15.  A true and correct copy of Defendant’s June 25, 2020 written communication is  attached as Exhibit A.     16.  Defendant’s June 25, 2020 written communication begins by encouraging Ms.  Stivers to “[p]lease talk to us.” Ex. A.   17.  Next, Defendant’s June 25, 2020 threatens Ms. Stivers:  At this time, no attorney has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of  your account. However, if you fail to contact us about this account it will be  returned to our client who then may forward it to a local attorney for the  purposes of filing suit. We’d like to avoid this, and find a way to work together.  Id. (emphasis added).   18.  Thereafter, Defendant’s June 25, 2020 written communication advises Ms.  Stivers:  Get in touch so you can resolve this debt.   Our records show that you haven’t been in touch with us.  We’re here to work  with you.   You should respond especially if you have questions about this outstanding  balance with LVNV Funding LLC (current creditor of your original Synchrony  Bank (Synchrony Home) account).  Don’t just disregard this email. Talk to us.  It’s the best way to resolve this debt.   Id.   19.  On or about June 29, 2020, Defendant sent Ms. Stivers another written  communication in connection with the collection of the Debt.    20.  A true and correct copy of Defendant’s June 29, 2020 written communication is  attached as Exhibit B.     21.  Defendant’s June 29, 2020 written communication begins by advising Ms. Stivers  that “[i]t’s not too late.” Ex. B.   23.  Thereafter, Defendant’s June 29, 2020 written communication advises Ms.  Stivers:  Terri, your outstanding balance to LVNV Funding LLC (current creditor of your  original Synchrony Bank (Synchrony Home) account) needs some attention.   Don’t worry though, it’s not too late.  We have agents standing by ready to help,  so please get in touch so we can get this resolved.  Id.    24.  On or about July 2, 2020, Defendant sent Ms. Stivers another written  communication in connection with the collection of the Debt.    25.  A true and correct copy of Defendant’s July 2, 2020 written communication is  attached as Exhibit C.   26.    Defendant’s July 2, 2020 written communication begins by advising Ms. Stivers,  “You can do this.” Ex. C.   27.  Next, Defendant’s July 2, 2020 communication again threatens Ms. Stivers:  At this time, no attorney has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of  your account. However, if you fail to contact us about this account it will be  returned to our client who then may forward it to a local attorney for the  purposes of filing suit. We’d like to avoid this, and find a way to work together.  Id. (emphasis added).   29.  On or about July 9, 2020, Defendant sent Ms. Stivers another written  communication in connection with the collection of the Debt.    30.  A true and correct copy of Defendant’s July 9, 2020 written communication is  attached as Exhibit D.   31.  Defendant’s July 9, 2020 written communication begins by advising Ms. Stivers,  “This is your reminder.” Ex. D.   32.  Next, Defendant’s July 9, 2020 communication again threatens Ms. Stivers:  At this time, no attorney has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of  your account. However, if you fail to contact us about this account it will be  returned to our client who then may forward it to a local attorney for the  purposes of filing suit. We’d like to avoid this, and find a way to work together.  Id. (emphasis added).   33.  Thereafter, Defendant’s July 9, 2020 written communication advises Ms. Stivers:  Your balance with LVNV Funding LLC (current creditor of your original  Synchrony Bank (Synchrony Home) account) is still outstanding.  It’s been a stressful few months and it’s hard to remember every little obligation.   This balance is still outstanding.   Id.    34.  On or about July 13, 2020, Defendant sent Ms. Stivers another written  communication in connection with the collection of the Debt.    35.  A true and correct copy of Defendant’s July 13, 2020 written communication is  attached as Exhibit E.   37.  Thereafter, Defendant’s July 13, 2020 written communication advises Ms.  Stivers:  You’ve had many opportunities to resolve your outstanding balance with LVNV  Funding LLC (current creditor of your original Synchrony Bank (Synchrony  Home) account).   Dear Terri Stivers, have you been waiting to pay because you didn’t have any  spare cash?  Id.   38.  The July 13, 2020 written communication continues:   We’re concerned because we’ve been trying to reach you for a few months now,  but there is no payment arrangement set up for this account. Even if money is too  tight, we have options for you!  Id.   39.  On or about July 16, 2020, Defendant sent Ms. Stivers another written  communication in connection with the collection of the Debt.    40.  A true and correct copy of Defendant’s July 16, 2020 written communication is  attached as Exhibit F.   41.  Defendant’s July 16, 2020 written communication begins by advising Ms. Stivers,  “We want to help you.” Ex. F.   43.  Thereafter, Defendant’s July 16, 2020 written communication advises Ms.  Stivers:  We’ve been trying to get your attention.  Terri, you have an outstanding balance with LVNV Funding LLC (current  creditor of your original Synchrony Bank (Synchrony Home) account).  It’s not too late to pay this off. Start the seamless payment process by visiting our  website today.  Id.   44.  