(New York State General Business Law § 349)    (Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)   48.  The plaintiff, Russell Klippel, brings this action on behalf not only of himself, but  also on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, pursuant to Fed. R.  Civ. P. Rule 23.    50.  All members of the Class are also members of one or both of the two subclasses.   51.  Excluded from the Class and subclasses are:   a. anyone employed by counsel for Plaintiff in this action; and   b. any Judge to whom this case is assigned, as well as his or her  immediate family and staff.    Numerosity:     52.  The summons and complaint at issue in this case is a boilerplate document whose  language does not materially vary from one action to the next, and which, upon  information and belief, was sent by Defendants to thousands of consumers.   53.  The Class and subclasses include hundreds, if not thousands of members and are  sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.    54.  Although the exact number of Class members and their addresses are unknown to  Plaintiffs, they are readily ascertainable from Plaintiffs’ records.  Existence And Predominance Of Common Questions:    55.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to Plaintiffs and all members of the Class  and predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members.    58.  Thus, plaintiff's claims – based on the same boilerplate misstatements of law as the  claims of all other class members -- are typical of the claims of the class.     59.  Put differently, all of the claims are based on the same factual and legal theories and  the plaintiff, together with each class member, have been subjected the same false and  deceptive communications and acts by Defendants.  Adequacy:     60.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class members. Her  interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the Class he seeks to  represent.     61.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions and in  consumer protection matters. There is no reason why this plaintiff and his counsel  will not vigorously pursue this matter.    Superiority:   62.  The class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the claims at issue herein.    64.  Further, it would be virtually impossible for the members of the Class effectively to  individually redress the wrongs done to them. Even if the members of the Class  themselves could afford such individual litigation, the court system could not.    65.  Individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory  judgments. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and  the court system presented by the complex legal and factual issues of the case.    66.  By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and  provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive  supervision by a single court.   68.  Plaintiff hereby restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference all foregoing  paragraphs.   69.  Defendants’ attempt to collect the alleged debt by falsely stating plaintiff was subject  to a particular city court’s jurisdiction when they knew or had reason to know he was  not, violates 15 USC §§ 1692e,  1692e(5); 1692e(10), 1692f and 1692f(1).     70.  Defendants’  actions to collect the alleged debt by suing plaintiff  in a judicial district  ( i.e., the Johnstown  City Court in the case of Mr. Klippel)  where he  does  not live  nor where the Defendant had any basis to believe the alleged credit card contract sued  upon was signed violates 15 USC §§ 1692i,  §1692e, 1692e(5), 1692e(10); 1692f and  1692f(1).   71.  Defendants’ actions to collect the alleged debt by suing plaintiff in a forum barred by  UCCA ¶213 violates 15 USC §§ 1692i,  §1692e, 1692e(5), 1692e(10); 1692f and  1692f(1).    72.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as fully as  set forth herein.    74.  Each of these actions was consumer oriented and involves misleading conduct that is  recurring and has a broad impact upon the public.    75.  Specifically, and without limitation, the following acts are false and deceptive:  filing  actions in venues it knew or should have known to be improper pursuant to state and  federal law in order to lower its own filing fees; and falsely and willfully stating a  basis of venue that Defendants knew or should have known to be untrue.   76.  This false and deceptive conduct impairs the rights of consumers, forcing them to  defend suits in improper fora.   77.  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated have been damaged thereby.   78.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of § 349, Plaintiff and each other member of the  NYGBL§ 349 subclass are entitled to declaratory judgment; an injunction against the  offending conduct, damages of $50 each, costs and attorneys' fees.   