting only individual class members including:  (i)  Whether Defendant engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited  faxes;  (ii)  The manner and method Defendant used to compile or obtain the  list of fax numbers to which it sent Exhibit A and other unsolicited faxes;  13 (iii)  Whether Defendant’s practice of sending unsolicited faxes violates  Illinois public policy;  (iv)   Whether Defendant’s practice of sending unsolicited faxes is an  unfair practice under the Consumer Fraud Act;  (v)   Whether Defendant should be enjoined from sending unsolicited  faxes in the future.   47.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the other class  members.  Plaintiff has retained counsel who are experienced in handling class actions and  claims involving unlawful business practices.  Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel have any  interests adverse or in conflict with the class.    48.  A class action is an appropriate method for adjudicating this controversy fairly  and efficiently.  The interest of the individual class members in individually controlling the  prosecution of separate claims is small and individual actions are not economically feasible.   49.  Defendant’s unsolicited fax practice is an unfair practice, because it violates  public policy, and because it forced Plaintiff and the other class members to incur expense  without any consideration in return.  Defendant’s practice effectively forced Plaintiff and the  other class members to pay for Defendant’s messages.   50.  Defendant violated the unfairness predicate of the Act by engaging in an  unscrupulous business practice and by violating Illinois statutory public policy, which public  policy violations in the aggregate caused substantial injury to hundreds of persons.     51.  Defendant’s misconduct caused damages to Plaintiff and the other members of the  class, including the loss of paper, toner, ink, use of their facsimile machines, and use of their  employees’ time.  14  52.  Defendant’s actions caused damages to Plaintiff and the other class members  because their receipt of Defendant’s unsolicited faxes caused them to lose paper and toner  consumed as a result.  Defendant’s actions prevented Plaintiff’s fax machine from being used for  Plaintiff’s business purposes during the time Defendant was using Plaintiff's fax machine for  Defendant’s unauthorized purpose.  Defendant’s actions also cost Plaintiff employee time, as  Plaintiff’s employees used their time receiving, routing, and reviewing Defendant’s unauthorized  faxes and that time otherwise would have been spent on Plaintiff’s business activities.     WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TARGIN SIGN SYSTEMS, INC., individually and on behalf  of all others similarly situated, demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants, G.R.  SINAGRA CORPORATION d/b/a UNCLE PETE’S PIZZA SHOP OF ADDISON and GARY  R. SINAGRA, jointly and severally , as follows:  A.  That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be properly  maintained as a class action, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff’s  counsel as counsel for the class;  B.  That the Court award damages to Plaintiff and the other class members;   C.  That the Court award attorney fees and costs;  D.  That the Court enter an injunction prohibiting Defendant from sending unsolicited  faxes to Illinois consumers; and   E.  Awarding such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, but in any  event, not more than $75,000.00 to any individual member.    15 Respectfully submitted,  TARGIN SIGN SYSTEMS, INC., an Illinois  corporation, individually and as the representative  of a class of similarly-situated persons  By:   s/Brian J. Wanca  One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys  Brian J. Wanca  CONVERSION   ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT  815 ILCS 505/2   TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227  