ORDER

WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class (doc. 83). The Motion has been briefed and is now ripe for disposition.

I. Background.

Plaintiff, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC, brought this putative class action against defendants, Perfumania Holdings, Inc., Perfumania, Inc., Quality King Fragrance, Inc., and Quality Fragrance Group, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"). In particular, Family Medicine maintained that it had received unsolicited "junk faxes" advertising defendants' products on a pair of occasions in June 2015 and September 2015, in violation of the TCPA's prohibition on transmission of unsolicited advertisements by facsimile machine, computer, or other device. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). By its terms, the TCPA provides for a private right of action, and authorizes recovery of the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $500, or up to treble that amount for willful or knowing violations. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

This action was litigated vigorously for nearly a year, with substantial motion practice and discovery. On October 5, 2016, however, the parties participated in a mediation that yielded settlement of this dispute in its entirety. The agreement is memorialized in a 42-page Settlement Agreement and Release executed by the parties and their counsel on November 30, 2016. (See doc. 84, Exh. 1.) In summary, the settlement terms consist of the following: (i) defendants pay the sum of $463,349.50 in cash, to be distributed on a pro rata basis to class members making claims, such distributions not to exceed $333.33 per compensable fax transmission; (ii) each class member submitting a valid claim receives a $10.00 gift card valid for purchase of designated fragrances or perfume brands at Perfumania, Inc. retail stores; (iii) defendants pay the first $10,000 of notice and claims administration costs, with the remainder (forecast to be roughly $15,000) to be deducted from the settlement proceeds; and (iv) plaintiff's attorney's fees and litigation costs of up to one-third of the total settlement amount will be paid from the settlement proceeds. Plaintiff, with the acquiescence of defendants, now petitions the Court for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and conditional certification of a settlement class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. Motion for Conditional Certification of Settlement Class.

Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a settlement class (the "Settlement Class") whose parameters would be defined as follows:

(Doc. 84, Exh. 1, § 8.3.) Based on defendants' records of fax transmissions during the relevant time period, the parties estimate that approximately 6,500 persons and entities will fall within the definitional boundaries of this Settlement Class definition.

"A class action may be maintained only when it satisfies all the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and at least one of the alternative requirements of Rule 23(b)." Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 211 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Here, Family Medicine seeks certification of a settlement class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Before reaching the Rule 23 criteria, the Court must determine whether the proposed class is "adequately defined and clearly ascertainable." Little v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 691 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).1 "In order to establish ascertainability, the plaintiff must propose an administratively feasible method by which class members can be identified." Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 621 Fed.Appx. 945, 947 (11th Cir. June 9, 2015). "Administrative feasibility means that identifying class members is a manageable process that does not require much, if any, individual inquiry." Bussey v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., 562 Fed.Appx. 782, 787 (11th Cir. Apr. 2, 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Family Medicine has met this requirement by proposing a manageable, logistically straightforward means of identifying class members. In particular, Family Medicine explains that defendants sent the subject faxes via computer; that defendants have maintained computerized records identifying the recipients by name and fax number; that defendants have also maintained marketing spreadsheets containing additional information concerning class members; and that plaintiff and the settlement administrator thus have access to a list (the "Notice List") containing the names, addresses, fax numbers, and frequency and dates of faxes transmitted for each potential class number. As such, the Notice List provides a readily available, administratively feasible means of identifying and locating all class members via a manageable process that will require little, if any, individual inquiry. The ascertainability prerequisite for class certification is thus satisfied here.

Having determined that Family Medicine's proposed settlement class is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable, the Court moves on to consider the specifications of Rule 23(a). See Little, 691 F.3d at 1304 ("If the plaintiff's proposed class is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable, the plaintiff must then establish the four requirements listed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)."). The Rule 23(a) requirements for certification of any class action are that "(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Rule 23(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; see also Calderone v. Scott, 838 F.3d 1101, 1104 (11th Cir. 2016) ("Rule 23(a) requires every putative class to satisfy the prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.").

With respect to the Rule 23(a)(1) "numerosity" requirement, the parties have identified approximately 6,500 class members within the scope of the proposed class definition. That volume of class members is plainly "so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable," so as to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1).

For purposes of the "commonality" requirement of Rule 23(a)(2), "even a single common question will do." Carriuolo v. General Motors Co., 823 F.3d 977, 984 (11th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). "That common contention . . . must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution — which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." Id. (citations omitted). Family Medicine identifies as common issues of fact or law the following, among others: whether defendants are subject to the TCPA, whether defendants' facsimile transmissions violated the TCPA, and whether class members are entitled to statutory damages. Under the circumstances, the Court agrees with plaintiff that Rule 23(a)(2) commonality has been adequately established.

