1. there is no explanation of the increase or note that the balance is increasing  or will continue to increase; or   11.  Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the following class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.  P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).   12.  The Class consists of:   a. all individuals with addresses in the State of New York;  b. to whom Defendant Simm sent a. initial letter;  c. attempting to collect a consumer debt;  d. where the current balance is listed as more than the charge-off balance;  e. in two sub-classes where:   13.  The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of  Defendant and those companies and entities on whose behalf it attempts to collect and/or has  purchased debts.   14.  Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are the Defendant and all officers, members,  partners, managers, directors and employees of the Defendant and their respective immediate  families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their immediate families.    15.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class, which common  issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue is  whether the Defendant’s written communication to consumers, in the forms attached as Exhibit A,  violate 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g.   16.  The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same  facts and legal theories. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff  Class defined in this complaint. The Plaintiff has retained counsel with experience in handling  consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiff nor her attorneys  have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.   17.  This action has been brought, and may properly be maintained, as a class action  pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because there is a well- defined community interest in the litigation:  a. Numerosity: The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,  that the Plaintiff Class defined above is so numerous that joinder of all members  would be impractical.  b. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist as  to all members of the Plaintiff Class and those questions predominance over any  questions or issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue  is whether the Defendant’s written communication to consumers, in the form  attached as Exhibit A, violate 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g.  c. Typicality: The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members.  The Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff Class have claims arising out of the  Defendant’s common uniform course of conduct complained of herein.  d. Adequacy: The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  class members insofar as Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to the absent  class members. Plaintiff is committed to vigorously litigating this matter.  Plaintiff has also retained counsel experienced in handling consumer lawsuits,  complex legal issues, and class actions. Neither the Plaintiff nor counsel have  any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue the instant class  action lawsuit.  e. Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available means for the fair  and efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual joinder of all  members would be impracticable. Class action treatment will permit a large  number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single  forum efficiently and without unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that  individual actions would engender.   18.  Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  is also appropriate in that the questions of law and fact common to members of the Plaintiff Class  predominate over any questions affecting an individual member, and a class action is superior to  other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.   19.  Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff may, at  the time of class certification motion, seek to certify a class(es) only as to particular issues pursuant  to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).  2.  where additional amounts that could be added or subtracted from the  balance since charge-off are all listed as zero; and  f. which letter was sent on or after a date one (1) year prior to the filing of this  action and on or before a date twenty-one (21) days after the filing of this action.   20.  Plaintiff repeats the above allegations as if set forth here.   21.  Some time prior to September 14, 2020, Plaintiff allegedly incurred an obligation to  non-party U.S. Bank.   22.  The obligation arose out of transactions incurred primarily for personal, family, or  household purposes, specifically a U.S. Bank personal loan.   23.  The alleged U.S. Bank obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a (5).   24.  U.S. Bank is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a (4).   25.  According to Defendant’s letter, U.S. Bank ‘listed’ Plaintiff’s account with  Defendant Simm for collection.   26.  Defendant Simm collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have  been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United  States Postal Services, telephone and internet.  Violation - September 14, 2020 Collection Letter   27.  On or about September 14, 2020, Defendant Simm sent Plaintiff an initial collection  letter regarding the alleged debt.  See Letter attached as Exhibit A.   28.  The Letter states “BALANCE: $11,554.12” and then states:  61.  Plaintiff repeats the above allegations as if set forth here.   62.  Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff  violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.   63.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e, a debt collector may not use any deceptive, or  misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   64.  Defendant violated said section by:   a. Failing to state that the balance may increase despite that it could, and in fact,  did; or alternatively, implying that it will continue to increase when in fact it  would not; in violation of §1692e (10); and  b. Stating zero amounts for additions to the charge-off amount despite that the  balance had increased, in violation of §1692e (10); and  c. Falsely representing the character, amount or legal status of the debt in violation  of §1692e (2).   65.  By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant’s  conduct violated Section 1692e, et seq. of the FDCPA and Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages,  statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.  66.  Plaintiff repeats the above allegations as if set forth here.   67.  In the alternative, Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed  towards the Plaintiff violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to, 15  U.S.C. § 1692f.   68.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692f, a debt collector may not use any unfair or  unconscionable means in connection with the collection of any debt.   69.  Defendant violated this section by unfairly   a. failing to note that the balance may increase despite that it could, and in fact, did;  b. Failing to state that the balance may increase despite that it could, and in fact,  did; or alternatively, implying that it will continue to increase when in fact it  would not; and  c. Stating zero amounts for additions to the charge-off amount despite that the  balance had increased; and  d. Falsely representing the character, amount or legal status of the debt in violation.   70.  By reason thereof, Defendant are liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant’s  conduct violated Section 1692f, et seq. of the FDCPA and Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages,  statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.  71.  Plaintiff repeats the above allegations as if set forth here.   72.  Defendants’ debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff  violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.   73.  Pursuant to 15 USC §1692g:  Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in  connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the  following information is contained in the initial communication or the  consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt   74.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692g by failing to include a clear statement about  the amount of the debt and whether it is static or dynamic despite the implications in the letter.   75.  By reason thereof, Defendant are liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendants’  conduct violated Section 1692g et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs  and attorneys’ fees.  VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. §1692f et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. §1692e et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. § 1692g et seq.  