25.  Plaintiff still has and had, at all relevant times to this action, telephone  facsimile service at (714) 633-7470 at its place of business in Orange, California.   Plaintiff receives facsimile transmissions (faxes) at this number, using a telephone  facsimile machine (fax machine).   26.  On or about April 29, 2019, Defendants, without Plaintiff’s express  invitation or permission, arranged for or caused a telephone facsimile machine,  computer, or other device to send an unsolicited fax advertisement, advertising the  commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services, to Plaintiff’s fax  machine located at its principal place of business.  A copy of the fax advertisement is  attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference.   27.  Exhibit A advertised an injection workshop in Los Angeles for $299  whereby CME (Continuing Medical Education) could be earned.   28.  Exhibit A contains a Designation Statement, which states in part, “Albert  Einstein College of Medicine designates this live activity for a maximum of 4.0 AMA  PRA Category 1 CreditsTM.”   29.  Exhibit A indicates contains this statement:  “This activity is jointly  provided by Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Scientiae, LLC.”   30.  Exhibit A mentions Einstein more than a dozen times.   31.  Exhibit A was unsolicited in that Defendants sent it to Plaintiff without  Plaintiff’s express invitation or permission.    32.  Exhibit A lacks the opt-out notice required by the TCPA.  41.  This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class  action against Defendants pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  because there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed  Class is easily ascertainable. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definition if  discovery and further investigation reveal that any Class should be expanded or  otherwise modified.   42.  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  Defendants’ 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.   43.  Upon information and belief, a more precise Class size and the identities  of the individual members thereof are ascertainable through Defendants’ records,  including, but not limited to Defendants’ fax and marketing records.   44.  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  or appropriate by the Court.   47.  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.   48.  Plaintiff and members of the Class each received at least one fax  advertisement, advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,  goods, or services, which contained no purported opt-out notice, which Defendants  sent or caused to be sent to Plaintiff and the members of the Class.   49.  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 competent and experienced in litigation in  the federal courts, TCPA litigation, and class-action litigation.   51.  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 Defendants have 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 Defendants’  ongoing violations of the TCPA, and to order Defendants to provide notice to them of  their rights under the TCPA to statutory damages and to be free from unwanted faxes.  52.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations from above.   53.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class defined  above against Defendants for violation of the TCPA and the rules prescribed under it  by the FCC.   54.  At all times material to this action, Defendants were each 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.   55.  Defendants sent or caused to be sent hundreds or thousands of these  advertisements exemplified by Exhibit A.  Plaintiff and each Class Member received at  least one of them.   57.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to  statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b).   58.  If it is found that Defendants willfully or knowingly sent or caused to be  sent fax advertisements to Plaintiff and the members of Class in violation of the TCPA,  such as Scientiae’s continued practices after getting sued in the Illinois Junk-Fax Case,  Plaintiff requests an increase by the Court of the damage award against Defendants,  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.   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)   