17.  Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of the following case, pursuant to Fed. R.  Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).   18.  The Class consists of:  a.  all individuals with addresses in the State of Texas;  b.  to whom Defendant KMDA sent a letter attempting to collect a  consumer debt;  c.  that stated that   •  “Unless payment arrangements are made with this office  within ten (10) days from the date of this letter”;  •  “I will advise my client to file a lien on the subject  property.”; or   •  “Federal law gives you thirty days after you receive this  letter to dispute the validity of the debt or any part of it. If  you do not dispute it within that period, this firm will  assume that it is valid. If you do dispute it, by notifying  this firm in writing to that effect, this firm will, as required  by the law, obtain and mail to you proof of your original  creditor”;  d.  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 (2l) days after the filing  5  of this action.   19.  The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of  Defendant KDMA and those companies and entities on whose behalf they attempt to collect and/or  have purchased debts.   20.  Excluded from the Plaintiff Classes are the Defendants and all officers, members,  partners, managers, directors and employees of the Defendants and their respective immediate  families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their immediate  families.   21.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Classes, which  common issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The  principal issue is whether the Defendants' written communications to consumers, in the forms  attached as Exhibits A, violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. and the Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 292 et seq.   22.  The Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the  same facts and legal theories. The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  Plaintiff Classes defined in this complaint. The Plaintiffs have retained counsel with experience in  handling consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiff(s)  nor his attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.   23.  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 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that  basis allege, that the Plaintiff Classes defined above are so numerous  that joinder of all members would be impractical.  6  b. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and  fact exist as to all members of the Plaintiff Classes and those  questions predominate over any questions or issues involving only  individual class members. The principal issue is whether the  Defendant’s written communications to consumers, in the forms  attached as Exhibit A violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. and the Tex.  Fin. Code Ann. § 292 et seq.  c. Typicality: The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class  members. The Plaintiffs and all members of the Plaintiff Classes  have claims arising out of the Defendants' common uniform course  of conduct complained of herein.  d. Adequacy: The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the  interests of the class members insofar as Plaintiffs have no interests  that are averse to the absent class members. The Plaintiffs are  committed to vigorously litigating this matter. Plaintiffs have also  retained counsel experienced in handling consumer lawsuits, complex  legal issues, and class actions. Neither the Plaintiff nor his 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  7  persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum  efficiently and without unnecessary duplication of effort and  expense that individual actions would engender.   24.  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 Classes 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.   25.  Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiffs 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).  26.  Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and incorporates the allegations contained in  paragraphs numbered above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at  length herein.   27.  On July 15, 2019, Elevated’s representative Kenny Gammons sent Plaintiff a text  message saying they would do a roof repair work for $12,459.   28.  On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff and Elevated agreed to repair the roof, repaint the  fence, fix a broken window and repair and repaint the garage door from hail damage for total price  of $14,314.28 which did not include gutters and downspouts.   29.  Elevated required half upfront before the work was to commence on July 24,  2019.   30.  On the morning of July 24, 2019, Elevated without any explanation increased the  8  price for the work to $17,285.31 and demanded $8,642.66 and sent an invoice stating that the  remained balance due at job completion was $8,642.65 and refused to honor its original agreement.   31.  On July 24, 2019 Plaintiff paid Elevated $8,642.66 because work was needed as  the roof was leaking in the master bedroom.   32.  On September 9, 2019 at 9:13am Elevated’s representative Kenny Gammons  send the Plaintiff a text message saying “Morning Shawn… we were able to get the insurance  cover your gutters & downspouts. So I will get them changed out later this week. I wanted to make  you aware. Thanks”   33.  On September 9, 2019 at 9:15am Plaintiff replied back saying “Kenny we don’t  want gutter [o]r downspouts” and “Not part of our agreement”.   34.  On September 9, 2019 at 9:16am, Kenny Gammons replied saying “Ok… No  problem we will just have to report it back to the insurance. Just wanted you to be aware… We  will prepare the final bill and send it over. Thanks”.   35.  On September 23, 2019 Elevated’s representative Doug Dobolek emailed  Plaintiff an invoice for with a balance due of $18,504.96.   36.  Plaintiff contacted Elevated several times to remove the charges for gutters and  downspouts which were never installed but Elevated refused to adjust their bill.   37.  Elevated is claiming that they are owed money for gutter and downspouts which  were never installed because insurance disbursed funds to the Plaintiff.   38.  Plaintiff has offered to pay Elevated the correct amount owed $5,671.62 but  Elevated has refused and now demands $19,192.67 and continues to increase its balance.   39.  On November 20, 2019 KDMA sent a collection letter (“Letter”) to Plaintiff in  the Eastern District of Texas.  9   40.  Defendant KDMA’s Letter threatened Plaintiff with legal arbitration action and  demanding interests and attorney’s fees.   41.  Defendant KDMA’s Letter demanded payment from Plaintiff of $19,192.67  within ten (10) days from the date of the letter.   42.  Defendant KDMA’s Letter claimed the KDMA is a debt collector.   43.  Defendant KDMA does not have a surety bond for debt collection and has not  filed a copy such surety bond with the Texas Secretary of State.   44.  Defendant KDMA Letter threatened the filing of lien on the subject property at  11126 Abercrombie Trail, Frisco, TX 75035 within 10 (ten) days of the date of the letter.   45.  Plaintiff’s is married and his spouse did not sign any agreement or contract with  Elevated or Defendant KDMA.   46.  The subject property is Plaintiff’s homestead.   47.  Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 53.254 requires the signature of both spouses when  fixing a lien on a homestead. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 53.254(c) (2007). Denmon v. Atlas Leasing,  L.L.C., 285 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. App. 2009).  