 Plaintiff seek to represent a class of individuals (“the Class”) defined as follows:  All persons in the United States, from four years prior to the filing of the instant  Complaint through the date of the filing of the instant Complaint, to whom Defendant,  using the Autodialer or another device with identical characteristics, made text message  telephone calls to the persons’ cellular telephone, that are identical or substantially  similar to the text message telephone calls Defendant made to Plaintiff on or about  September 11, 2015.     Numerosity: The Class is so numerous that joinder of all individual members in  one action would be impracticable. The disposition of the individual claims of the Class’s  members through this class action will benefit both the parties and this Court.     Upon information and belief the Class contains at a minimum thousands of  members.    Upon information and belief, the Class’s size and the identities of the individual  members thereof are ascertainable through Defendant’s records, including, but not limited to  Defendant’s call records.     Members of the Class may be notified of the pendency of this action by  techniques and forms commonly used in class actions, such as by published notice, e-mail notice,  website notice, fax notice, first class mail, or combinations thereof, or by other methods suitable  to the Class and deemed necessary and/or appropriate by the Court.     Typicality:  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the  Class.  The claims of the Plaintiff and members of the Class are based on the same legal theories  and arise from the same unlawful conduct.    Common Questions of Fact and Law:  There is a well-defined community of  common questions of fact and law affecting the Plaintiff and members of the Class.    The questions of fact and law common to Plaintiff and Class predominate over  questions which may affect individual members and include the following:  (a) Whether Defendant’s making text message calls to Plaintiff’s and the members of  Class’s cellular telephones, which text message was identical or substantially similar to  the text message Defendant sent to Plaintiff on September 11, 2015, using the Autodialer  or another device with identical characteristics, violated the TCPA?  (b) Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Class provided Defendant with prior  express consent to the above-described text message calls?  (c) Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to statutory damages from  Defendant under the TCPA?  (d)  Whether Defendant’s violations of the TCPA were willful or knowing?  (e) Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to up to triple statutory  damages under the TCPA from Defendant for Defendant’s willful and knowing  violations of the TCPA?  (f) Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to a permanent injunction  under the TCPA enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage in its unlawful conduct?       Superiority:  A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and  efficient adjudication of the claims of the Class. While the aggregate damages which may be  awarded to the members of the Class are likely to be substantial, the damages suffered by  individual members of the Class are relatively small. As a result, the expense and burden of  individual litigation makes it economically infeasible and procedurally impracticable for each  member of the Class to individually seek redress for the wrongs done to them. Plaintiff does not  know of any other litigation concerning this controversy already commenced against Defendant  by any member of the Class. The likelihood of the individual members of the Class prosecuting  separate claims is remote. Individualized litigation would also present the potential for varying,  inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and would increase the delay and expense to all parties  and the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same factual issues. In contrast, the  conduct of this matter as a class action presents fewer management difficulties, conserves the  resources of the parties and the court system, and would protect the rights of each member of the  Class. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of this action that  would preclude its maintenance as a class action.    Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in all of the above  paragraphs and incorporates such allegations by reference.    By Defendant's above-described conduct, Defendant committed more than 10,000  violations of the TCPA against Plaintiff and the members of the Class.    Accordingly, Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to statutory  damages from Defendant under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) of greater than $5,000,000 and an  injunction against Defendant ordering them to cease their violations of the TCPA.    If it is found that Defendant willfully and/or knowingly violated the TCPA  through its calls to Plaintiff and the members of the Class, Plaintiff and the members of the Class  request an increase by the Court of the damage award against Defendant, described in the  preceding paragraph, to three times the amount available under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), as  authorized by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) for willful or knowing violations, which amounts to greater  than $15,000,000. 