The Rule 23(a)(3) "typicality" requirement turns on whether "the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory." Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., 568 F.3d 1350, 1357 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Here, Family Medicine and all proposed class members are alleged to have been harmed in the same manner (i.e., receipt of unsolicited junk faxes occupying their fax machines for a brief period of time) by the same course of conduct by the same defendants in the same time period, with the same legal remedy (i.e., statutory damages for violation of the TCPA). Family Medicine's claims appear unremarkable and facially indistinguishable from those of other putative class members; therefore, the "typicality" requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied.

The last of the Rule 23(a) factors is found at Rule 23(a)(4), which imposes an "adequacy of representation" requirement. "This adequacy of representation analysis encompasses two separate inquiries: (1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest exist between the representatives and the class; and (2) whether the representatives will adequately prosecute the action." Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The record reveals no perceptible conflicts of interest between Family Medicine and class members; to the contrary, their economic interests and litigation objectives appear fully aligned. Moreover, plaintiff has shown that Family Medicine will adequately prosecute this action. Indeed, Family Medicine has established a proven track record in this case of prosecuting its claims vigorously and zealously, and there is no reason to believe it will not continue to do so on behalf of the class following conditional certification. The same holds true for Family Medicine's counsel of record, who are well qualified to represent classwide interests here. See id. (observing that named representatives must "vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel" in order to satisfy Rule 23(a)(4)). On this showing, the Court readily concludes that Family Medicine will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, as required by Rule 23(a)(4). Thus, plaintiff has met its burden of establishing all four Rule 23(a) prerequisites. For class certification to be appropriate, however, Family Medicine must also satisfy one prong of Rule 23(b). Plaintiff has designated this case as fitting within the parameters of Rule 23(b)(3), so the analysis shifts to that subsection.

In order to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), the plaintiff must show (in addition to the Rule 23(a) factors discussed previously) "(1) that common questions of law or fact predominate over questions affecting only individual class members (`predominance'); and (2) that a class action is superior to other available methods for adjudicating the controversy (`superiority')." Calderone, 838 F.3d at 1105 (citations omitted); see also Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1265 (11th Cir. 2009) (same). As to the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement, the test is whether common issues "have a direct impact on every class member's effort to establish liability and on every class member's entitlement to injunctive and monetary relief." Carriuolo, 823 F.3d at 985 (citation omitted). The predominance requirement is not met if, "as a practical matter, the resolution of an overarching common issue breaks down into an unmanageable variety of individual legal and factual issues." Id. Here, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. Common fact questions include whether defendants sent the subject faxes and whether those faxes were unsolicited. Common legal questions include whether defendants are subject to the TCPA and whether the fax transmissions in question violate the TCPA (which subsumes such questions as whether they include the requisite opt-out notice). Resolution of those common questions will directly impact every class member's effort to establish liability and a right to relief. Thus, Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is properly found here.2 Moreover, class treatment is superior to other available means of adjudicating the controversy given the sheer volume of potential class members, the identity or near-identity of factual and legal issues implicated by their claims, and the administrative simplicity of identifying and notifying potential class members using defendants' computerized records and marketing spreadsheets. Plaintiff has thus met its burden of showing that conditional certification is appropriate pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3)

For all of the foregoing reasons, and for purposes of settlement only, the Court preliminarily grants Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of Settlement Class. The TCPA claims presented in Counts I, II and III of the Amended Class Action Complaint are conditionally certified as a class action that Family Medicine (as class representative) may pursue on behalf of the following settlement class:

Named plaintiff, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC, is preliminarily appointed as the representative of the settlement class.

