16.  GMC owns and operates 2 retail stores in Colorado that sell marijuana and  marijuana-related items to consumers.4   17.  As part of its business practice, GMC places solicitation text messages to  consumers in order to solicit them to purchase marijuana and marijuana-related items.   19.  Furthermore, Defendant lacks a sufficient stop call/text system that results in  Defendant continuing to send text messages to consumers who have requested that the Defendant  stop text messaging them.    20.  For example, in Plaintiff Baker’s case, Defendant sent multiple text messages to  his phone number registered on the DNC, despite his requesting that Defendant stop texting his  cell phone.   21.  In response to these text messages, Plaintiff Baker files this lawsuit seeking  monetary and injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease from violating the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the  Classes and costs.  22.  Plaintiff Baker registered his phone number on the DNC on November 4, 2004.   23.  Plaintiff Baker’s phone number is not associated with a business and is used for  personal use only.   24.  On September 29, 2020 at 2:21 PM, Plaintiff Baker received an unsolicited text  message to his cell phone from Defendant from the phone number 720-487-9023 promoting  Defendant’s business.   26.  Based on an investigation conducted by Plaintiff’s attorneys, 720-487-9023  provides a message that the phone number is not configured for incoming calls when dialed.   27.  Despite his stop request, Plaintiff received a second unsolicited text message from  Defendant on October 28, 2020 at 3:24 PM from the phone number 720-679-8611.   28.  Plaintiff replied “Stop” to this text message as well.   31.  Plaintiff has never provided Defendant with consent to send him unsolicited text  messages or calls to his cell phone.   32.  In addition, Defendant failed to stop texting the Plaintiff after Plaintiff opted-out  from the first text message that he received.    33.  The unauthorized solicitation text messages that Plaintiff received from GMC, as  alleged herein, have harmed Plaintiff Baker in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of  privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the  phone’s hardware (including the phone’s battery) and the consumption of memory on the phone.    35.  Plaintiff Baker brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) and seek certification of the following Classes:  Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior  to the filing of this action through trial (1) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of the  Defendant) texted more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) where the  person’s telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at  least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same reason Defendant texted Plaintiff, and (5)  for whom Defendant claims (a) they obtained prior express written consent in the same  manner as Defendant claims they supposedly obtained prior express written consent to  text Plaintiff, or (b) they obtained the person’s number in the same manner as Defendant  claims they obtained Plaintiff’s number.  Internal Do Not Call Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior  to the filing of this action through trial (1) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of  Defendant) texted more than one time (2) within any 12-month period (3) for  substantially the same reason Defendant texted Plaintiff.   36.  The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, their  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which either Defendant or its  parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors;  (3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion  from the Classes; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded  persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated  and/or released. Plaintiff Baker anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following  appropriate discovery.   38.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of the Plaintiff and the Classes, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes  include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:  (a)  whether Defendant GMC systematically sent multiple text messages to Plaintiff  and other consumers whose telephone numbers were registered with the DNC  without first obtaining consent to send the text messages;  (b)  whether Defendant GMC’s text messages to Plaintiff and other consumers were  sent for telemarketing purposes;  (c)  whether Defendant GMC sent telemarketing text messages to consumers after  being instructed to stop texting;  (d)  whether the Defendant engaged in telemarketing without implementing adequate  internal policies and procedures for maintaining an internal do not call list;   (e)  whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA;  (f)  whether members of the Classes are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.   39.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff Baker will fairly and adequately represent  and protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in  class actions. Plaintiff Baker has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant  has no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Baker and his counsel are committed to vigorously  prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Classes, and have the financial resources  to do so. Neither Plaintiff Baker nor his counsel have any interest adverse to the Classes.   41.  Plaintiff Baker repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint  and incorporates them by reference.   42.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o  person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber  who has registered his or his telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons  who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”   43.  Any “person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month  period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this  subsection may” may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were  promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone  solicitations to which they object.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c).   45.  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class received more than one text message in a 12-month period made by or on behalf  of the Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above.    46.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class suffered actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled, inter  alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.   47.  To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing,  the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.  48.  Plaintiff Baker repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint  and incorporates them by reference.   50.  Defendant or their agents sent marketing text messages to Plaintiff and members  of the Internal Do Not Call Class without implementing internal procedures for maintaining a list  of persons who request not to be texted by the entity and/or by implementing procedures that do  not meet the minimum requirements to allow Defendant to initiate telemarketing calls/texts.   52.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Internal Do Not Call Class are each  entitled to up to $1,500 per violation.   53.  Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Registry Class)  