21. Sometime prior to June 11, 2012, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial  obligation to Citibank/Sears, (“Sears Obligation”).  22. The Sears Obligation is alleged to have arisen out of a transaction in which the  money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for  personal, family, or household purposes.  23. Defendants contend that the Sears Obligation is in default. -5-  24. The alleged Sears Obligation is a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(5).  25. Plaintiff is, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, a “consumer” as that term is  defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).  26. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that sometime prior to  June 11, 2012, the creditor of the Sears Obligation either directly or through intermediate  transactions assigned, placed, transferred, or sold the debt to LVNV for collection.  27. LVNV is a purchaser of performing and non-performing consumer debts, which  are in default at the time the debts are acquired.   28. LVNV collects, and attempts to collect, defaulted debts incurred, or alleged to  have been incurred, for personal, family, or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the  U.S. Mail, telephone, and Internet.  29. In connection with its debt servicing operations, LVNV routinely hires lawyers  and law firms, such as MEL HARRIS LLC and HARRIS, to file lawsuits against consumers in  the State of New York in an effort to collect money by obtaining civil judgments on the  defaulted debts it acquires.  30. LVNV is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).  31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that sometime prior to  June 11, 2012, and within the one year period immediately preceding the filing of the initial  complaint in this action, LVNV either directly or through intermediate transactions assigned,  placed, or transferred the Sears Obligation to MEL HARRIS LLC and HARRIS for collection including, but not limited to, the filing of a lawsuit. -6-  32. MEL HARRIS LLC 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  U.S. Mail, telephone, and Internet.  33. MEL HARRIS LLC is, at all times relevant to this complaint, a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).  34. On information and belief, HARRIS is a principal owner, director, shareholder, and/or managing partner of MEL HARRIS LLC.  35. HARRIS attempts to collect debts incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, for  personal, family, or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the U.S. Mail, telephone,  and Internet.  36. HARRIS personally implemented, and with knowledge such practices were  contrary to law, engaged in, acted consistent with, managed, and oversaw the illegal policies and  procedures used by other employees of MEL HARRIS LLC.  37. HARRIS is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).  38. In an attempt to collect the Sears Obligation, MEL HARRIS LLC debt collector  employees began placing telephone calls to Plaintiff beginning on at least June 6, 2012. During  these telephone calls MEL HARRIS LLC left telephone messages for Plaintiff in which the  callers falsely implied to Plaintiff that they were attorneys employed by MEL HARRIS who  were attempting to call Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt. Plaintiff is now  informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that none of these callers were attorneys who  are licensed to practice law in New York or in any other state. These calls continued for months.  39. In a further attempt to collect the Sears Obligation, Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter dated June 11, 2012 (“06/11/12 Letter”). A true and correct copy of the 06/11/12 Letter is  -7- attached hereto as Exhibit A.  40. Plaintiff did not receive the 06/11/12 Letter until June 17, 2012.  41. The 06/11/12 Letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2).  42. Plaintiff presumed that the 06/11/12 Letter was in fact the work product of a  licensed attorney as it stated “Please be advised we are the attorneys for the above” (Emphasis in original) and was personally signed by one of MEL HARRIS LLC’s attorneys.  43. Plaintiff further presumed that the 06/11/12 Letter was in fact the work product  of a licensed attorney as it stated “Demand is hereby made upon you for payment of this  outstanding indebtedness” (Emphasis in original) and was personally signed by one of MEL  HARRIS LLC’s attorneys.  44. Plaintiff further presumed that the 06/11/12 Letter was in fact the work product of  a licensed attorney as it stated “Should you wish to discuss this matter with a view towardss  reaching an amicable settlement, please do not hesitate to contact us” (Emphasis in original) and was personally signed by one of MEL HARRIS LLC’s attorneys.  45. As Plaintiff understood the 06/11/12 Letter, as would the least sophisticated  consumer, the only way to “amicably settle” the alleged Sears Obligation and avoid a “non- amicable” result such as a lawsuit and civil judgment was to call MEL HARRIS LLC and its  attorneys.  