A remaining aspect of the conditional certification portion of plaintiff's Motion is plaintiff's request for appointment of class counsel. See Rule 23(c)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. ("An order that certifies a class action must define the class and the class claims, issues, or defenses, and must appoint class counsel under Rule 23(g)."). Based on its determinations that they are qualified, capable and willing to provide competent, zealous, and conflict-free representation to the class, the Court provisionally appoints Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmermann and James H. McFerrin as class counsel to represent the settlement class, pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1)-(2), Fed.R.Civ.P.3

III. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

In its Motion, Family Medicine also seeks preliminary approval of the parties' proposed classwide settlement. Of course, any such settlement requires judicial approval. See Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P. ("The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval."). "Preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement does not involve a determination of the merits of the proposed settlement or affect the substantive rights of any class member." Figueroa v. Sharper Image Corp., 517 F.Supp.2d 1292, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2007). During the preliminary approval process, "the court simply determines whether the proposed settlement falls within the range of possible approval." Id. at 1298 (citations omitted); see also In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, 275 F.R.D. 654, 661 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ("Preliminary approval is appropriate where the proposed settlement is the result of the parties' good faith negotiations, there are no obvious deficiencies and the settlement falls within the range of reason.") (citation omitted). If so, then the approving judge proceeds "to communicate the proposed settlement to the class, review and approve the proposed form of notice to the class, and to authorize the manner and form of dissemination of the notice." Figueroa, 517 F. Supp.2d at 1299.

A. Terms of Settlement.

As noted, the settlement contemplates that class members will receive cash and gift cards, with defendants also contributing limited additional funds for notice and claims administration. The cash component of the settlement would entail defendants making a payment of $463,349.50 to be distributed on a pro rata basis to those class members who submit timely claims, with such pro rata share not to exceed $333.33 per compensable fax. Before distribution, this gross settlement fund will be reduced by the following amounts: (i) a deduction for notice and claims administration costs in excess of $10,000; (ii) a deduction for class counsel's attorney's fees and litigation expenses, up to a maximum of one-third of the gross settlement fund less administration costs; and (iii) a deduction for an incentive award to the class representative, Family Medicine, of up to $10,000. The gift card component of the settlement would involve defendants providing each class member submitting a claim (irrespective of the number of compensable faxes) with a single $10.00 gift card valid toward the purchase of certain fragrances or perfume brands at any Perfumania, Inc. retail store. And finally, defendants would make a separate $10,000 payment toward notice and claims administration costs, with the remaining such costs (estimated at $15,000) to be deducted from the gross settlement fund.

Because of uncertainty over the number of claims, it is impossible to ascertain with precision what the pro rata payout per fax will be. Although calculations may be made to reach a ballpark estimate, the results vary widely depending on assumptions concerning class participation rate and the total number of compensable faxes for which valid claims are submitted.4 What is clear, however, is that within any reasonable range of assumptions, the pro rata share will be far below both the $500-$1,500 per violative fax that the TCPA provides as statutory damages, and the $333.33 cap to which the parties agreed. That is not necessarily a fatal defect. After all, it is far from certain that class members would have recovered anything had the claims proceeded to judgment, particularly in light of defendants' consent defense. Furthermore, if class members had prevailed on the merits and received judgment for the full amount of statutory damages, the resulting multimillion dollar award may have been unrecoverable, in light of plaintiff's information concerning defendants' profitability and financial condition. It also bears consideration that the proposed settlement brings an end to the litigation now, without a delay of years (and the accompanying expense of litigation) to obtain a judgment. And the information before the Court is that the parties (represented by experienced counsel) negotiated this settlement at arm's length over a period of months, with the assistance of a qualified mediator. All of these factors counsel in favor of a conclusion that the settlement terms fall within the range of reason. See, e.g., Nelson v. Mead Johnson & Johnson Co., 484 Fed.Appx. 429, 434 (11th Cir. July 20, 2012) ("In determining whether the class action settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the district court considers these factors: (1) the likelihood of success at trial; (2) the range of possible recovery; (3) the point on or below the range of possible recovery at which a settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable; (4) the complexity, expense and duration of litigation; (5) the substance and amount of opposition to the settlement; and (6) the stage of proceedings at which the settlement was achieved.").

The Court makes no final determination at this time as to the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. Indeed, it would be premature and inappropriate to do so without having first given notice and an opportunity to object to all members of the settlement class. Nothing herein forecloses or pretermits any class member's ability to object to the settlement as unfair, unreasonable or inadequate; to the contrary, any such objections will be scrutinized closely before any ruling on the issue of final approval is made. What the Court does conclude at this time is that the terms of the proposed settlement fall within the range of possible approval, thereby warranting preliminary approval.

