5.1  Defendant Capital Alliance Group provides short term business  loans and equipment financing and leasing to small to middle-sized companies.   On information and belief, part of Defendant’s strategy for increasing the volume  of its customers involves sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements to solicit  business, many of which are made to recipients who have not consented to  receive these facsimiles.       5.2  On or about August 14, 2013, Plaintiff received a fax offering  “SHORT TERM BUSINESS LOAN – FAST AND SIMPLE”.  The fax  advertised that it provided capital for small businesses as an alternative to  traditional bank financing.     5.3  The fax encouraged the reader to go to www.communitybf.com or  call 1-800-950-4042.  Upon information and belief, the website, phone number  and contact email are all owned maintained and operated by Defendant.  Upon  information and belief, Defendant is responsible for initiating the sending of the  above-described fax.     5.5  Defendant’s faxes to Plaintiff’s fax line were advertisements,  soliciting Plaintiff to obtain a credit line or other services through Defendant.     5.6  Plaintiff did not provide prior consent to the receipt of faxes from  Defendant, did not voluntarily agree to make its facsimile number available for  public distribution, did not invite or give permission to Defendant to use its fax  number, and had no established business relationship with Defendant.      5.7  Upon information and belief, Defendant initiated a large number of  substantially similar unsolicited fax advertisements to persons in California and  throughout the United States.     5.8  Upon information and belief, Defendant intends to continue to send  similar unsolicited fax advertisements to persons in California and throughout the  United States.    6.1  Class Definition. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule  of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of itself and a class (the  “Class”) defined as follows:   All persons or entities in the United States who, on or  after four years prior to the filing of this action, received  one or more unsolicited facsimile messages containing  an advertisement that was initiated by or on behalf of  Defendant, or its agents or affiliates with whom  Defendant did not have an established business  relationship or with whom Defendant did not obtain  prior express permission to send a fax.  Excluded from the Class are Defendant, any entity in which a Defendant has a  controlling interest or that has a controlling interest in a Defendant, and  Defendant’s employees or agents, legal representatives, assignees, and  successors. Also excluded are the judge to whom this case is assigned and any  member of the judge’s immediate family.   6.3  Adequacy.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect  the interests of the other members of the Class.  Plaintiff has retained counsel  with substantial experience in prosecuting complex litigation and class actions.   Plaintiff and its counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on  behalf of the members of the Class, and have the financial resources to do so.   Neither Plaintiff, nor his counsel, has any interest adverse to those of the other  members of the Class or each other.   6.4  Superiority.  Absent a class action, most members of the Class would  find the cost of litigating their claims to be prohibitive, and will have no effective  remedy.  The class treatment of common questions of law and fact is also superior  to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that it conserves the  resources of the courts and the litigants, and promotes consistency and efficiency  of adjudication.   6.6  Commonality. There are many questions of law and fact common to  the claims of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, and those questions  predominate over any questions that may affect individual members of the Class.  Common questions for the Class include but are not limited to the following:  a.  Whether the initiation of the unsolicited facsimile  advertisement by Defendant and/or its agents, affiliates and/or others acting on  Defendant’s behalf violate 47 U.S.C. § 227 and 46 CFR § 64.1200;   b.  Whether Defendant and/or its agents, affiliates and/or others  acting on Defendant’s behalf should be enjoined from violations 47 U.S.C. § 227  and 46 CFR § 64.1200 in the future; and  c.  Whether Class members are entitled to treble damages based  on the willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.     6.7  Predominance.  Defendant engaged in a common course of conduct  toward Plaintiff and the Class.  The common issues arising from the conduct that  affect Plaintiff and the Class predominate over any individual issues.    7.1  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if  fully set forth herein.   7.2  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and/or its affiliates,  agents and/or other persons or entities acting on Defendant’s behalf constitute  numerous and multiple violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).   7.4  Plaintiff is also entitled to and does seek injunctive relief prohibiting  Defendant and/or its agents, affiliates, and/or other persons or entities acting on  Defendant’s behalf from violating the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C), in the  future.  VIOLATION OF 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C)   �������������������������������������������������������(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)� � ���������������������������