46. After receiving the 06/11/12 Letter, Plaintiff reasonably inferred -- as would a  “least sophisticated consumer” -- that Citibank/Sears was proceeding more aggressively as it has  incurred the expense to hire a law firm, such as MEL HARRIS LLC, whose public reputation  was to sue New York consumers and obtain judgments and those attorneys had taken the time to  personally write him a letter and sign it. -8-  47. In a further attempt to collect the Sears Obligation, Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter dated July 12, 2012 (“07/12/12 Letter”), which was in addition to the telephone calls and 06/11/12 Letter he had received, and was continuing to receive from Defendants. A true and  correct copy of the 07/12/12 Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.  48. The 06/11/12 Letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2).  49. Plaintiff presumed that the 07/12/12 Letter was in fact the work product of a  licensed attorney as it stated in the First Paragraph that “[o]ur client has asked us to convey to  you an exciting way for you to SAVE MONEY and liquidate the above balance which is  significantly past due” (Emphasis in original) and was personally signed by HARRIS.  50. As Plaintiff understood the First Paragraph of 07/12/12 Letter, as would the least  sophisticated consumer, to be statements and conduct that only a licensed attorney could engage  in or make, i.e., discussing what “our client” had asked MEL HARRIS LLC and HARRIS.  51. In fact, unlike the 06/11/12 Letter, the 07/12/12 Letter contains deliberately omits any admonition whatsoever that the attorney signing this particular letter had “not personally  reviewed the particular circumstances of [Plaintiff’s] account” and was personally signed by  HARRIS who made the following additional affirmative statements to Plaintiff indicating he had indeed reviewed the particular circumstances of Plaintiff’s account, as only a licensed attorney  has the legal authority to make such statements: (a) “Our client has asked us to convey to you....” (b) “Our client has authorized us to accept any reasonable settlement  amount in order to satisfy this debt in full.” (Emphasis in original). (c) “One-lump payment settlements will create the largest savings for you.” (d) “We will also accept offers of partial payment settlements.”  52. In the Third Paragraph of the 07/12/12 Letter, MEL HARRIS LLC and HARRIS -9- affirmatively state that, “[t]he only requirement is that [Plaintiff] call this office within ten (10)  days after receipt of this letter to discuss how much money [Plaintiff] will be saving.” (Emphasis in original). Plaintiff perceived, as would the least sophisticated consumer, that the foregoing statement constituted a one-time take it or leave it offer that would result in his being sued if he  failed to “call [MEL HARRIS LLC and HARRIS] within 10 days” as it was personally signed by  HARRIS and as Plaintiff was well aware of Defendants’ strong propensity to sue New York  consumers in an effort to obtain civil judgments on alleged debts such as the Sears Obligation.  53. The foregoing statement that, “[t]he only requirement is that [Plaintiff] call this  office within ten (10) days after receipt of this letter to discuss how much money [Plaintiff] will  be saving” is flatly false, deceptive, and misleading, as Defendants will accept a settlement offer  from Plaintiff and other consumers at any time.  54. Based on the foregoing facts, when considered in conjunction with the 06/11/12 Letter, Plaintiff believed, as would the least sophisticated consumer, that the 07/12/12 Letter was  in fact the work product of a licensed attorney.  55. The only an attorney employed by MEL HARRIS LLC personally signed the  06/11/12 Letter was to scare Plaintiff, and other least sophisticated consumers, into believing that  the “price of poker had just gone up” -- namely, that LVNV had now hired attorneys who were  prepared to, and regularly do, sue consumers such as Plaintiff if quick arrangements are not  made to pay the alleged debt.  56. The only reason HARRIS personally signed the 07/12/12 Letter was to scare  Plaintiff, and other least sophisticated consumers, into believing that the “price of poker had just  gone up” -- namely, that LVNV had now hired attorneys who were prepared to, and regularly do,  sue consumers such as Plaintiff if quick arrangements are not made to pay the alleged debt. -10-  57. The fact the 06/11/12 Letter and 07/12/12 Letter appears to be personally signed  by a licensed attorneys, lends significant credence to Plaintiff’s presumption that these letters  were in fact authored, and direct to be sent, by a licensed attorney who had reviewed the  particular circumstances of his account prior to mailing same.  58. The 07/12/12 Letter falsely represents and implies that a licensed attorney was directly or personally involved in reviewing Plaintiff’s file or account prior to mailing same.  59. After receiving the 06/11/12 Letter and 07/12/12 Letter, Plaintiff reasonably  inferred -- as would a “least sophisticated consumer” -- that LVNV was proceeding more  aggressively as it has incurred the expense to hire a law firm, whose attorneys were personally  involved with the review and collection of his account.  