B. Notice.

Prior to final approval of a class action settlement, "[t]he court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal." Rule 23(e)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. Because the settlement class has been conditionally certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the rules also require that "the court must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort." Rule 23(c)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. The notice requirement, which is derived from Rule 23 and the Due Process Clause, applies to both the content of the notice and the manner of its distribution. See Adams v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 493 F.3d 1276, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining that class actions "are subject to the requirements of due process" and that, in determining whether class notice satisfies such requirements, one must look to both "the language of the notices and the manner of their distribution") (citation omitted); In re Nissan Motor Corp. Antitrust Litigation, 552 F.2d 1088, 1103 (5th Cir. 1977) (to comport with due process, "it is not only necessary that the notice reach the parties affected but that it convey the required information") (citations omitted).

In terms of content, Rule 23 dictates that the notice transmitted to class members "must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3)." Rule 23(c)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. Additionally, due process requires that the notice adequately describe class members' substantive claims and "must also contain information reasonably necessary to make a decision to remain a class member and be bound by the final judgment." Adams, 493 F.3d at 1286 (citation omitted).

Plaintiff has submitted a proposed form of notice as Exhibit 4 to its Memorandum Brief (doc. 84) in support of the motion for preliminary approval of settlement. The proposed notice includes the following critical disclosures, all in plain, easy-to-understand language: (i) the recipient is receiving notice because records show that it may have received an unsolicited fax advertisement from defendants; (ii) the lawsuit involves claims under the TCPA for unsolicited fax advertisements promoting defendants' products without prior consent or an established relationship; (iii) the precise class definition; (iv) the names and contact information of class counsel; (v) the terms of settlement; (vi) an explanation that the recipient's share of settlement proceeds depends on the number of claims, along with a low-end hypothetical calculation under which class members would receive approximately $15.00 per fax; (vii) a detailed description of each class member's options, including the right to submit a claim form to receive settlement funds, the right to exclude oneself from the settlement by submitting a notice of exclusion, the right to object in a specified manner, and the option of doing nothing and remaining bound by the settlement without receiving compensation; (viii) a clear statement that if the recipient remained in the class, and the settlement were approved, then he or she would release all TCPA-related claims against defendants; and (ix) the date, time and location of the final approval hearing, and the right of each class member and/or his/her attorneys to attend and be heard. (Doc. 84, Exh. 4.) After careful examination of the proposed form of notice, the Court is satisfied that its content comports with both Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due process requirements.5

As for the method of notice, again, "the court must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort." Rule 23(c)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff explains that proposed claims administrator RG/2 Claims Administration LLC will transmit class notice and claim forms to the last known fax number of each potential class member. (Wickersham Decl. (doc. 84, Exh. E), ¶ 6(a).) If RG/2 Claims' facsimile transmissions to a given class member fail on two occasions, then RG/2 Claims will mail the documents to that class member at the last known address provided by defendants, after running each such address through the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address database. (Id., ¶ 6(b).) For any mailed notices that may be returned as undeliverable, RG/2 Claims will follow up by performing additional research using a commercially available address locator service, and will re-send the notice and claim forms to that class member at the best available address obtained through those efforts. (Id., ¶ 6(b) (second subparagraph (b).) As to class members who do not respond to the class notice within 21 days, RG/2 Claims will retransmit the class notice and claim form via facsimile. (Id., ¶ 6(c).) RG/2 Claims will also create and maintain a toll-free telephone line to which class members may direct questions, and a website that will allow class members to search and review relevant settlement documents, provide access to a database showing how many facsimiles defendants sent to each fax number during the class period, and allow for electronic claims submission. (Id., ¶ 6(d).) RG/2 Claims proposes to provide all these notice and claims administration services in this case at a cost of just under $25,000. (Id., ¶ 7.)6

The Court is preliminarily satisfied that the proposed notice constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances and that it comports with Rule 23 and due process. Notice by facsimile transmission, which other federal courts have approved in TCPA class action settlements, appears particularly appropriate here, given that (i) all class members, by definition, received facsimile transmissions from defendants during the relevant period; (ii) defendants have maintained records showing the facsimile numbers to which such transmissions were sent; and (iii) it can be reasonably expected that businesses and individuals change their facsimile numbers infrequently. Thus, the vast majority of class members should be readily reachable via those same fax numbers to which the offending faxes giving rise to their claims were sent. Presumably, as to most class members for whom their fax numbers have changed in the interim, the settlement administrator's efforts to send faxed notice will result in failed transmissions, thus prompting the administrator to locate valid mailing addresses for them. The Court perceives no obvious flaws in this notice plan; therefore, the Motion for Preliminary Approval is granted as to both the manner and content of notice.7

IV. Conclusion and Establishment of Deadlines.

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered as follows:

DONE and ORDERED.