15.  Addison Health Systems sent material to PHI via its office facsimile machine that  promoted the commercial activity availability or quality of Addison Health Systems’ goods or  services on March 4, 2014.    16.  Addison Health Systems did not seek or obtain permission from PHI to send an ad  to PHI’s facsimile machine prior to doing so.  Case: 1:17-cv-00466-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/11/17 Page: 3 of 7  PAGEID #: 3 4   17.   The 3/4 Fax Ad did not contain an opt-out notice that complied with the  requirements of the JFPA.    18.   Based on information, belief, and the appearance of the 3/4 Fax Ad, Addison  Health Systems sent the 3/4 Fax Ad to more than forty persons via facsimile.   19.  In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, PHI brings this action on behalf of the  following persons: “All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action (2)  were sent the 3/4 Fax Ad or similar material (3) via facsimile (4) by or on behalf of Addison  Health Systems.”  This class of persons constitutes the putative class members.  PHI may amend  the class definition after discovery identifies potential class members, additional facsimile  advertisements, and/or the contours of the class.   20.  Numerosity: Based on information, belief, and the appearance of the 3/4 Fax Ad,  the number of putative class members exceeds forty.  3/4 Fax Ads are typically sent to hundreds  if not thousands of persons.  The joinder of such a large group of persons in a single lawsuit  would be impracticable.      21.  Commonality:  Common questions of law and fact apply to the claims of the  putative class members.  These include the following:  (a)   Whether the 3/4 Fax Ad constitutes an “unsolicited  advertisement” within the meaning of the JFPA;   (b)  How Addison Health Systems compiled or obtained the list  of fax numbers to which the 3/4 Fax Ad was sent;  (c)  Whether Addison Health Systems obtained “express  invitation or permission” within the meaning of the JFPA  from the intended targets prior to sending them the 3/4 Fax  Ad;    Case: 1:17-cv-00466-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/11/17 Page: 4 of 7  PAGEID #: 4 5  (d)   Whether the 3/4 Fax Ad contained an opt-out notice that  complied with the requirements of the JFPA;   (e)   Whether Addison Health Systems violated the JFPA and  the regulations promulgated thereunder with regard to the  3/4 Fax Ad; and   (f)  Whether Addison Health Systems sent the 3/4 Fax Ad  intentionally, knowingly, or willfully.     22.  Typicality:  PHI’s claims are typical of the claims of the putative class members.   PHI is asserting the same claim under the same federal statute as the other members of the  putative class.  PHI is also seeking the same relief for itself and the other members of the  putative class.     23.  Adequacy:   PHI will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the putative  class members.  PHI has no interests in conflict with the putative class members, has the  resources and inclination to prosecute this action to completion, and has retained experienced  counsel to assist it in doing so.       24.  Predominance:  The questions of law and fact common to the putative class  members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members because:  (a)  PHI’s claim depends on the same factual and legal issues as  that of the putative class members;    (b)  the evidence supporting Addison Health Systems’ likely  defenses will come solely from Addison Health Systems’  own records and will not require any information or  inquiries from individual class members;  (c)   the damages for all putative class members are set by  statute and will, therefore, be the same for each and every  member of the putative class; and   (d)  the identity of the putative class members can be readily  ascertained from Addison Health Systems’ or its agents’  computer records, phone records, or other business records.    Case: 1:17-cv-00466-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/11/17 Page: 5 of 7  PAGEID #: 5 6   25.  Superiority:   A class action would be superior to individual actions by the  putative class members for the following reasons:   (a)   the damages suffered by any one class member are too low  to justify a stand-alone lawsuit;   (b)   the JFPA contains no provision for awarding attorney fees.   As such, individual claimants would, as a practical matter,  have to proceed pro se against a large, sophisticated  defendant;   (c)   many of the putative class members are legal entities that  would not be permitted to proceed in court pro se; and    (d)   the evidence concerning each of putative class member’s  claims is so similar that the adjudication of each on an  individual basis would be repetitive, inefficient, and  wasteful.   