17.  As part of its business practices, Defendant would uniformly send text messages to  hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has sent at least ten  thousand illegal text messages over the last four years preceding this lawsuit.   18.  Plaintiff herself was sent at least two text messages without his express consent.   19.  Below is a depiction of actual text messages received by Plaintiff from Defendant:   21.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express consent to be  contacted.   22.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the ***-***-9685 phone number.   23.  The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text messages, and the use of a short- code, demonstrates that Defendant utilized an ATDS in transmitting the messages. See Jenkins v. LL  Atlanta, LLC, No. 1:14- cv-2791-WSD, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30051, at *11 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 9,  2016) (“These assertions, combined with the generic, impersonal nature of the text message  advertisements and the use of a short code, support an inference that the text messages were sent using  an ATDS.”) (citing Legg v. Voice Media Grp., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 3d 1370, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (plaintiff  alleged facts sufficient to infer text messages were sent using ATDS; use of a short code and volume of  mass messaging alleged would be impractical without use of an ATDS); Kramer v. Autobytel, Inc., 759  F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1171 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (finding it “plausible” that defendants used an ATDS where  messages were advertisements written in an impersonal manner and sent from short code); Robbins v.  Coca-Cola Co., No. 13-CV-132- IEG NLS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72725, 2013 WL 2252646, at *3  (S.D. Cal. May 22, 2013) (observing that mass messaging would be impracticable without use of an  26.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  herself and all others similarly situated.   27.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a Class defined as follows:  All persons within the United States who, within the four years  prior to the filing of this Complaint, received text message made  through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system, from  Defendant or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s  cellular telephone number, not for emergency purpose and  without the recipient’s prior express consent.   28.  Defendant and their employees or agents, Plaintiff’s attorneys and their employees, the  Judge to whom this action is assigned and any member of the Judge’s staff and immediate family, and  claims for personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress are excluded from the Class.  Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number  in the several thousands, if not more.  31.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and  fact common to the Class are:  (1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff’s and Class  members’ cellular telephones using an ATDS;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet their burden of showing that they obtained prior  express consent to make such calls;  (3) Whether Defendant conduct was knowing and willful;  (4) Whether Defendant are liable for damages, and the amount of such damages;  and  (5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   32.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s  claim that Defendant routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers assigned to cellular  telephone services is accurate, Plaintiffs and the Class members will have identical claims capable of  being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  37.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-36 as if fully set forth herein.   38.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  automatic telephone dialing system . . .  to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone  service ….” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   40.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant– used equipment having the  capacity to dial numbers without human intervention to make telephone calls to the cellular  telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class defined above.   41.  These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained  express consent to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior express consent to call  the cell phones of Plaintiff and Class Members when the subject calls were made.   42.  Defendant therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  automatic telephone dialing system to make telephone calls to the cell phones of Plaintiff and Class  Members without their prior express consent.   43.  All possible Defendants are directly, jointly, or vicariously liable for each such  violation of the TCPA.   44.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an  injunction against future calls.  45.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-36 as if fully set forth herein.    47.  Defendant knew that they did not have prior express consent to send these text  messages.   48.  Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members  had not given prior express consent to receive its autodialed calls to their cellular telephones, the  Court should treble the amount of statutory damages available to Plaintiff and the other members  of the putative Class pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.   49.  All possible Defendants are directly, jointly, or vicariously liable for each such  violation of the TCPA.   50.  As a result of Defendant violations, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to  an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, AMY BETIT, on behalf of herself and the other members of  the Class, prays for the following relief:  a.  A declaration that Defendant practices described herein violate the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227;  b.  A declaration that Defendant violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,  47 U.S.C. § 227, were willful and knowing;  c.  An injunction prohibiting Defendant from using an automatic telephone dialing  system to call and text message telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephones without the  prior express consent of the called party;  d.  An award of actual, statutory damages, and/or trebled statutory damages; and  e.  Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.  Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   PROPOSED CLASS   Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  