15.  On or about June 18, 2008, Plaintiff successfully registered his cellular telephone  number ending in -1774 with the National Do Not Call Registry.   16.  During or about June of 2016, Defendant began sending unsolicited text messages  to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.   17.  The text messages contained information related to sales and new apparel available  from Defendant and also included an option to reply with the word “stop” in order to unsubscribe  4  from Defendant’s text messages.   18.  Even though Plaintiff repeatedly replied to Defendant’s text messages with the  word “stop,” Defendant continued to send text messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. By  sending such replies, Plaintiff clearly indicated that he did not expressly consent to Defendant  sending him these text messages.   19.  Despite Plaintiff’s requests that Defendant cease sending text messages to his  cellular telephone, Defendant sent numerous messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone after such  “stop” requests were made.   20.  Despite Plaintiff’s unequivocal request that Defendant stop sending him unsolicited  text messages, Plaintiff continued to receive many more such messages from Defendant   21.  Plaintiff has not previously sought out or requested information regarding  Defendant’s business. Further, Plaintiff has not transacted any business with Defendant, nor  provided authorization for Defendant to contact Plaintiff in any way, including via automated  telephone call or text message.   22.  Between June 12, 2017 and August 30, 2017, Plaintiff received at least 58  unsolicited text messages from Defendant on his cellular telephone.   23.  On information and belief, Plaintiff has received more than 140 text messages since  Defendant began sending them during or about June of 2016.  24.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as  a member of the proposed class defined as follows (the “Class”):  All persons or entities within the United States who received any  text message or messages, sent by or on behalf of Defendant,  without the consent of the recipient, within four years prior to the  filing of this Complaint.  5   25.  Defendant, its employees and agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not  know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number in the hundreds,  if not more. Thus, this matter should be certified as a Class Action to assist in the expeditious  litigation of the matter.   26.  The Class is so numerous that the individual joinder of all of their members is  impractical. While the exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown to Plaintiff  at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff is informed and  believes and thereon alleges that the Class include hundreds, if not thousands of members. Plaintiff  alleges that the Class members may be ascertained by the records maintained by Defendant.   27.  This suit is properly maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.23(a)  because the Class are so numerous that joinder of the Class members is impractical and the  disposition of their claims in the Class Action will provide substantial benefits both to the parties  and to the Court.   28.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Class affecting the parties to be  represented. The questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over questions which  may affect individual Class members and include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:  a.  Whether the Class members received any text messages, sent by or on  behalf of Defendant, without the consent of the recipient, within four years  prior to the filing of this Complaint; and  b.  Whether Defendant violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., by sending  automated text messages to the Class members without proper consent.  6   29.  As a resident of the United States who received text messages, sent by or on behalf  of Defendant, without his consent, within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff  is asserting claims that are typical of the Class.   30.  Plaintiff has no interest adverse or antagonistic to the interests of the other members  of the Class.   31.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class.  Plaintiff has retained attorneys experienced in the prosecution of class actions.    32.  A class action is superior to other available methods of fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy, since individual litigation of the claims of all Class members is  impracticable. Even if every Class member could afford individual litigation, the court system  could not. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which individual litigation of numerous  issues would proceed. Individualized litigation would also present the potential for varying,  inconsistent or contradictory judgments and would magnify the delay and expense to all parties,  and to the court system, resulting from multiple trials of the same complex factual issues. By  contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action presents fewer management difficulties,  conserves the resources of the parties and of the court system and protects the rights of each Class  member. Class treatment will also permit the adjudication of relatively small claims by many Class  members who could not otherwise afford to seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of herein.    33.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create a  risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the  interests of the other Class members not parties to such adjudications or that would substantially  impair or impede the ability of such non-party Class members to protect their interests.   7   34.  Defendant has acted or refused to act in respect generally applicable to the Class,  thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief with regard to the members of the Class as  a whole.    35.  Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the TCPA, including but not  limited to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) and (d), as to the Class members with  respect to the above-alleged transactions.    36.  The TCPA, specifically 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), provides that:  It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any  person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United  States 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 or an artificial or  prerecorded voice…to any telephone number assigned to a paging  service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service,  or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the  called party is charged for the call, unless such call is made solely  to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States…   37.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) provides that:  [n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation to…[a]  residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her  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.   38.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) provides that:  No person or entity shall initiate any call for telemarketing purposes  to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has  instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request  not to receive telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of that  person or entity. The procedures instituted must meet the following  minimum standards:  …  (3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or  entity making a call for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf  such a call is made) receives a request from a residential telephone  subscriber not to receive calls from that person or entity, the person  8  or entity must record the request and place the subscriber's name, if  provided, and telephone number on the do-not-call list at the time  the request is made. Persons or entities making calls for  telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such calls are made)  must honor a residential subscriber's do-not-call request within a  reasonable time from the date such request is made. This period may  not exceed thirty days from the date of such request.    39.  In multiple instances, Defendant sent text messages to the Class members without  the prior express consent of the recipients, in violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   40.  In multiple instances, Defendant sent text messages to the Class members after the  members requested they stop and after the members registered with the federal government’s Do- Not-Call list, in violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., and 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c).    41.  In addition, on information and belief, Defendant has not instituted procedures for  maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing messages made by or on  behalf of Defendant, in violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., and 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d).   42.  The size and definition of the Class can be identified through Defendant’s records  and/or Defendant’s agents’ records.  43.   Plaintiff incorporates all of the allegations and statements made in paragraphs 1  through 42 above as if reiterated herein.   44.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitutes numerous and multiple  negligent violations of the TCPA, including, but not limited to, each and every one of the above  cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., including the implementing regulations of 47 C.F.R.   45.  As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., Plaintiff  is entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages for each and every violation, pursuant to  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   46.  Plaintiff is also entitled to and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in  the future.  47.   Plaintiff incorporates all of the allegations and statements made in paragraphs 1  through 46 above as if reiterated herein.    48.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitutes numerous and multiple  knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including, but not limited to, each and every one  of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., including the implementing regulations  of 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c) and (d).   49.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et  seq., Plaintiff is entitled to an award of up to $1,500.00 in statutory damages for each and every  violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   50.  Plaintiff is also entitled to and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in  the future.  64.1200(c) and (d).   9   NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT   WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  