(Conversion)   (Private Nuisance)   (Trespass to Chattels)   (Violations of the TCPA)   On or about April 16, 2018 and May 1, 2018, Plaintiff received the unsolicited  fax advertisements attached as Exhibit A on its facsimile machine # 212-960-8745.   Discovery may reveal the transmission of additional faxes as well.   Defendants are responsible for sending or causing the sending of the faxes.   Defendants, as the entities whose products or services were advertised in the  faxes, derived economic benefit from the sending of the faxes.   Plaintiff had no prior relationship with defendant and had not authorized the  sending of faxes advertisements to Plaintiff.   The faxes did not contain an opt-out notice, as is required by 47 U.S.C. §227  and violates all of the opt-out requirements of 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(2)(D), 47 C.F.R.  §64.1200(a)(3)(iii), and GBL §396-aa(2).   On information and belief, the faxes attached hereto was sent as part of a mass  broadcasting of faxes.   On information and belief, defendants transmitted similar unsolicited fax  advertisements to at least 40 other persons.   There are no reasonable means for plaintiff or other recipients of defendants’  unsolicited advertising fax to avoid receiving illegal faxes.  Fax machines must be left on and  ready to receive the urgent communications authorized by their owners.  Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   By Defendants’ conduct, as described above, Defendants committed  thousands of violations of 47 U.S.C. §227(b) against Plaintiff and each class member, to wit: the  fax advertisement Defendants sent and/or caused to be sent to Plaintiff and each class member  were unsolicited and did not contain an opt-out notice meeting the requirements of 47 U.S.C.  §227(b)(2)(D) and/or 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(iii).    Plaintiff and each class member suffered actual damages as a result of receipt  of the unsolicited faxes, in the form of paper and ink or toner consumed as a result.  Furthermore,  plaintiff’s statutory right of privacy was invaded.   Plaintiff and each class member is entitled to statutory damages.   Defendants violated the TCPA even if their actions were only negligent.   Defendants should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the   future.  Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   As described above, upon information and belief, Defendants committed  thousands of violations of GBL §396-aa.   Accordingly, pursuant to GBL §396-aa(3), Plaintiff and each class member are  entitled to statutory damages.  Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   By sending Plaintiff and the class members unlawful faxes, Defendants  converted to their own use ink or toner and paper belonging to plaintiff and the class members.   Immediately prior to the sending of the unlawful faxes, Plaintiff and the class  members owned and had an unqualified and immediate right to the possession of the paper and  ink or toner used to print the faxes.   By sending the unlawful faxes, defendants appropriated to their own use the  paper and ink or toner used to print the faxes and used them in such manner as to make them  unusable.  Such appropriation was wrongful and without authorization.   Defendants knew or should have known that such appropriation of the paper  and ink or toner was wrongful and without authorization.   Defendants should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the  future.  Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 51 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   Defendants’ sending plaintiff and the class members unlawful faxes was an  unreasonable invasion of the property of plaintiff and the class members and constitutes a private  nuisance.   Congress determined, in enacting the TCPA, that the prohibited conduct was a  “nuisance.”  Universal Underwriters, Ins. Co. v. Lou Fusz Automotive Network, Inc., 401 F.3d  876, 882 (8th Cir. 2005).   Defendants acted either intentionally or negligently in creating the nuisance.   Plaintiff and each class member suffered damages as a result of receipt of the  unlawful faxes.   Defendants should be enjoined from continuing their nuisance.  Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   Plaintiff and the class members were entitled to possession of the equipment  they used to receive faxes.   Defendants acted either intentionally or negligently in engaging in such  conduct.   Plaintiff and each class member suffered damages as a result of receipt of the  unlawful faxes.   Defendants should be enjoined from continuing trespasses.  Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), plaintiff brings this claim on behalf  of a class.   The class consists of (a) all persons and entities with fax numbers (b) who, on  or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. §1658), or such shorter  period during which faxes were sent by or on behalf of Defendants (c) were sent faxes by or on  behalf of Defendants promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and who were not provided an  “opt out” notice as described in 47 U.S.C. §227.   The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable.  Plaintiff alleges on  information and belief that there are more than 40 members of the class.   Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members.  All are based  on the same factual and legal theories.   Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class  members.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims  involving unlawful business practices.  Neither plaintiff nor defendants’ counsel have any  interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.   A class action is superior to other alternative methods of adjudicating this  dispute.  Individual cases are not economically feasible.    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff and  the class and against the Defendants as follows:   a)  Statutory damages;  b) Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit;  c)  An injunction against the further transmission of unsolicited fax advertising; and  d) For such other and further relief which this court deems just and proper.  Dated: Brooklyn, New York  July 6, 2018 