11.  On information and belief, on or about March 21, 2012, Defendants transmitted  by telephone facsimile machine an unsolicited facsimile to Plaintiff.  A copy of the facsimile is  attached hereto as Exhibit A.   12.  On information and belief, Defendants receive some or all of the revenues from  the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A, and Defendants benefit  from the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A.   14.  On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited  facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 25 other recipients or sent the same and other  advertisements by fax with the required opt out language without first receiving the recipients’  express permission or invitation.    15.  There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other class member) to avoid  receiving unauthorized faxes.  Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the urgent  communications their owners desire to receive.    16.  Defendants’ facsimile attached as Exhibit A did not display a proper opt-out  notice as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.  17.  In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this  class action pursuant to the JFPA, on behalf of the following class of persons:  All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this  action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material  advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,  goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) which  Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation, or  (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice.  Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their employees, agents and members of the  Judiciary.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition upon completion of class  certification discovery.   2.  A statement that the sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within  30 days and the sender’s failure to do so is unlawful – thereby encouraging recipients to  opt-out, if they did not want future faxes, by advising them that their opt-out requests will  have legal “teeth”;   20.  Typicality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (3)):  The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the  claims of all class members.  The Plaintiff received the same faxes as the faxes sent by or on  behalf of the Defendants advertising products, goods and services of the Defendants during the  Class Period. The Plaintiff is making the same claims and seeking the same relief for itself and  all class members based upon the same federal statute.  The Defendants have acted in the same  or in a similar manner with respect to the Plaintiff and all the class members by sending Plaintiff  and each member of the class the same faxes.   21.  Fair and Adequate Representation (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4)):  The Plaintiff will  fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.  It is interested in this  matter, has no conflicts and has retained experienced class counsel to represent the class.   22.  Need for Consistent Standards and Practical Effect of Adjudication (Fed. R. Civ.  P. 23 (b) (1)):  Class certification is appropriate because the prosecution of individual actions by  class members would: (a) create the risk of inconsistent adjudications that could establish  incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) as a practical matter,  adjudication of the Plaintiff's claims will be dispositive of the interests of class members who are  not parties.   23.  Common Conduct (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2)):  Class certification is also  appropriate because the Defendants have acted and refused to act in the same or similar manner  with respect to all class members thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate.  The Plaintiff demands such relief as authorized by 47 U.S.C. §227.   25.  The JFPA makes it unlawful for any person to “use any telephone facsimile  machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited  advertisement . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).   26.  The JFPA defines “unsolicited advertisement” as “any material advertising the  commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any  person without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.” 47  U.S.C. § 227 (a) (5).   27.  Opt-Out Notice Requirements. The JFPA strengthened the prohibitions against  the sending of unsolicited advertisements by requiring, in § (b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that senders  of faxed advertisements place a clear and conspicuous notice on the first page of the transmission  that contains the following among other things (hereinafter collectively the “Opt-Out Notice  Requirements”):   29.  The Fax.  Defendants sent on or about March 21, 2012, advertisement and any  other advertisements sent to Plaintiff and other members of the class via facsimile transmission  from telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to the telephone lines and  facsimile machines of Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class.  The Fax constituted an  advertisement under the Act.  Defendants failed to comply with the Opt-Out Requirements in  connection with the Fax.  The Fax was transmitted to persons or entities without their prior  express permission or invitation and/or Defendants are precluded from asserting any prior  express permission or invitation or that Defendants had an established business relationship with  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out  Notice Requirements.  By virtue thereof, Defendants violated the JFPA and the regulations  promulgated thereunder by sending the Fax via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff and members  of the Class.   3.  A statement advising the recipient that he or she may opt-out with respect  to all of his or her facsimile telephone numbers and not just the ones that receive a faxed  advertisement from the sender – thereby instructing a recipient on how to make a valid  opt-out request for all of his or her fax machines.  The requirement of (1) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act.  The  requirement of (2) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act and the rules and  regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) in ¶ 31 of its 2006 Report  and Order (In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer  Protection Act, Junk Prevention Act of 2005, 21 F.C.C.R. 3787, 2006 WL 901720, which rules  and regulations took effect on August 1, 2006).  The requirements of (3) above are contained in  § (b)(2)(E) of the Act and incorporated into the Opt-Out Notice Requirements via § (b)(2)(D)(ii).  Compliance with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements is neither difficult nor costly.  The Opt-Out  Notice Requirements are important consumer protections bestowed by Congress upon the  owners of the telephone lines and fax machines giving them the right, and means, to stop  unwanted faxed advertisements.    31.  The TCPA/JFPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf  of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class to redress Defendants’ violations of the Act, and provides for  statutory damages.  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).  The Act also provides that injunctive relief is  appropriate.  Id.   32.  The JFPA is a strict liability statute, so the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff  and the other class members even if their actions were only negligent.   33.  The Defendants knew or should have known that (a) the Plaintiff and the other  class members had not given express invitation or permission for the Defendants or anybody else  to fax advertisements about the Defendants’ goods or services; (b) the Plaintiff and the other  class members did not have an established business relationship; (c) Defendants transmitted  advertisements;  (d) the Faxes did not contain the required Opt-Out Notice; and (e) Defendants’  transmission of advertisements that did not contain the required opt-out notice was unlawful.  