10.  Upon information and belief, the ATDS used to send the HomeJab Text  Messages has the present capacity to dial and store random and sequential numbers and it  can send text messages without human intervention.   11.  Pursuant to the TCPA and its implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R.   12.  However, Defendant, or a third party on Defendant’s behalf, sent the  HomeJab Text Messages despite not obtaining Plaintiff’s Prior Express Written Consent.   13.  Pursuant to the TCPA and its implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R.   14.  Defendant sent the HomeJab Text Messages without obtaining Plaintiff’s  or the other recipients’ Prior Express Written Consent to send text messages using an  ATDS, and without obtaining the signature of Plaintiff or the other recipients on a written  agreement that states: “By executing the agreement, such person authorizes the seller to  deliver or cause to be delivered to the signatory telemarketing calls using an automatic  telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.”   15.  These actions violate the TCPA and are an invasion of privacy and right to  seclusion.   16.  By sending the HomeJab Text Messages, Defendant harmed Plaintiff and  the members of the putative class by: (1) invading their privacy and right to seclusion; (2)  wasting their time; (3) causing the risk of personal injury due to interruption and  distraction; (4) forcing them to incur charges; (5) depleting a cell phone's or wireless  phone’s battery, resulting in increased electricity costs; (6) intrusion upon and occupation  of the capacity of a cell phone or wireless phone; and (7) causing the risk of personal  injury due to interruption and distraction.  17.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and  23(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for statutory damages on behalf of himself  and a class of all persons similarly situated.   19.  Class Size (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)): Plaintiff avers that the proposed class  is in excess of 50 persons. The class size is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.     20.  Commonality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)): There are questions of law and  fact common to all members of the class.  Common material questions of fact and law  include, but are not limited to, the following:  a. whether Defendant (or another on its behalf) used an ATDS to send the  HomeJab Text Messages to Plaintiff and other members of the class;  b. whether the HomeJab Text Messages constitute Advertisements;  c. whether the HomeJab Text Messages constitute Telemarking;  d. whether Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and its  implementing regulations by using (or having another on its behalf use) an  ATDS to send HomeJab Text Messages to Plaintiff and the class members  without obtaining Prior Express Written Consent;  e. whether Plaintiff and the other members of the class are entitled to statutory  damages; and  f. whether Plaintiff and the other members of the class are entitled to treble  damages.   22.  Fair and Adequate Representation (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)): The named  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class  members.  Plaintiff is committed to this cause, will litigate it vigorously, and is aware of  the fiduciary duties of a class representative.  Plaintiff’s interests are consistent with and  not antagonistic to the interests of the other class members.  Plaintiff has a strong  personal interest in the outcome of this action and has retained experienced class counsel  to represent his and the other class members.   23.  Class Counsel is experienced in class action litigation and has successfully  litigated class claims.   25.  Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein by reference the averments set  forth in paragraphs 1 through 24, above.   26.  Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant for sending HomeJab  Text Messages to himself and to members of the Plaintiff Class in violation of the TCPA  and its implementing regulations.   27.  Defendant violated the TCPA and implementing regulations 47 C.F.R. §   29.  In the alternative, the named Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class  are entitled to $500 for each of the HomeJab Text Messages that violated 47 C.F.R. §   64.1200, text messages that constitute advertising or telemarketing that are sent with the  use of an ATDS may not be sent to persons or entities without obtaining Prior Express  Written Consent.   64.1200(a) and $500 for each of the HomeJab Text Messages that violated 47 C.F.R. §   64.1200(a), by initiating or authorizing the sending of the HomeJab Text Messages to the  phone numbers of Plaintiff and the members of the Plaintiff Class without receiving Prior  Express Written Consent.   8.  Upon information and belief, Defendant or a third party on Defendant’s  behalf used an ATDS to send the HomeJab Text Messages to Plaintiff and other persons  and entities.   9.  Upon information and belief, the ATDS used to send the HomeJab Text  Messages has the present capacity to store lists of numbers and send text messages to  those numbers automatically.   