14.  Within the last year, CRE began placing automated text messages to Plaintiff’s  cellular telephone, number (765) XXX-8930.   15.  The messages were sent from SMS short code 69273.   16.  The messages advised Plaintiff that he should “Reply STOP to opt out.”   17.  In accordance with the messages’ instructions, Plaintiff repeatedly messaged  “STOP” to CRE in order to get it to stop sending him automated text messages.    18.  However, notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ repeated requests, CRE continued to send  automated text messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.    19.  True and correct copies of the text messages are reproduced below:   32.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf  of himself and all others similarly situated.   33.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the following class:    All persons within the United States to whom CRE or its agent/s and/or  employee/s sent a text message to said person’s cellular telephone through  the use of any automatic telephone dialing system within the four years prior  to the filing of the Complaint, after said person had previously messaged  “STOP” to CRE.   34.  Defendant and its employees or 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  several thousands, if not more. Thus, this matter should be certified as a class action to assist in  the expeditious litigation of this matter.  B. Numerosity   35.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed automated text messages to  cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers throughout the United States,  after receiving messages asking it to “STOP.”  The members of the Class, therefore, are believed  to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   36.  The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time  and can only be ascertained through discovery.  Identification of the class members is a matter  capable of ministerial determination from Defendant’s call records.   8  C. Common Questions of Law and Fact    37.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over  any questions affecting only individual Class members.  These questions include:  a. Whether Defendant sent text messages to Plaintiff and Class members’  cellular telephones using an ATDS;  b. Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior express  consent to send each text message;  c. Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing willful, and/or negligent;  d. Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages;  and  e. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   38.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers.  If  Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely places automated text messages to telephone numbers  assigned to cellular telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have  identical claims capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.   D. Typicality    39.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all  based on the same factual and legal theories.  E. Protecting the Interests of the Class Members    40.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has  retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business  practices.  Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interests which might cause them not to  vigorously pursue this action.  9  F. Proceeding Via Class Action is Superior and Advisable    41.  A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecutions of  separate claims against CRE is small because it is not economically feasible for Class members  to bring individual actions.   42.  Management of this class action is unlikely to present any difficulties.  Several  courts have certified classes in TCPA actions.  These cases include, but are not limited to:  Mitchem v. Ill. Collection Serv., 271 F.R.D. 617 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Sadowski v. Med1 Online, LLC,  2008 WL 2224892 (N.D. Ill., May 27, 2008); CE Design Ltd. V. Cy’s Crabhouse North, Inc.,  259 F.R.D. 135 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC, 2012 WL 1932283 (S.D.  Cal., May 29, 2012).  43.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   44.  Defendant negligently placed multiple automated text messages to cellular  numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class without their prior express  consent.   45.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a negligent violation of  the TCPA.   46.  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages  for each call placed in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   47.  Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.  10   48.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and do seek a declaration that:  a. Defendant violated the TCPA;  b. Defendant utilized an ATDS to message Plaintiff and the Class; and  c. Defendant placed automated text messages to the Plaintiff and the Class  without prior express consent.   49.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   50.  Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed multiple automated text messages to  cellular numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class without their prior  express consent.   51.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing and/or  willful violation of the TCPA.   52.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of treble damages up to $1,500.00 for each call in  violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   53.  Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.    54.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and do seek a declaration that:  a. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA;  b. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully used an ATDS to send text messages to  Plaintiff and the Class;   c. Defendant willfully placed automated text messages to non-customers such as  11  Plaintiff and the Class, knowing it did not have prior express consent to do so;  and  d. It  is  Defendant’s  practice  and  history  to  place  automated  and  artificial/prerecorded voice calls to non-customers without their prior express  consent.   A. The Class   Dated: May 21, 2019  Respectfully submitted,  By  /s/ Amy Cueller  Amy Cueller, Esq.  Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,   47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,   47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  