28.  Plaintiff is a young professional who works as a surgical technologist at a  Hospital in Los Angeles, California.    30.  The telephone number ending in 2824 was assigned to a cellular telephone  service as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   31.  On July 11, 2020, Plaintiff went to the Empire Twin Palms dispensary located  at 9806 Mission Blvd, Jurupa Valley, California (Riverside County). Plaintiff made a product  purchase at the dispensary.    32.  Shortly thereafter, Defendants started sending telemarketing text messages to  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 2824. These text messages encouraged  Plaintiff to use and purchase Defendants’ products.    33.   Defendants’ text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone  number, and within the time frame relevant to this action.    34.  Defendants’ text messages constitute telemarketing because they encourage the  future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff cannabis  products.    35.  The information contained in the text messages advertised various promotions  and discounts, which Defendants sent to promote their business.    36.  The TCPA defines an ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity – (A) to  store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number  generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.”  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).     37.  Upon information and belief, and based upon the content and volume of text  messages, the text messages sent to the phone number ending in 2824 from several different  numbers were sent using an ATDS as defined of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   39.  Plaintiff has not provided “prior express consent,” as used in the TCPA, to  receive any telephonic or text message communication from Defendants.   40.  Plaintiff suffered concrete harm when he received unwanted and unsolicited  marketing text messages from Defendants, including in the form of lost time spent reviewing  the text messages while at work.   41.  The text messages described herein were not made “for emergency purposes”  as described in 47 U.S.C § 227(b)(1)(A).  VI.  42.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly  situated.   43.  Plaintiff proposes the following Class definition, subject to amendment as  appropriate:  “All persons in the United States who (1) received a text message to their  cellular phone number from Defendants, (2) within four years prior to the  filing of this action, (3) which text message was sent without the recipient’s  prior express consent, and (4) which text message(s) (a) advertised Defendants  or (b) encouraged the recipient to make a purchase from Defendants.”   44.  The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, their  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or their  parent companies have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers  and directors; (3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and timely file a  request for exclusion from the Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of  any such excluded persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendants have been fully  and finally adjudicated and/or released. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class  definition based upon facts learned in discovery.   46.  Numerosity. On information and belief, there are thousands of members of the  Class such that joinder of all members is impracticable.   47.  Commonality and Predominance. There are well defined, nearly identical,  questions of law or fact common to all members of the Class, which common issues  predominate over any issues involving only individual class members.  Factual and/or legal  common questions include, but are not limited to, the following:  a. Whether the text messages sent to Plaintiff and members of the Class were  made by Defendants;  b. Whether the text messages sent to Plaintiff and members of the Class by  Defendants are governed by the TCPA;  c. Whether the text messages sent to Plaintiff and members of the Class by  Defendants were advertisements and/or made for telemarketing purposes;  d. Whether Defendants had prior express consent from Plaintiff or any member of  the Class to receive such text messages;  e. Whether Defendants’ conduct violated the TCPA; and  f. Whether sending text messages to Plaintiff and members of the Class was  knowing and/or willful, giving rise to treble damages.   48.  Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class who, like Plaintiff,  received unsolicited text message advertisements for Empire Cannabis from Defendants.   50.  Superiority. Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)  is appropriate because class adjudication is superior to other available methods for fairly and  efficiently adjudicating this controversy. Specifically, the damages suffered by individual  members of the Class will likely be small relative to the burden and expense of individual  prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendants’ actions.  Thus, it would be  virtually impossible for members of the Class to obtain effective relief from Defendants’  misconduct on an individual basis. Moreover, given the relatively small individual relief,  class treatment is essential to compel Defendants to comply with the TCPA. A class action  provides the benefits of a single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive  supervision by a single court.   51.  Conduct generally applicable to the Class.  Certification of the Class under  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) is also appropriate in that Defendants have acted on  grounds generally appliable to each member of the Class, thereby making relief appropriate  with respect to the Class as a whole.    52.  Plaintiff requests that the Class be certified as a hybrid class under Rule  23(b)(3) for monetary damages and injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).  53.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 52 of this Complaint as  though fully set forth herein.   54.  Defendants and/or their agents sent unwanted solicitation text messages to  cellular phone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and other members of the Class using an  60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 59 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.   61. Defendants and/or their agents sent unwanted solicitation text messages to cellular phone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and other members of the Class using an  Negligent Violation of §227(b) of the TCPA  (Plaintiff Individually and On Behalf of the Class Against All Defendants)   Willful Violation of §227(b) of the TCPA  (Plaintiff Individually and On Behalf of the Class Against All Defendants)  