(Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. – Telephone Consumer Protection Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   13.  In an effort to solicit more customers, Defendant sent, or had sent on their behalf,  unsolicited text message advertising calls, without prior express written consent, to cellular  telephones while using automatic telephone dialing equipment having the capacity to store and  dial telephone numbers, en masse. As a result, Defendant has repeatedly violated the TCPA.    14.  Given the relatively low cost associated with sending bulk text messages, many  businesses have turned to disseminating advertising calls or promotions through mass text  message campaigns.    15.  Seeking to market their services to consumers and, in turn, grow the customer  base for affiliated night clubs, Defendant engaged in this especially invasive form of advertising.   17.  The nature of the text message calls sent by Defendant indicates that it used an  automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). Specifically, the hardware and/or software used  by Defendant has the capacity to store, produce, and dial random and sequential numbers, and/or  receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, in an  automated fashion without human intervention. Defendant’s automated dialing equipment  includes features substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch as it is capable of making  numerous text message calls simultaneously (all without human intervention).    18.  The text message advertising calls alleged herein were exclusively made by  Defendant. Defendant made, or had made on their behalf, the same (or substantially the same)  text message calls en masse to thousands of cellular telephone numbers.    20.  Moreover, Defendant violated the TCPA by failing to clearly state the legal name  of the business responsible for initiating such calls and failing to provide an automated,  interactive voice-and/or key press-activated opt-out mechanism for the called  person  to  make  a   do-not-call request.   21.  Through their conduct, Defendant caused consumers actual harm by sending the  unsolicited text message calls at issue. Plaintiff and members of the Class were not only  subjected to the aggravation that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unauthorized text  messages, but also because consumers frequently have to pay their cell phone service providers  for the receipt of such unauthorized text messages.    22.  Moreover, Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered injuries in the form of  invasion of privacy and violations of their statutory rights, the monies paid to receive  Defendant’s unsolicited text messages, the diminished value and utility of their telephone  equipment and telephone subscription service (i.e. the value of such equipment and services is  higher when unencumbered by repeated and harassing text messages), the amount of time lost  answering and fielding unwanted telemarketing text messages, the wear and tear on their  telephone equipment, the loss of battery (which becomes diminished with each incoming phone  call), the loss of battery life (which has a finite number of charging cycles), and electricity costs  required to recharge their cellular phones.  24.  The text message calls at issue did not include an automated mechanism for  Plaintiff to opt out of receiving such calls.    25.  The sender is identified in the text message call at issue as a person named “Luke.”   26.  Upon information and belief, “Luke” did not personally initiate the calls at issue.    27.  In fact, the software and/or hardware products or services used by Defendant to  send the text message calls through a phone number also provided Defendant with the capacity to  store, produce, and dial random and sequential numbers, and/or receive and store lists of telephone  numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention.    28.  Upon information or belief, Defendant created and/or controlled the content of the  calls, initiated the calls, took steps necessary to physically place the calls and/or were so involved  in placing the calls at issue that they could be considered to have initiated them.     29.  The calls were advertisements because they were sent for the purpose of promoting  Defendant’s services through its website, LasVegasGuestList.Com, which was linked in all the  text message calls at issue.    30.  The calls were not addressed to Plaintiff by name.    32.  Defendant’s intrusive text messages adversely affected Plaintiff’s right to privacy.    33.  Defendant was and is aware that the above-described text message calls were being  made on a widespread basis, and that the text message calls were being made to consumers whom  had not consented to receive them.  34.  Class Definition: Plaintiff Magee brings this action on behalf of himself and a class  defined as follows:  Class: All individuals in the United States whose wireless telephone  number Defendant, or someone on Defendant’s behalf, called using an  automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice  without prior express written consent of the called party.  Excluded from the Class are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and  members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant's subsidiaries, parents, successors,  predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and  its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file  a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been  finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant's  counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.   36.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the putative 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 necessarily limited to the following:  a. Whether Defendant's conduct violated the TCPA;  b. Whether Defendant sent text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system  ("ATDS"), as contemplated by the TCPA;  c. Whether Defendant systematically sent text message advertisements to persons  who did not previously provide it with prior express written consent to receive such  text message calls; and  d. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based  on the willfulness of Defendant's conduct.   37.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the  Class, in that Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages arising out of Defendant's  uniform wrongful conduct and unsolicited text message calls.   39.  Appropriateness: This class action is also 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 class-wide injunctive relief appropriate.  Defendant's practices apply to and affect the members of the Class uniformly, and Plaintiff's  challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant's conduct with respect to the Class as a whole,  not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff. Additionally, the damages suffered by individual  members of the Class will likely be small relative to the burden and expense of individual  prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant's actions. Thus, it would be  virtually impossible for the members of the Class to obtain effective relief from Defendant's  misconduct on an individual basis. A class action provides the benefits of single adjudication,  economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Economies of time, effort,  and expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions will be ensured.   40.  Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the foregoing "Class Allegations" and "Class  Definition" based on facts learned through additional investigation and in discovery.  42.  In an effort to promote itself and affiliated local night clubs, Defendant made  unsolicited and unwanted text message advertising calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and  the Class without their prior express consent.   43.  Defendant sent the text message advertising calls to Plaintiff and the Class's cellular  telephone numbers using equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers  to be called using a random or sequential number generator, and/or receive and store lists of phone  numbers, and to dial such numbers en masse.   44.  Defendant utilized equipment that sent the text message advertising calls to Plaintiff  and other members of the putative Class simultaneously and without human intervention.   45.  By sending the text message advertising calls to Plaintiff and members of the  Class's cellular telephones without prior express written consent, and by utilizing an ATDS,  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(I)(A)(iii).   46.  By failing to clearly state the legal name of the business responsible for initiating  such text message advertising calls or provide an automated, interactive voice-and/or key press- activated opt-out mechanism for the called person to make a do-not-call request, Defendant also  violated 47 U.S.C.§ 64.1200(b)(1) and (3).   47.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  putative Class suffered actual damages and also have had their rights to privacy adversely  impacted. Plaintiff and the Class are therefore entitled to, among other things, a minimum of $500  in statutory damages for each such violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   49.  Additionally, as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class are entitled to an injunction under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A) to ensure that  Defendant’s violations of the TCPA do not continue into the future. 