10. The facsimile provides a link for Defendant’s medical “VIP program” and the cell  phone number and email address for Defendant’s new executive slated to appear at the conference.    11. The facsimile contains multiple graphics promoting Defendant’s mission,  leadership award, a stamp of approval, and a picture of a smiling, young woman posing in  Defendant’s clothing.     12. The facsimile contained no opt-out notice.  3  13. Plaintiff had no business relationship with Defendant, did not give Defendant its  number, and had not consented to be sent a facsimile.   14. On information and belief, Defendant routinely sends its facsimiles to recipients  where no relationship exists and sends these facsimiles without prior consent to do so.   15. On information and belief, Defendant continues to solicit businesses by sending  these facsimiles nationwide.   16. Plaintiff was damaged by this facsimile by suffering a monetary loss due to the  facsimile, incurring the costs of the use of facsimile paper, ink and toner, loss of employee time to  review the facsimile, invasion of privacy, nuisance, interruption of work, trespass to its chattel by  interfering with its office facsimile used to aid patients, stress, aggravation, and because a violation  of the TCPA itself is a concrete injury.  17. Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of itself and a Class of similarly situated individuals or business,  defined as follows:  A. All persons in the United States who received a facsimile from or on  behalf of Defendant and who had no ongoing business relationship with  Defendant and had not given consent to receive facsimiles from  Defendant or where the facsimiles did not provide opt out language,  within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint until the class  is certified.   18. Numerosity: The exact number class members is unknown and is not available to  Plaintiff at this time, but individual joinder in this case is impracticable. The Class likely consists  4 of thousands of individuals and businesses. Class members can be easily identified through  Defendant’s or its agent’s records.   19. Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and other members of the Class, and those questions predominate  over any questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the  Class include but are not limited to the following:  a) Whether Defendant sent the faxes or had them sent on its behalf;  b) Whether Defendant had consent;  c) Whether Defendant has processes in place to prevent these facsimiles;  d) Whether Defendant’s conduct was willful;  e) Whether Defendant’s facsimile was a solicitation; and   f) Whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA.   20. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other Class members and  it sustained the same damages as other members of the Class as a result of Defendant’s actions.   21. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect  the interests of the Class.  Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex  litigation and class actions, including TCPA cases. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the  Class, and Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and its counsel are committed  to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of members of the Class and have the financial  resources to do so.   22. Superiority: This case is appropriate for certification because class proceedings are  the best method available for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy in light of the  common issues across the class.   5 31. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.  32. The TCPA expressly prohibits unsolicited facsimile advertising, 47 U.S.C.§  227(b) (1) (C).  33. Defendant violated this provision by sending an unsolicited fax to Plaintiff.  34. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of  the Class suffered actual damages as set forth in paragraph 13 above and under Section  227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500 in statutory damages for each  violation.  35. Should the Court determine that Defendant’s misconduct was willful and knowingly,  the Court may, pursuant to section 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable  by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class to $1,500 per call. 8. On or about February 20, 2019, Plaintiff received a two-page facsimile on its fax  machine with “Coolibar, Inc.” as the listed sender. (Exhibit 1)   9. Defendant touts itself as “the industry leader in innovative, high-quality UPF 50+  clothing, hats and accessories” and solicits Plaintiff to visit its booth at the AAD Annual Meeting  in Washington, DC.: “We want to meet you! . . .Please set up a time to connect at the show by  emailing or calling, or simply stop by Booth #3054.”    Violation of 47 U.S.C § 227 (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  