25.  On or about December 1, 2015, Plaintiff became a member of Defendant’s fitness  facility.   26.  In 2018, Plaintiff cancelled his membership with Defendant.   27.  Subsequently, on or about August 10, 2018, Defendant caused an automated text  message to be transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 7547 (“7547 Number”):   28.  The text message constitutes marketing because it promotes and attempts to sell  Defendant’s fitness facility.   29.  Specifically, the text message states “[w]e’re making it easier than ever to come back to  PF. For a limited time you can rejoin for $1 Down and get ONE MONTH FREE.”   30.  The text message also offers the use of two differnet promo codes for additional  discounts on a membership at Defendant’s fitness facility.   32.  The Website includes additional marketing including the offer of three different  membership options including a back to school special at $10.00 a month, and a black card membership  at $21.99 a month.   33.  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused similar text messages to be sent to  individuals residing within this judicial district.     34.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to  be contacted with telemarketing text messages using an ATDS.    36.  The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text messages establishes that  Defendant utilized an ATDS to transmit the messages. See Jenkins v. LL Atlanta, LLC, No. 1:14-cv- 2791-WSD, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30051, at *11 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 9, 2016) (“These assertions,  combined with the generic, impersonal nature of the text message advertisements and the use of a short  code, support an inference that the text messages were sent using an ATDS.”) (citing Legg v. Voice  Media Grp., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 3d 1370, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to infer  text messages were sent using ATDS; use of a short code and volume of mass messaging alleged would  be impractical without use of an ATDS); Kramer v. Autobytel, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1171 (N.D.  Cal. 2010) (finding it “plausible” that defendants used an ATDS where messages were advertisements  written in an impersonal manner and sent from short code); Robbins v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 13-CV-132- IEG NLS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72725, 2013 WL 2252646, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 22, 2013) (observing  that mass messaging would be impracticable without use of an ATDS)).   37.  The number (63565) that transmitted the text message is operated by or on behalf of  Defendant.     38.  The number used by Defendant (63565) is known as a “short code,” a standard 5-digit  code that enables Defendant to send SMS text messages en masse.     39.  To send the text messages, Defendant used a messaging platform that permitted  Defendant to transmit thousands of automated text messages without any human involvement.     40.  The platform utilized by Defendant has the current capacity or present ability to generate  or store random or sequential numbers or to dial sequentially or randomly at the time the call is made,  and to dial such numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention.   42.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  himself and all others similarly situated.   43.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the below defined Class:  All persons within the United States who, within the four  years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a text  message using the same type of equipment that was used  to text message Plaintiff, from Defendant or anyone on  Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone  number, advertising Defendant’s services, without the  recipients’ prior express written consent.     44.  Defendant and their employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not  know the number of members in the Class but believes the Class members number in the several  thousands, if not more.  47.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  Among the questions of law and  fact common to the Class are:  (1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Class members’  cellular telephones using an ATDS;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet their burden of showing that it obtained prior  express written consent to make such calls;  (3) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  (4) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  (5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   48.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s  claim that Defendant routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers assigned to cellular  telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of  being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  53.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    54.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for emergency  purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone  dialing system … to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone service ….” 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    56.  These calls were made without regard to whether or not Defendant had first obtained  express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior  express consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class when its  calls were made.    57.  Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  automatic telephone dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express written consent.   58.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these calls and knew  or should have known that it was using equipment that at constituted an automatic telephone dialing  system. The violations were therefore willful or knowing.    59.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA, Plaintiff  and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00  in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an injunction against future  calls. Id.    PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  