Defendant sent additional written communications to Ms. Stivers on July 22,  2020, July 27, 2020, August 1, 2020, August 4, 2020, August 7, 2020, August 10, 2020, August  13, 2020, August 16, 2020, August 22, 2020, August 26, 2020, August 30, 2020, September 2,  2020, September 4, 2020, September 8, 2020, September 11, 2020, September 15, 2020,  September 21, 2020, September 25, 2020, September 29, 2020, October 3, 2020, October 6,  2020, October 9, 2020, October 13, 2020, October 17, 2020, October 20, 2020, October 22,  2020, October 25, 2020, October 27, 2020, October 30, 2020, November 1, 2020, and November  6, 2020.    45.  Each of these written communications threatens Ms. Stivers that “if you fail to  contact us about this account it will be returned to our client who then may forward it to a local  attorney for the purposes of filing suit.”   46.  Upon information and belief, as of November 6, 2020, Defendant had not  returned the Debt to LVNV.   48.  Ms. Stivers brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of the following class:  All persons (a) with a Kansas or California address, (b) to whom TrueAccord sent  at least 15 debt collection communications not known to be returned as  undeliverable, (c) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (d) in the  one year preceding the date of this complaint, (e) that included the language “if  you fail to contact us about this account it will be returned to our client who then  may forward it to a local attorney for the purposes of filing suit.”    49.  Excluded from the class is Defendant, its officers and directors, members of their  immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in  which Defendant has or had controlling interests.   50.  The class satisfies Rule 23(a)(1) because, upon information and belief, it is so  numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   51.  The exact number of class members is unknown to Ms. Stivers at this time and  can only be determined through appropriate discovery.   52.  The class is ascertainable because it is defined by reference to objective criteria.    53.  In addition, upon information and belief, the names and addresses of all members  of the proposed class can be identified in business records maintained by Defendant.     54.  The class satisfies Rules 23(a)(2) and (3) because Ms. Stivers’s claims are typical  of the claims of the members of the class.    56.  Ms. Stivers satisfies Rule 23(a)(4) because she will fairly and adequately protect  the interests of the members of the class and has retained counsel experienced and competent in  class action litigation.   57.  Ms. Stivers has no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with the members of  the class that she seeks to represent.   58.  A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy since, upon information and belief, joinder of all members is  impracticable.     59.  Furthermore, as the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be  relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation could make it impracticable for  the members of the class to individually redress the wrongs done to them.   60.  There should be no unusual difficulty in the management of this action as a class  action.   61.  Issues of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate over any  questions that may affect only individual members, in that Defendant has acted on grounds  generally applicable to the class.   62.  Among the issues of law and fact common to the class:  a. Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA as alleged herein;  b. whether Defendant is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA;  c. the availability of statutory penalties; and  d. the availability of attorneys’ fees and costs.  Count I: Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e   64.  Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977 to “eliminate abusive debt collection  practices by debt collectors,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e), and in response to “abundant evidence of the  use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors,” which  Congress found to have contributed “to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital  instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a).     65.  The FDCPA at 15 U.S.C. § 1692e prohibits a debt collector from using “any false,  deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”    66.  “Section 1692e was enacted against a backdrop of cases in which courts held that  communications designed to create a false sense of urgency were deceptive.” Peter v. GC Servs.  L.P., 310 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2002).    67.  Not surprisingly, then, the FDCPA may be violated if “a debt collector ‘creates a  false sense of urgency.’” Uyeda v. J.A. Cambece Law Office, P.C., No. 04-04312, 2005 WL  1168421, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Morgan v. Credit Adjustment Bd., 999 F. Supp. 803,  808 (E.D. Va. 1998)); see also Statements of General Policy or Interpretation Staff Commentary  on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 53 FR 50097-02, 1988 WL 269068, at 8 at 50106  (Dec. 13, 1988) (“A debt collector may not communicate by a format or envelope that  misrepresents the nature, purpose, or urgency of the message. It is a violation to send any  communication that conveys to the consumer a false sense of urgency.”).   68.  