12. Plaintiff brings claims, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “FRCP”)  Rule 23, individually and on behalf of the following nationwide consumer class (the “Class”):  • All New York consumers from whom Defendant improperly required a valid  reason for the dispute in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.  • The Class period begins one year to the filing of this Action.   13. The Class satisfies all the requirements of Rule 23 of the FRCP for maintaining a class action:  • Upon information and belief, the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable because there are hundreds and/or thousands of persons whom  Defendant has improperly denied the right to dispute a debt in violation of  specific provisions of the FDCPA.  • There are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class and which  predominate over questions affecting any individual Class member.  These  common questions of law and fact include, without limitation:  a.  Whether Defendant violated various provisions of the FDCPA;  b.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been injured by Defendant’s conduct;  c.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class have sustained damages and are  entitled to restitution as a result of Defendant’s wrongdoing and if  so, what is the proper measure and appropriate statutory formula to  be applied in determining such damages and restitution; and  d.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to declaratory and/or  4  injunctive relief.  • Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class, which all arise from the same  operative facts and are based on the same legal theories.  • Plaintiff has no interest adverse or antagonistic to the interest of the other  members of the Class.  • Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the Class and has  retained experienced and competent attorneys to represent the Class.  • A Class Action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the claims herein asserted. Plaintiff anticipates that no unusual  difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action.  • A Class Action will permit large numbers of similarly situated persons to  prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously and without the  duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would  engender.  Class treatment will also permit the adjudication of relatively small  claims by many Class members who could not otherwise afford to seek legal  redress for the wrongs complained of herein.  Absent a Class Action, class  members will continue to suffer losses of statutory protected rights as well as  monetary damages. If Defendant’s conduct is allowed proceed to without remedy  they will continue to reap and retain the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains.  • Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class, thereby  making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief  with respect to the Class as a whole.  5  14. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered “1”  through “13” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.   15. Upon information and belief, Defendant, on behalf of a third-party, began efforts to collect an  alleged consumer debt from Plaintiff.   16. Defendant was attempting to collect on Plaintiff’s purportedly overdue account with North  Shore University Hospital.   17. On June 5, 2017, in an effort to begin collecting on this debt, Defendant send Plaintiff a  Collection Letter.  See Exhibit A.   18. Thereafter, on or around July 14, 2017, Plaintiff called Defendant to inquire about the alleged  debt.   19. A representative of Defendant answered the phone and identified himself as “Marshanda.”   20. During that phone call, Plaintiff authorized her representative (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), to  discuss the status of the debt with Defendant.   21. After discussing Plaintiff’s debt at length, and only after Plaintiff’s representative stated that  Plaintiff disagreed with the balance and asked to dispute the debt, Defendant stated that  Plaintiff needed to contact Defendant directly.   22. Plaintiff iterated that she had already been authorized to discuss the debt and asked whether  she can merely dispute the debt over the phone, to which Defendant responded: “It can be  verbal, but she just needs to give us a reason why” (emphasis added).   23. As set forth in the following Counts Defendant violated the FDCPA.  6  First Count  15 U.S.C. §1692e et seq.  False and Misleading Representations   24. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered “1”  through “23” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.   25. Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards Plaintiff violated various  provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to § 1692(e) by using false, deceptive, and  misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt.   26. Defendant violated said section by requiring a reason for the dispute.   27. The FDCPA does not require the consumer to provide any reason at all in order to dispute a debt.1   28. As the Second Circuit opined, “a debt collector cannot require a consumer to have a valid  reason or to submit particular types of documentation in order to dispute a debt.” DeSantis v.  Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F.3d 159, 162 (2d Cir. 2001).   29. Upon information and belief, Defendant and its employees, as a matter of procedural practice  and pattern never intend to follow through with the validation rights they purportedly provide  in the initial communication.   30. Upon information and belief, Defendant and its employees, when receiving written disputes as  a matter of procedural practice and pattern do not provide verification of debts since they  maintain all disputes must be submitted with a valid reason.   31. Upon information and belief, Defendant and its employees, intentionally denied Plaintiff his  1 Sambor v. Omnia Credit Servs., 183 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (D. Haw. 2002), Mendez v. M.R.S. Assoc., 2004 WL  1745779 *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2004). (A consumer is entitled to dispute the validity of a debt for a good reason, a  bad reason, or no reason at all), Whitten v. ARS National Servs. Inc., 2002 WL 1050320 *4 (N.D. 111 May 23,  2002). (Imposing a requirement that a consumer have a `valid' reason to dispute the debt is inconsistent with  FDCPA), Castro v. ARS National Servs., Inc., 2000 WL 264310 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2000), Frey v. Satter, Beyer &  Spires., 1999 WL 301650 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 1999), DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 f.3d 159 (2nd Cir. 2001),  Mejia v. Marauder Corporation., 2007 WL 806486 (N.D. Cal. 2007). (Unlawful to suggest that proof of payment  required for dispute).  7  dispute rights afforded to him under the FDCPA.   32.  Upon information and belief, Defendant and its employees, wrongfully implied to Plaintiff  that a dispute needs to be deemed valid in order for it to be considered a dispute.   33. Upon information and belief, Defendant and its employee, by intentionally denying Plaintiff  and any other debtor to dispute the debt without a valid reason unfairly intimidate and force  debtors in to paying disputed debts.   34. Defendant’s employee who spoke with Plaintiff intended to speak said words to Plaintiff.   35. The acts and omissions of Defendant and its employees done in connection with efforts to  collect a debt from Plaintiff were done intentionally and willfully.   36. Upon information and belief, Defendant and its employees intentionally and willfully violated the  FDCPA and do so as a matter of pattern and practice by maintaining that the debtors have a valid  reason to dispute any debt contrary to the FDCPA and the rights given by Defendant purportedly  in the validation notice.   37. As an actual and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendant and its employees,  Plaintiff has suffered actual damages and injury, including but not limited to, fear, stress,  mental anguish, emotional stress, acute embarrassment and suffering for which she should be  compensated in an amount to be established by a jury at trial. 