 Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, the subscriber of the cellular  telephone number (715) 245-0640 (the "0640 Number"). The 0640 Number is, and at all times  mentioned herein was, assigned to a cellular telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C. §  227 (b )(1 )(A)(iii).    Between in or about early March 2016 and the date of the filing of this Class Action  Complaint, Defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary  or intermediaries, approximately fifty (50) SMS text message advertisements to the 0640 Number  without Plaintiffs express consent, written or otherwise.    The source of each of the unsolicited SMS text messages sent by Defendant to the  0640 Number was "65017", which is an SMS short code leased by Defendant or Defendant's  agent(s) or affiliate(s), and is used for operating Defendant's text message marketing program.    The 0640 Number continues to receive Defendant's unsolicited SMS text message  advertisements on a daily basis.    Specifically, Defendant utilized an "automated telephone dialing system" because the  SMS messages to the 0640 Number were sent from "65017", which is a short code telephone  number used to message consumers en masse, and because the hardware and software used by  Defendant to send such messages have the capacity to store, produce, and dial random or sequential  numbers, and/ or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, in  an automated fashion and without human intervention. Defendant's automated dialing equipment  includes features substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch as it is capable of making  numerous calls and/ or texts simultaneously (all without human intervention).    The complained of SMS messages to the 0640 Number constituted calls not made  for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).    The complained of SMS messages to the 0640 Number constituted telephone  solicitations as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4).    The complained of SMS messages to the 0640 Number constituted advertisements  as defined by 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(£)(1).    Plaintiff never provided "prior express written consent" or any other form of  consent allowing Defendant and/ or any affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of Defendant to transmit SMS  messages to the 0640 Number by means of an "automatic telephone dialing system," within the  meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). At no time did Plaintiff ever provide Defendant with the 0640  Number.   Defendant, its employees and agents are excluded &om the Class.    Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the definition of the Class (or add one or more  subclasses) after further discovery.    Plaintiff and all Class members have been impacted and harmed by the acts of  Defendant and/ or their affiliates or subsidiaries.    This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.    This action may properly be brought and maintained as a class action pursuant to  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). This class action satisfies the numerosity, typicality, adequacy,  commonality, predominance and superiority requirements.    Upon application by Plaintiffs counsel for certification of the Class, the Court may  also be requested to utilize and certify subclasses in the interests of manageability, justice and/ or  judicial economy.    Numerosity. The number of persons within the Class is substantial, believed to  amount to tens of thousands of persons dispersed throughout the United States. It is, therefore,  impractical to join each member of the Class as a named Plaintiff. Further, the size and relatively  modest value of the claims of the individual members of the Class renders joinder impractical.  Accordingly, utilization of the class action mechanism is the most economically feasible means of  determining and adjudicating the merits of this litigation.    Adequacy. As Class representative, the Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to,  or which conflict with, the interests of the absent members of the Class and is able to fairly and  adequately represent and protect the interests of such a Class. Plaintiff has raised viable statutory  claims of the type reasonably expected to be raised by members of the Class, and will vigorously  pursue those claims. If necessary, Plaintiff may seek leave to amend this Class Action Complaint to  add additional Class representatives or assert additional claims.    Competency of qass Counsel. Plaintiff has retained and is represented by  experienced, qualified and competent counsel committed to prosecuting this action. These counsel  are experienced in handling complex class action claims.    Superiority. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual litigation of the claims of all Class  members is impracticable. Even if every member of the Class could afford to pursue individual  litigation, the Court system could not. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which  individual litigation of numerous cases 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 factual issues.  By contrast, the maintenance of this action as a class action, with respect to some or all of the issues  presented herein, presents few management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and of  the court system and protects the rights of each member of the Class. Plaintiff anticipates no  difficulty in the management of this action as a class action. Class wide relief is essential to compel  compliance with the · TCP A. The interest of Class members in individually controlling the  prosecution of separate claims is small because the statutory damages in an individual action for  violation of the TCP A are small. Management of these claims is likely to present significantly fewer  difficulties than are presented in many class claims because the text messages at issue are all  automated and the Class members, by definition, did not provide the prior express written consent  required under the statute to authorize such text messages to their cellular telephones. The Class  members can be readily located and notified of this class action through Defendant's records and, if  necessary, the records of cellular telephone providers.    Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Class Action  Complaint as if fully stated herein.    The foregoing acts and onuss1ons constitute negligent violations of the TCPA,  including but not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227.    As a result of the alleged negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, Plaintiff and all  Class members are entitled to, and do seek, injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the  TCP A in the future.    Plaintiff and all Class members are also entitled to, and do seek, an award of $500.00  in statutory damages for each and every SMS message transmitted in violation of the TCP A  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).    Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Class Action  Complaint as if fully stated herein.    The foregoing acts and omissions constitute knowing and/ or willful violations of the  TCPA, including but not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227.    As a result of alleged knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, Plaintiff  and all Class members are entitled to, and do seek, injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct  violating the TCP A in the future.    Plaintiff and all Class members are also entitled to, and do seek, treble damages of up  to $1,500.00 for each and every SMS message transmitted in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47  u.s.c. § 227(b)(3).    Plaintiff and Class members also seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs.  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  (47 u.s.c. § 227)   NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF THE TELEPHONE  CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  (47 u.s.c. § 227)  