11. The instant action arises out of Defendants’ attempts to collect upon outstanding credit  card debt (“subject debt”) said to be owed by Plaintiff.   12. The subject debt stems from Plaintiff’s purported past due payments on a personal credit  card said to be issued to Plaintiff by Credit One Bank, N.A. (“Credit One”).   13. After Plaintiff’s purported default on the subject debt, Credit One charged off and sold the  subject debt to LVNV.   14. On information and belief, Scott, on behalf of or at the direction of LVNV, began  attempting to collect on the subject debt in approximately the Fall of 2019.   15. In connection with these collection efforts, Scott, at the direction of LVNV, filed a small  claims action against Plaintiff, and subsequently caused a summons to be served on Plaintiff in  October 2019.   17. This yellow card was not covered by any sort of envelope when provided to the process  server by Defendants, and was handed to Plaintiff by the process server prior to Plaintiff being  handed the summons.   18. The yellow card and its contents were entirely visible to the process server, and the process  server viewed the document prior to handing it to Plaintiff.    19. As such, Defendants’ use of the yellow card constitutes an impermissible communication  with a third party under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b), as it communicated to the process server that  Plaintiff owed a debt that was being collected by Defendants.   20. Additionally, the yellow card was not the first communication Plaintiff received from  Defendants.   21. As such, the failure to disclose that the yellow card was from a debt collector is in direct  violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11).   23. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiff’s statutorily protected interest to be free from  deceptive and misleading collection communications, and further invaded Plaintiff’s privacy by  virtue of improperly communicating with a third party.  24. Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and as a class action on behalf of the  following class:  All persons residing in the state of Texas who received a yellow card  from Defendants in conjunction with being served legal process in  connection with Defendants’ efforts to collect upon a debt during  the one year preceding the filing of this action through the date of  class certification.   25. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(a).   26. Upon information and belief, the Class consists of hundreds or more persons throughout  the state of Texas, such that joinder of all Class members is impracticable.   27. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the Class members that relate to  Defendants’ violations of the FDCPA, particularly because they are based on a common course of  conduct by Defendants.   28. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the proposed Class because they are  based on the same legal theories, and Plaintiff has no interest that are antagonistic to the interests  of the Class members.   29. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class and has retained competent legal  counsel experienced in class actions and complex litigation.   31. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication  of this controversy, as the pursuit of hundreds of individual lawsuits would cause a strain on  judicial resources and could result in inconsistent or varying adjudications, yet each Class member  would be required to prove an identical set of facts in order to recover damages  32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 31 as though fully set forth herein.    33. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3) of the FDCPA.     34. Defendants are debt collectors, as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a, because they are persons  who use any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal purpose  of which is the collection of debts, and because they regularly use the mails and/or telephones to  collect, or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly consumer delinquent debts owed or due or  asserted to be owed or due another.   36. Although Scott is the entity referenced in the yellow card Plaintiff received, LVNV’s  relationship with Scott renders it either directly liable for the below referenced violations of the  FDCPA, or vicariously liable for the FDCPA violations engaged in by Scott.  a. Violations of FDCPA § 1692c(b)   37. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b), provides that “without the prior express  consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court  of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy,  a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any  person other than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted  by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.”    39. The FDCPA, pursuant to 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.”     40. In addition, this section enumerates specific violations, such as:  “The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to  collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.”  15 U.S.C.  §1692e(10).  “The failure to disclose . . . in subsequent communications that the communication  is from a debt collector . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11).   PLAINTIFF INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS  AGAINST DEFENDANTS  