48.  Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and incorporates the allegations contained in  paragraphs above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length  herein.    49.  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.   50.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive,  10  or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt, including:  a.  The false representation of the character, amount, or legal status any debt, §  1692e(2);  b.  The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the  … the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any  person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to  take such action 1692e(4);  c.  The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended  to be taken 1692e(5); and  d. The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to  collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer, § 1692e(10).   51.  Defendant KDMA has violated § 1692e et seq. when KDMA:  i. falsely represented in its Letter that Plaintiff owed $19,192.67;  ii. falsely represented and threatened that KDMA or Elevated could legally  file a lien on Plaintiff’s homestead when they legally cannot;  iii. falsely threatened Plaintiff that with breach of contract, violation of the  Prompt Payment Act, and violation of the Texas Trust Funds Act when  Plaintiff has offered to pay the full amount due of $5,671.62; and  iv. used representation and deceptive means because KDMA has engaged  in illegal debt collection because KDMA has is not bonded as a debt  collector in Texas and has not posted a bond with the Secretary of State.   52.  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 an award of  11  statutory and actual damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.  53.  Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and incorporates the allegations contained in  paragraphs above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length  herein.   54.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, a debt collector may not use unfair or  unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.  a. The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense  incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly  authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law, 1692f(1).   55. Defendant KDMA has violated § 1692f when KDMA:  i. falsely attempted to collect an unauthorized amount of $19,192.67;  ii. used an unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt when KDMA  falsely threatened that it or Elevated could file a lien on Plaintiff’s  homestead when they legally cannot;  iii. falsely threatened Plaintiff that with breach of contract, violation of the  Prompt Payment Act, and violation of the Texas Trust Funds Act when  Plaintiff has offered to pay full amount due of $5,671.62; and  iv. used representation and deceptive means because KDMA has engaged  in illegal debt collection because KDMA has is not bonded as a debt  collector in Texas and has not posted a bond with the Secretary of State.   56.  By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that  12  Defendant's conduct violated Section 1692f et seq. of the FDCPA and Plaintiff is entitled to an  award of actual and statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.  57.  Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and incorporates the allegations contained in  paragraphs above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length  herein.   58.  15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) reads: Notice of debt, contents: 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;  (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;  (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice,  disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be  valid by the debt collector;  (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the  thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector  will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and  a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt  collector; and  (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period,  the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original  13  creditor, if different from the current creditor.   59.  15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) in relevant part reads: “Any collection activities and  communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the  disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the  original creditor.”   60.  Defendant KDMA did not identify the true legal name of the creditor but simply  claims the creditor is Elevated Roofing.   61.  Defendant KDMA violated 1692g(a) and 1692(b) when KDMA used confusing  and inconsistent language on its Letter “Federal law gives you thirty days after you receive this  letter to dispute the validity of the debt or any part of it. If you do not dispute it within that  period, this firm will assume that it is valid. If you do dispute it, by notifying this firm in  writing to that effect, this firm will, as required by the law, obtain and mail to you proof of your  original creditor,…”    62.  This statement makes an unsophisticated or least sophisticated consumer believe  that a dispute is required in writing.   63.  Defendant KDMA violated 1692g(b) when it demanded payment within ten  (10) days from the Plaintiff because this overshadowed and was inconsistent with the disclosure  of the Plaintiff’s consumer right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the  original creditor.   64.  Defendant KDMA violated 1692g(b) when it threatened to file a lien on  Plaintiff’s homestead if payment is not made within 10 days. This overshadowed and was  inconsistent with the disclosure of the Plaintiff’s consumer right to dispute the debt or request the  name and address of the original creditor.  14   65.  By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant's  conduct violated Section 1692g et seq. of the FDCPA and Plaintiff is entitled to an award of  actual and statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.  66.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs in this complaint  as though fully set forth herein.   67.  Sec. 392.304(a) of the TDCA reads: “In debt collection, a debt collector may  not use fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation that employs the following practice:  (1) Misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt, or  misreporting the consumer debt’s status in a judicial or governmental proceeding;  and  (2) Using any other false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or  obtain information concerning a consumer, Sec. 392.304(a)(19)   68.  Sec 392.101 of the TDCA prohibits a third-party debt collector from engaging  in debt collection unless the third-party debt collector has obtained a $10,000 surety bond issued  by a surety company authorized to do business in the state for the benefit of any person who is  damaged by a violation of this chapter.   69.  Defendant KDMA violated the TDCA through its deceptive means when  KDMA engaged in illegal debt collection activities against the Plaintiff without obtaining and  posting a bond with the Secretary of State.   70.  Defendant KDMA violated the TDCA when it mailed the Collection Letter to  the Plaintiff which contained false representations and misrepresented the amount of the debt.  15  VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT  15 U.S.C. §1692f et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS DEBT COLLECTION ACT   Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 292 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.  