10. Discovery may reveal the transmission of additional faxes as well.   11. Defendant Robert H. Wang, MD, doing business as Coder Publisher is responsible for sending or causing the sending of the fax.  12. Defendant Robert H. Wang, MD, doing business as Coder Publisher as the entity whose products or services were advertised in the fax, derived economic benefit from the sending of the fax.  13. Defendant Robert H. Wang, MD, doing business as Coder Publisher either negligently or wilfully violated the rights of Plaintiff and other recipients in sending the fax.  14. The fax has a “remove” number at the bottom that is associated with the mass broadcasting of advertising faxes.   16. On information and belief, the fax attached hereto was sent as part of a mass broadcasting of faxes.  17. On information and belief, Defendant has transmitted similar unsolicited fax   advertisements to at least 40 other persons in Michigan.  18. There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff or other recipients of Defendant’s unsolicited advertising fax to avoid receiving illegal faxes.  Fax machines must be left on and ready to receive the urgent communications authorized by their owners. 19. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-18.   20. 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(b)(1)(C).  21. The TCPA,  47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3), provides: Private right of action. A person or entity 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 for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or (C)  both such actions. If the Court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under the subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.  22. Plaintiff and each class member suffered damages as a result of receipt of the unsolicited faxes, in the form of paper and ink or toner consumed as a result.  Furthermore, Plaintiff’s statutory right of privacy was invaded.  24. Defendant violated the TCPA even if its actions were only negligent.  25. Defendant should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the future. 26. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of a class, consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. §1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendant Robert H. Wang, MD, doing business as Coder Publisher promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and with respect to whom Defendant cannot provide evidence of express consent or an established business relationship prior to the faxing.  27. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.  Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that there are more than 40 members of the class.  28. There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.  The predominant common questions include: a. Whether Defendant engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited fax advertisements; b. The manner in which Defendant compiled or obtained its list of fax numbers; c. Whether Defendant thereby violated the TCPA.  29. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business practices.  Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff's counsel have any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.   30. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members.  All are based on the same factual and legal theories.  32. Several courts have certified class actions under the TCPA.   Holtzman v. Turza, 08 C 2014, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95620 (N.D.Ill., Oct. 14, 2009), aff’d in relevant part, 728 F.3d 682 (7  Cir. 2013); Sadowski v. Med1 Online, LLC, 07 C 2973, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41766 th (N.D.Ill., May 27, 2008); CE Design Ltd. v Cy's Crabhouse North, Inc.,  259 F.R.D. 135 (N.D.Ill. 2009); Targin Sign Sys. v Preferred Chiropractic Ctr., Ltd., 679 F. Supp. 2d 894 (N.D.Ill. 2010); Garrett v. Ragle Dental Lab, Inc., 10 C 1315, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108339, 2010 WL 4074379 (N.D.Ill., Oct. 12, 2010);  Hinman v. M & M Rental Ctr., 545 F.Supp. 2d 802 (N.D.Ill. 2008); Clearbrook v. Rooflifters, LLC, 08 C 3276, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72902 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2010) (Cox, M.J.); G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Group C Communs., Inc., 08 C 4521, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17843 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2010); Kavu, Inc. v. Omnipak Corp., 246 F.R.D. 642 (W.D.Wash. 2007); Display South, Inc. v. Express Computer Supply, Inc., 961 So.2d 451, 455 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007); Display South, Inc. v. Graphics House Sports Promotions, Inc., 992 So. 2d 510 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2008); Lampkin v. GGH, Inc., 146 P.3d 847 (Ok. App. 2006); ESI Ergonomic Solutions, LLC v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 203 Ariz. (App.) 94, 50 P.3d 844 (2002);  Core Funding Group, LLC v. Young, 792 N.E.2d 547 (Ind.App. 2003); Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Group, Inc., 293 Kan. 285; 263 P.3d 767 (2011); Karen S. Little, L.L.C. v. Drury Inns. Inc., 306 S.W.3d 577 (Mo. App. 2010).  9. On August 1, 2014, Plaintiff Michigan Urgent Care & Primary Care Physicians, P.C. received the unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit A on its facsimile machine. 