In accordance with F.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3), plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to the JFPA, on behalf of the following class of persons: All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendant, (3) from whom defendant did not obtain prior express permission or invitation to send those faxes, and (4) did not display a proper opt-out notice. Excluded from the Class are the defendant, their employees, agents and members of the Judiciary.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition upon completion of class certification discovery.  Class Size (F.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.  a statement that the sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within 30 days and the sender’s failure to do so is unlawful - thereby encouraging recipients to opt-out, if they did not want future faxes, by advising them that their opt-out requests will have legal “teeth”;  Fair and Adequate Representation (F.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4)): The plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.  It is interested in this matter, has no conflicts and has retained experienced class counsel to represent the class.  Need for Consistent Standards and Practical Effect of Adjudication (F.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)): Class certification is appropriate because the prosecution of individual actions by class members would: (a) create the risk of inconsistent adjudications that could establish incompatible standards of conduct fo the defendant and/or (b) as a practical matter, adjudication of the plaintiff’s claims will be dispositive of the interests of class members who are not parties.  Common Conduct (F.R.Civ.P.23(b)(2)): Class certification is also appropriate because the defendant has acted and refused to act in the same or similar manner with respect to all class members thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate.  The plaintiff demands such relief as authorized by 47 U.S.C. § 227.  The JFPA makes unlawful for any person to “use any telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement...” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).   26. The JFPA 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).  Opt-Out Notice Requirements.  The JFPA strengthened the prohibitions against the sending of unsolicited advertisements by requiring, in §(b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that senders of faxed advertisements place a clear and conspicuous notice on the first page of the transmission that contains the following among other things (hereinafter collectively the “Opt-Out Notice Requirements”):  The fax defendant sent on February 5, 2015 a facsimile transmission from telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to the telephone facsimile machines of plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class.  The fax constituted an advertisement under 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 permission or invitation and/or Defendant are precluded from asserting any prior express permission or invitation because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements.  By virtue thereof, defendant violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder by sending the Fax via facsimile transmission to plaintiff and members of the class.  a statement advising the recipient that he or she may opt-out with respect to all of his or her facsimile telephone numbers and not just the ones that receive a faxed advertisements from the sender - thereby instructing a recipient on how to make a valid opt-out request for all of his or her fax machines; The requirement of (1) above is incorporated from §(b)(D)(ii) of the Act.  The requirement of (2) above is incorporated from §(b(D)(ii) of the Act and rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) in ¶31 of its 2006 Report and Order (In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Junk Prevention Act ov 2005, 21 F.C.C.R. 3787, 2006 WL 901720, which rules and regulations took effect on August 1, 2006).  The requirements of (3) above are contained in §(b)(2)(E) of the Act and incorporated into the Opt-Out Notice requirements via §(b)(2)(D)(ii).  Compliance with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements is neither difficult no costly.  The Opt-Out Notice Requirements are important consumer protections bestowed by Congress upon the owners of fax machines giving them the right and means to stop unwanted faxed advertisements.  The TCPA/JFPA 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 the injunctive relief is appropriate.  Id.  The JFPA is a strict liability statute, so the defendant are liable to plaintiff and the other class members even if their actions were only negligent.  The defendant knew or should have known that (a) the plaintiff and the other class members had not given express invitation or permission for the defendant or anybody else to fax advertisements about the defendant’s goods or services; (b) defendant transmitted an advertisements; and (c) the faxes did not contain the required Opt-Out Notice. 