10.  Plaintiff had no business relationship with Defendant, did not give Defendant its  number, and had not consented to be sent a facsimile.  3   11.  No opt out notice was provided as required on all faxes.   12.  On information and belief, Defendant continues to send these facsimiles  nationwide without prior consent to do so.   13.  Plaintiff was damaged by these faxes by suffering a monetary loss due to the  faxes, incurring the costs of the use of facsimile paper, ink and toner, loss of employee time to  review the fax, 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.  14.  Class Definition: Plaintiffs bring 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 person 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 six years prior to the filing  of the Complaint, until this class is certified.   15.  Numerosity: The exact number of each Class is unknown and is not available to  Plaintiff at this time, but individual joinder in this case is impracticable. The Class likely consists  of thousands of individuals and businesses. Class members can be easily identified through  Defendant’s records.  4   16.  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 facsimiles were solicitations; and   f)  Whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA.   17.  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.   18.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class and 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.   19.  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 fax advertising, 47 U.S.C.§ 227(b)  7.  On or about April 18, 2017, Plaintiff received a facsimile on its fax machine from  Defendant.   8.  The form fax was one page and stated it was from: “RxPedite Pharmacy”.   9.  The fax, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, solicited the Plaintiff to provide the generic  drug Doryx AG to its patients, and touted itself as “the only pharmacy, in Ohio” to carry the  generic brand.   Violation of 47 U.S.C § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  