10.  The Defendant is in the business of filing counterclaims and collecting debts.    11.  The Sessions Firm are third party debt collectors pursuant to the FDCPA.   13.  On December 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Credit One Bank in the  Southern District of Florida asserting violations under the TCPA and FCCPA.   14.  Nearly one month later, by letter dated January 19, 2017, Plaintiff was notified that  his credit card account with Credit One Bank, ending in 0413, with a balance in the amount of  $991.00 was sold on or about January 17, 2017, and all rights thereunder assigned to a new owner,  LVNV Funding, LLC.  (Attached hereto as Exhibit A)   15.  Despite selling and assigning all of their rights to the amounts due on the credit card  account, four months later, on May 18, 2017, Credit One Bank, by and through The Sessions Firm,  LLC, filed a Counter-Claim against Plaintiff in AAA Case No. 01-17-0001-4954, in an effort to  collect the same $991.00 alleged debt that was previously sold and assigned to a new owner.  (hereinafter referred to as “the Counter-Claim”).     16.  The Counter-Claim filed by The Sessions Firm seeks to collect an alleged debt  when Defendants knew Plaintiff no longer owed any money to Credit One Bank as the debt was  previously assigned, sold and Credit One Bank has no further rights to the debt or to enforce the  debt.   17.  Furthermore, Defendant seeks to collect an alleged debt that Sessions knows is not  owed by Plaintiff, as the amount is based on unlawfully incurred fees and interest.   19.  Further, the Counter-Claim brought by Sessions subjected Plaintiff to litigation  unlawfully and unnecessarily, which caused significant stress, embarrassment, anxiety, and  emotional distress.   20.  The Counter-Claim was filed as a form of harassment and to leverage a settlement  in Plaintiff’s original lawsuit against Credit One Bank that was defended by Sessions.   21.  All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been satisfied.    22.  Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs one (1) through twenty-one (21).   23.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendant is subject to and must abide by 15  U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.   24.  Defendant engaged in an act or omission prohibited under 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) by  willfully engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any  person in connection with the collection of a debt.   25.  Defendant engaged in an act or omission prohibited under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A)  by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means to collect a debt, namely through  the false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of the alleged debt.   26.  Defendant engaged in an act or omission prohibited under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) by  using unfair and unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.       28.  Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs one (1) through twenty-one (21).   29.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendant is subject to and must abide by the  law of Florida, including Florida Statute § 559.72.   30.  Defendant has violated Florida Statute § 559.72(7) by willfully engaging in conduct  which can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the debtor or any member of his family.   31.  Defendant violated Florida Statute § 559.72(9) by attempting to enforce a debt  when Defendant knew that the debt is not legitimate or assert the existence of some legal right  when Defendant knows that right does not exist.   33.  Plaintiff restates each of the allegations in all other paragraphs as if fully stated  herein.   34.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings the above  claims on behalf of a Class.    35.  In this case, Plaintiff seeks to certify classes and sub-classes, subject to amendment,  as follows:   36.  The Proposed Class consists of:  (1) All persons in the United States (2) against whom the Defendant has filed a  claim or counterclaim in any legal proceeding (3) where the rights to the alleged  claim or counterclaim were sold and/or assigned either prior to asserting the  counterclaim, or after the counterclaim was asserted and where Defendant  continued to pursue the claim after such sale and/or assignment, (4) within 2 years  of the date of filing this complaint.   37.   Excluded from the Proposed Class are any persons that have already been released  as part of a prior release or judgment.   38.   Defendant has caused the Class actual harm, not only because the Class was  subjected to the aggravation that necessarily accompanies responding to a lawsuit, but also because  said class members incur legal fees and costs in defending such claims.   40.  Plaintiff is presently unaware of the exact number of members in the Class, but  based upon the size and national scope of Defendant’s business, Plaintiff reasonably believes that  the class members’ number at a minimum is in the thousands based upon the number of cases in  which Defendant is involved in court and in arbitral proceedings.    41.  Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed by Defendant’s actions.   42.  This Class Action Complaint seeks money damages and injunctive relief.   43.  The joinder of all class members is impracticable due to the size and relatively  modest value of each individual claim.    44.  The disposition of the claims in a class action will provide substantial benefits to  both the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits, and will avoid conflicting  or inconsistent results or judgments with respect to identical transactions, parties and causes of  action. The class can be easily identified through records maintained by Defendant.   46.  As a person against whom Defendant asserted a claim which had been previously  sold and assigned, Plaintiff asserts claims that are typical of the members of the Class.   47.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class,  and Plaintiff does not have an interest that is antagonistic to any member of the Class.   48.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims involving  violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes such as the FDCPA and FCCPA.   49.  A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.    50.  Class-wide relief is essential to compel Defendant to comply with the FDCPA and  FCCPA. The interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate  claims against Defendant is small because the statutory damages in an individual action for  violation of these statutes are small relative to the time, effort, and resources necessary to maintain  an individual action.    51.  Management of these claims is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties than  are presented in many class claims because the liability of the Defendant can be readily ascertained  from the records in the Defendant’s possession.   52.  Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making  final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole  appropriate.    6.  Plaintiff is an “alleged debtor.”   7.  The alleged debt arose out of a credit card transaction with Credit One Bank, a  corporation which was formed in Nevada with its principal place of business at 585 Pilot Road,  Las Vegas, NV 89119, and related to a Credit One Bank credit card account that was primarily  used for Mr. Beitler’s personal, family, or household purposes.    8.  The Defendant Sessions has filed counterclaims to collect debts on behalf of Credit  One Bank and other creditors.    9.  Sessions has filed counterclaims in other Credit One Bank and other Creditor cases,  and regularly files counterclaims to collect debts.   Violation of the FCCPA by The Sessions Firm, LLC   Violation of the FDCPA by The Sessions Firm, LLC  