60. MEL HARRIS LLC intended that the 06/11/12 Letter and 07/12/12 Letter imply a  heightened severity over dunning letters from non-attorney collection companies and that the  least sophisticated consumer react with a commensurate level of alarm and concern thereby  giving them an unfair business advantage over those non-attorney debt collection companies.  61. Sometime after receiving the 06/11/12 Letter and 07/12/12 Letter, Plaintiff became informed and now believes, and on that basis alleges, that the 06/11/12 Letter and  07/12/12 Letter are actually computer-generated, mass-produced, letters that are sent to  consumers at-large without any meaningful attorney review or involvement.  62. At all times relevant to the collection of the alleged Sears Obligation, there  existed a principal-agent relationship between LVNV on the one-hand, and MEL HARRIS LLC  and HARRIS on the other hand.  63. At all times relevant to the collection of the alleged Sears Obligation, MEL  HARRIS LLC and HARRIS were also the agents for LVNV, acting within the course and scope  -11- of their employment at the time of the incidents complained of herein, and were under the direct  supervision, control, and approval of LVNV.  64. As the principal and a debt collector, LVNV is vicariously liable for the illegal  collection activities of other debt collection companies and collectors, such as MEL HARRIS  LLC and HARRIS, who are working on its behalf to collect debts from consumers like Plaintiff. 70. This action is brought as a class action. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure.  71. With respect to the Plaintiff Class, this claim is brought on behalf of a class of (a)  all persons in the State of New York (b) to whom Defendants sent a written communication materially similar to the form attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B; (c) in an attempt to collect a  debt that was incurred for personal, family, or household purposes; (d) which was not returned as  undelivered by the United States Postal Service or a process server; (e) during the one year  immediately preceding the filing of the initial complaint in this action and ending 21 days  thereafter.  72. The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of  MEL HARRIS LLC and LVNV.  73. Excluded from the Plaintiff Class 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.  74. 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 Defendants’ written communications to consumers, in the form attached as  Exhibit A and Exhibit B, violate 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(3), and 1692e(10).  75. The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the  same facts and legal theories. -13-  76. 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 his attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.  77. 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 predominate over any  questions or issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue  is whether the Defendants’ written communications to consumers, in the form  attached as Exhibits A, violates 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(3), and 1692e(10). (c) Typicality: The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members.  Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff Class have claims arising out of the  Defendants’ 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. The 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 his counsel has -14- 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.  78. Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure is also appropriate in that a determination that the Defendants’ written  communications to consumers, in the form attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, violate 15  U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(3), or 1692e(10) is tantamount to declaratory relief and any monetary  relief under the FDCPA would be merely incidental to that determination.  79. 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.  80. Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff may,  at the time of class certification motion, seek to certify a class only as to particular issues  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4). -15- 81. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding  paragraphs of this Complaint.  82. The Defendants’ written communications in the form attached as Exhibit A and  Exhibit B are false, deceptive, and misleading in that these communications were neither drafted by, nor received any meaningful review or involvement from, a licensed attorney prior to the  mailing of said letters in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§1692e and 1692e(3).  83. The Defendants’ written communication in the form attached as Exhibit A and  Exhibit B constitutes the use of a false representation and/or deceptive means to collect or  attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer in violation of 15  U.S.C. §§1692e and 1692e(10). VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 