30.  Plaintiff still has and had, at all relevant times to this action, telephone service at  954-327-7450 at its place of business at Scott Barr, DDS, 300 NW 70 Avenue, Suite 206A,  Plantation, FL 33317. Plaintiff receives facsimile transmissions (hereinafter "faxes") at this  number, using a telephone facsimile machine (hereinafter "fax machine").   32.  Exhibit A was wholly unsolicited in that Defendant sent it to Plaintiff without  Plaintiff’s express invitation or permission. In addition, as stated above, Exhibit A does not  contain the opt-out notice required by the TCPA.  33.  Plaintiff brings this class action under rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) & (b)(3) of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of itself and of a similarly situated “Class” or “Class  Members” defined as:  All persons in the United States from four years prior to the date of the filing of the  instant Complaint through the date of the filing of the instant Complaint to whom  Defendant sent or caused to be sent a facsimile advertisement in the form attached as  Exhibit A, promoting the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or  services.  Excluded from the Class are: any Defendant, and any subsidiary or affiliate of that  Defendant, and the directors, officers and employees of that Defendant or its subsidiaries  or affiliates, and members of the federal judiciary.   35.  Numerosity: At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact number of Class  Members, but among other things, given the nature of the claims and that Defendant's conducted  consisted of a standardized fax campaign and widely disseminated standardized fax  electronically sent to particular telephone numbers, Plaintiff believes, at a minimum, there are  hundreds of Class Members. Plaintiff believes that the Class is so numerous that joinder of all  members of the Class is impracticable and the disposition of their claims in a class action rather  than incremental individual actions will benefit the Parties and the Court by eliminating the  possibility of inconsistent or varying adjudications of individual actions.   36.   Upon information and belief, a more precise Class size and the identities of the  individual members thereof are ascertainable through Defendant’s records, including, but not  limited to Defendant’s fax and marketing records.   37.  Members of the Class may additionally or alternatively be notified of the  pendency of this action by techniques and forms commonly used in class actions, such as by  published notice, e-mail notice, website notice, fax notice, first class mail, or combinations  thereof, or by other methods suitable to this class and deemed necessary and/or appropriate by  the Court.   39.  One or more questions or issues of law and/or fact regarding Defendant’s liability  are common to all Class Members and predominate over any individual issues that may exist and  may serve as a basis for class certification under Rule 23(c)(4).   40.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the  Class. The claims of the Plaintiff and members of the Class are based on the same legal theories  and arise from the same course of conduct that violates the TCPA.   42.  Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class  because Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the Class.  Plaintiff will fairly, adequately and vigorously represent and protect the interests of the members  of the Class and has no interests antagonistic to the members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained  counsel, who are competent and experienced in litigation in the federal courts, TCPA litigation  and class action litigation.   44.  Class-Wide Injunctive Relief and Rule 23(b)(2): Moreover, as an alternative to  or in addition to certification of the Class under Rule 23(b)(3), class certification is warranted  under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff  and members of Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff  and Class Members as a whole.  Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of Class Members on  grounds generally applicable to the entire Class in order to enjoin and prevent Defendant’s’  ongoing violations of the TCPA, and to order Defendant to provide notice to them of their rights  under the TCPA to statutory damages and to be free from unwanted faxes  45.  Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in all of the above  paragraphs and incorporates such allegations by reference.   46.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class defined above  against Defendant for its violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991  (“TCPA”), Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394 (1991) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227) and the  rules prescribed under it by the FCC.   47.  At all times material to this action, Defendant was a person that used or caused to  be used a “telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device” to send, to a “telephone  facsimile machine” an “unsolicited advertisement” or an “advertisement” within the meaning of  the TCPA and its regulations.   49.  Each of the foregoing advertisements violated the TCPA because they failed to  contain the opt-out notice required by 47 U.S.C § 227(b)(1)(C)(iii); 47 C.F.R. §   50.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to statutory  damages under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b).   51.  If it is found that Defendant willfully and/or knowingly sent and/or caused to be  sent fax advertisements to Plaintiff and the members of Class in violation of the TCPA, Plaintiff  requests an increase by the Court of the damage award against Defendant, described in the  preceding paragraph, to three times the amount available under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), as  authorized by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) for willful or knowing violations.   64.1200(a)(3)(iv); and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3)(iii).   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)   