 Defendant has been sending repeated, unsolicited marketing text messages to the  Plaintiffs’ cellular telephone numbers, XXX-XXX-8117 (Huron), and XXX-XXX-2457  (Wright).   True and correct copies of some of the text messages received by Plaintiffs from  Defendant are produced below:    Defendant’s text messages to Plaintiffs advertised promotions for the sale of Jo- Ann Stores goods.      Defendant’s text messages did not include an automated mechanism through  which the Plaintiffs, or any consumer, could reply “stop” to force the texts to cease.     Plaintiffs never provided Defendant with their cell phone numbers or their prior  express consent to call their cell phone numbers with automated text messages.     The text messages sent to Plaintiffs’ cellular phones were made with an ATDS as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). The ATDS has the capacity to store or produce telephone  numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.     The telephone numbers messaged by Defendant were assigned to cellular  telephone services for which Plaintiffs incur charges for incoming messages pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).    The messages from Defendant to Plaintiffs were not placed for “emergency  purposes” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).    Plaintiffs have received hundreds of such text messages.  The messages are  annoying, frustrating to the Plaintiffs and are an invasion of their privacy.    Plaintiffs bring this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf  of themselves and all others similarly situated.    Plaintiffs represent, and are members of the following class:  All persons within the United States who did not provide Defendant clear  and conspicuous prior express written consent to send automated  telemarketing text messages and who received one or more automated  telemarketing text messages, from or on behalf of Defendant, to said person’s  cellular telephone, made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing  system within four years prior to the filing of the Complaint    Upon information and belief, Defendant sent automated telemarketing text  messages to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers throughout the  United States without their prior express written consent.  The members of the Class, therefore,  are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.    The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time  and can only be ascertained through discovery.  Identification of the Class members is a matter  capable of ministerial determination from Defendant’s records.   C. Common Questions of Law and Fact     There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over  any questions affecting only individual Class members.  These questions include:  a. Whether Defendant sent non-emergency text messages to Plaintiffs and Class  members’ cellular telephones using an ATDS;  b. Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing it obtained prior express  written consent to send each message;  c. Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and/or willful;  d. Whether Defendant are liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  e. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.    Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all  based on the same factual and legal theories.  E. Protecting the Interests of the Class Members     Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and have  retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business  practices.  Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any interests which might cause them not to  vigorously pursue this action.  F. Proceeding via Class Action is Superior and Advisable     A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecutions of  separate claims against Defendant is small because it is not economically feasible for Class  members to bring individual actions.    Management of this class action is unlikely to present any difficulties.  Several  courts have certified classes in TCPA actions.  These cases include, but are not limited to:  Mitchem v. Ill. Collection Serv., 271 F.R.D. 617 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Sadowski v. Med1 Online, LLC,  2008 WL 2224892 (N.D. Ill., May 27, 2008); CE Design Ltd. V. Cy’s Crabhouse North, Inc.,  259 F.R.D. 135 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC, 2012 WL 1932283 (S.D.  Cal., May 29, 2012).   Defendant sent multiple automated text messages to cellular numbers belonging  to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class without their prior express written consent.    Each of the aforementioned messages by Defendant constitutes a violation of the   Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporate them herein by reference.    Defendant knowingly and/or willfully sent multiple automated text messages to  cellular telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class without  their prior express consent.    As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA,  Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to an award of treble damages up to $1,500.00 for each call in  violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).    Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct by Defendant in the future.     Plaintiffs and the Class are also entitled to and do seek a declaration that:  a. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA;  b. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed telemarketing text messages to  Plaintiffs and the Class;  c. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully obtained the telephone numbers of non- customers;  d. Defendant willfully placed telemarketing text messages to non-customers such as  Plaintiffs and the Class, knowing they did not have prior express written consent  to do so; and  e. It is Defendant’s practice and history to place telemarketing text messages to non- customers without their prior express consent.   A. The Class   Dated: June 16, 2016  Respectfully submitted,  PLAINTIFFS, LAURA WRIGHT AND DEBRA   Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the   Telephone Consumer Protection Act,   47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,   47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  