As early as June 2020, Defendant began separately threatening Ms. Stivers that “if  you fail to contact us about this account it will be returned to our client who then may forward it  to a local attorney for the purposes of filing suit.” See, e.g., Ex. A.   70.  No matter, for at least five months, Defendant continued to inundate Ms. Stivers  with debt collection communications threatening that if she failed to contact Defendant about the  Debt, it would be returned to LVNV, who may then forward it to an attorney to file suit.     71.  Upon information and belief, Defendant did not return the Debt to LVNV during  this time, nor did LVNV file a lawsuit against Ms. Stivers.   72.  As a result, Defendant created a false sense of urgency by repeatedly pressuring  Ms. Stivers to contact Defendant about the Debt using threats that appeared time-sensitive in  nature, but with which Defendant did not follow through.   73.  Moreover, Defendant’s threats, though appearing to be time-sensitive in nature to  the least sophisticated consumer, were not actually time-sensitive in nature because Defendant  had no intention to immediately pursue the threatened action, as evidenced by Defendant’s  failure to take the threatened action in a timely manner.    74.  Thus, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by using a false, deceptive, or  misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of an alleged debt.      75.  The harm suffered by Ms. Stivers is particularized in that the violative debt  collection conduct was directed at her personally and regarded her personal alleged debt.   76.  Creating a false sense of urgency “implicate[s] core Congressional concerns  underlying the FDCPA.” Peter, 310 F.3d at 352.    77.  And Ms. Stivers suffered harm here by way of the impairment of an FDCPA- created substantive right to truthful, non-deceptive information in debt collection  communications.    79.  Because Ms. Stivers was worried about the legal consequences of continuing to  ignore Defendant’s communications which threatened a lawsuit if she did not respond, she  ultimately contacted counsel for legal advice concerning the threats, including on the timing of  when Defendant would be filing suit.    80.  Furthermore, Defendant’s debt collection conduct also created a material risk of  harm to a concrete interest Congress was trying to protect in enacting the FDCPA.    81.  That is, a consumer who is faced with repeated threats of an imminent lawsuit for  months on end is likely to suffer stress and anxiety.   82.  And here, Ms. Stivers suffered stress and anxiety over the repeated threats—often  several times a week for months on end—that if she did not pay the Debt, a lawsuit might soon  be filed against her.      83.  As well, the repeated threats to Ms. Stivers that Defendant sent to her electronic  mail inbox—sometimes multiples times in a week—constitute an invasion of Ms. Stivers’s  privacy.   Count II: Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10)   84.  Ms. Stivers repeats and re-alleges each factual allegation contained in paragraphs  1 - 62.   86.  The FDCPA at 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) prohibits a debt collector from “[t]he use of  any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain  information concerning a consumer.”    87.  As early as June 2020, Defendant began threatening Ms. Stivers that “if you fail  to contact us about this account it will be returned to our client who then may forward it to a  local attorney for the purposes of filing suit.” See, e.g., Ex. A.   88.  Ms. Stivers did not contact Defendant about the Debt in response to the June 2020  communication.     89.  No matter, for at least five months, Defendant continued to inundate Ms. Stivers  with debt collection communications threatening that if she failed to contact Defendant about the  Debt, it would be returned to LVNV, who may then forward it to an attorney to file suit.     90.  Upon information and belief, Defendant did not return the Debt to LVNV during  this time, nor did LVNV file a lawsuit against Ms. Stivers.   91.  As a result, Defendant created a false sense of urgency by repeatedly pressuring  Ms. Stivers to contact Defendant about the Debt using threats that appeared time-sensitive in  nature, but with which Defendant did not follow through.   92.  Moreover, Defendant’s threats, though appearing to be time-sensitive in nature to  the least sophisticated consumer, were not actually time-sensitive in nature because Defendant  had no intention to immediately pursue the threatened action, as evidenced by Defendant’s  failure to take the threatened action in a timely manner.     94.  The harm suffered by Ms. Stivers is particularized in that the violative debt  collection conduct was directed at her personally and regarded her personal alleged debt.   95.  Creating a false sense of urgency “implicate[s] core Congressional concerns  underlying the FDCPA.” Peter, 310 F.3d at 352.    96.  And Ms. Stivers suffered harm here by way of the impairment of an FDCPA- created substantive right to truthful, non-deceptive information in debt collection  communications.    97.  Due to other financial obligations that take priority, Ms. Stivers was unable to  make any payments on the Debt.    98.  Because Ms. Stivers was worried about the legal consequences of continuing to  ignore Defendant’s communications which threatened a lawsuit if she did not respond, she  ultimately contacted counsel for legal advice concerning the threats, including on the timing of  when Defendant would be filing suit.   