 On or about September 15, 2015, Defendant sent an unsolicited facsimile to  Plaintiff using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device.  See Exhibit A.    The Fax advertises the commercial availability and quality of Defendant’s new  Musculoskeletal Newsletter. On that basis, the Fax is an advertisement under the TCPA and  regulations implementing the TCPA.    Defendant provides managed healthcare services.  See Internet Google result:  eviCore healthcare  Organization  CareCore National, LLC, doing business as eviCore healthcare, provides managed healthcare services.  The Company offers radiology, radiation therapy, cardiology, medical oncology, lab management, and  health plan, as well as other specialty solutions.  Additionally, see from Defendant’s website, www.evicore.com:  ABOUT EVICORE: Empowering the Improvement of Care  Specifically designed with the size and scale to address the complexity of today’s and  tomorrow’s healthcare system, eviCore is a company committed to advancing healthcare  management through intelligent care – and enabling better outcomes for patients, providers, and  health plans.  Ours is an evidence-based approach that leverages our exceptional capabilities, powerful  analytics, and acute sensitivity to the challenges and needs of everyone involved across the  healthcare continuum. By applying proven talent and leading-edge technology, we harness  healthcare’s evolving demand and inherent change to realize healthcare innovation and deliver  improved results and a positive experience for everyone.  Who We Empower  eviCore empowers the improvement of care by connecting patients, providers, and health plans  with intelligent, evidence-based solutions to enable better outcomes.    Plaintiff did not give “prior express invitation or permission” to Defendant to send  the Fax.     On information and belief, Defendant faxed the same and other unsolicited  facsimile advertisements without compliant opt-out language to Plaintiff and at least 40 other  recipients.     There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other class member) to avoid  receiving unauthorized fax advertisements. Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the  urgent communications their owners desire to receive.     Defendant’s facsimile attached as Exhibit A does not display a proper opt-out  notice as required by 47 C.F.R. § 227(b)(1)(C) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4).   Class Size (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)): Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon  such information and belief avers, that the number of persons and entities of the Plaintiff Class is  numerous and joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and  upon such information and belief avers, that the number of class members is at least forty.    Typicality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)):  Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of  all class members. Plaintiff received the same or similar faxes as the faxes sent by or on behalf of  Defendant advertising the availability or quality of Defendant’s property, goods or services of  during the Class Period.  Plaintiff is making the same claims and seeking the same relief for  himself and all class members based upon the same federal statute.  Defendant has acted in the  same or in a similar manner with respect to Plaintiff and all the class members by sending  Plaintiff and each member of the class the same or similar fax or faxes which did not contain the  proper opt-out language or were sent without prior express invitation or permission.    Fair and Adequate Representation (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)):   Plaintiff will fairly  and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff is interested in this  matter, has no conflicts, and has retained experienced class counsel to represent the class.    The TCPA 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).    The Fax. On or about September 15, 2015, Defendant sent the Fax 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 and the regulations implementing the Act. Defendant 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 invitation or permission and Defendant is  precluded from sustaining the EBR safe harbor with Plaintiff and other members of the class,  because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements. By virtue thereof,  Defendant violated the TCPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder by sending the Fax via  facsimile transmission to Plaintiff and members of the Class.  Plaintiff seeks to certify a class  which includes this Fax and all others sent during the four years prior to the filing of this case  through the present.    The TCPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf of  Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class to redress Defendant’s 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.    The TCPA is a strict liability statute, so Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and the  other class members even if their actions were only negligent.    Defendant knew or should have known that (a) Plaintiff and the other class  members had not given prior express invitation or permission for Defendant or anybody else to  fax advertisements about the availability or quality of Defendant’s property, goods or services;  (b) Defendant transmitted advertisements; (c) the Fax did not contain the required Opt-Out  Notice; and (d) Defendant’s transmission of unsolicited advertisements that did not contain the  required opt-out notice was unlawful.  