10. Defendant Message Center is in the business of providing answering services to healthcare professionals.  11. Defendant Message Center sent fax advertisements promoting Message Center’s answering services.  13. Plaintiff and Class members did not give their prior express consent to receive fax messages from Defendant, or phone calls of any kind, nor did they desire to receive such fax advertisements. 14. Plaintiff Tim Huckabee DDS, PA is a dentist located in Texas.  15. On January 19, 2016, Plaintiff received a fax message from Defendant. See Figure 1 (showing a copy of the Message Center’s fax advertisement sent to Plaintiff). (Figure 1.)  17. Plaintiff did not have any type of an established business relationship with Defendant Message Center.  18. Defendant was and is aware that the unsolicited fax advertisements at issue were (and are continuing to be) sent, and that the faxes were being transmitted to consumers and entities that had not consented to receive them. 20. Numerosity: The exact size of the Class is unknown and not available to Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief, Defendant has sent unsolicited fax advertisements to thousands of consumers and entities that fall into the definition of the Class. Members of the Class can be identified through Defendant’s records.  21. Commonality and Predominance: There are several questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common and predominant questions for the Class include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: (a) whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA; (b) whether Defendant’s fax messages constitute unsolicited advertisements; (c) whether Defendant systematically sent fax advertisements to members of the Class who did not previously provide Defendant with their prior express consent to receive such faxes; and (d) whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.  22. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class in that Plaintiff and the members of the Class sustained the same injuries arising out of Defendant’s uniform wrongful conduct and transmission of unsolicited fax advertisements.  24. Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for certification because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Class, and making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. Defendant’s policies challenged herein apply and affect members of the Class uniformly and Plaintiff’s challenge of these policies hinges on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff. Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward members of the Class. The factual and legal bases of Defendant’s liability to Plaintiff and to the other members of the Class are the same, resulting in injury to the Plaintiff and to all of the other members of the Class. Plaintiff and the members of the Class have suffered harm and damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct.  26. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.  27. Defendant sent, or directed to be sent, unsolicited fax message advertisements to fax machines belonging to Plaintiff and other members of the Class without their prior express consent to receive such messages.  28. Defendant’s fax messages are unsolicited advertisements because they advertise and otherwise solicit consumers and businesses to purchase Defendant Message Center’s goods and services and Plaintiff and the members of the Class did not consent to receive such messages. Specifically, the fax message included information about the availability of Defendant Message Center’s services and provided a phone number and website where a fax recipient could sign up and pay for the same.  29. Plaintiff and members of the Class did not provide their express consent to receive fax messages from Defendant and did not have any form of a business relationship with Defendant.  30. By making, or having made on their behalf, the unsolicited fax calls to Plaintiff and Class members’ fax machines without their prior express consent, Defendant has violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).  32. Should the Court determine that Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing, the Court may, pursuant to section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the Class. Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) 