12.  Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the following case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.  P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).   13.  The Class consists of:   1) all individuals with addresses in the State of New York;  2) to whom Defendant DRS sent an initial collection letter attempting to collect a  consumer debt;   3) that included confusing, misleading terms regarding the balance due;   4) and failed to include mandatory disclosures that interest, fees and costs are  continuously accruing, or in the alternative, the creditor/and or Defendant has  made the decision to waive accruing interest and fees;  4  5) which letter was sent on or after one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and  on or before a date twenty-one (21) days after the filing of this action.    14.  The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of  Defendant and those companies and entities on whose behalf they attempt to collect and/or have  purchased debts.   15.  Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are the Defendants and all officer, 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.    16.  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 forms attached as  Exhibit A, violate 15 U.S.C. §§ l692e and §1692g.   17.  The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same  facts and legal theories. 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 her attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this  action.   18.  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:  5  1) 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.  2) Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist as  to all members of the Plaintiff Class and those questions predominance over any  questions or issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue  is whether the Defendants' written communication to consumers, in the forms  attached as Exhibit A violate 15 USC §l692e and §1692g.  3) Typicality: The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members.  The Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff Class have claims arising out of the  Defendants' common uniform course of conduct complained of herein.  4) 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 her counsel have  any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue the instant class  action lawsuit.  5) 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  6  forum efficiently and without unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that  individual actions would engender.   19.  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.   20.  Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff 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).  21.  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.   22.  Some time prior to February 6, 2020 an obligation was allegedly incurred to  CitiBank, N.A.    23.  The CitiBank, N.A.  obligation arose out of transactions in which money, property,  insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, were primarily for personal,  family or household purposes.   24.  The alleged CitiBank, N.A.  obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a(5).   25.  CitiBank, N.A. is a “creditor” as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a(4).   26.  Defendant JHPDE, a debt collector, purchased the debt from CitiBank, N.A. and  contracted with Defendant DRS to collect the alleged debt.  7   27.  Defendant collect and attempt to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been  incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United  States Postal Services, telephone and internet.  Violation – February 6, 2020 Collection Letter   28.  On or about February 6, 2020 Defendant DRS sent Plaintiff an initial collection letter  on behalf of Defendant JHPDE (the “Letter”) regarding the alleged debt once owed to CitiBank,  N.A.  See Collection Letter – Attached hereto as Exhibit A.    29.  When a debt collector solicits payment from a consumer, it must, within five days of  an initial communication, provide the consumer with a written validation notice, known as a “G- Notice”, which must include the following information:   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 the 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  8  of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. 15 U.S.C. §  1692g(a).   30.  The FDCPA further provides 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 shall cease collection . . . until the debt collector obtains verification of the  debt . . . and a copy of such verification is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.'' 15  U.S.C. § 1692g(b).   31.  Although a collection letter may track the statutory language, ''the collector  nevertheless violates the Act if it conveys that information in a confusing or contradictory  fashion so as to cloud the required message with uncertainty.'' Russell v. EQUIFAX A.R.S., 74  F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 1996) (''It is not enough for a debt collection agency to simply include the  proper debt validation notice in a mailing to a consumer-- Congress intended that such notice  be clearly conveyed.''). Put differently, a notice containing ''language that 'overshadows or  contradicts' other language informing a consumer of her rights . . . violates the Act.'' Russell,  74 F.3d at 34.   32.  The top contains a box with information regarding the alleged debt as follows:  Original Creditor: CITIBANK N.A.  Original Account Number: ********  Current Creditor: JHPDE Finance I, LLC  Reference Number: *********  Total Outstanding Balance: $6,573.96  Itemization of balance: Charge-off Balance: $6,355.55  Interest Accrued since Charge-off: $53.41  Non-interest charges accrued since charge-off: $0.00  Non-interest fees accrued since charge-off: $165.00  Total amount of payments made on debt since charge-off: $0.00  9   33.  The Letter did not contain all the requirement of the “G-Notice”. Specifically, this  Letter fails to identify the exact amount of the debt owed.     34.  The Letter fails to explain how interest can continue to accrue on an account after it  has been charged-off.    35.  Furthermore, the Letter fails to explain what non-interest fees are and how they can  continue to accrue after charge-off.    36.  In addition, the Letter does not disclose to Plaintiff if these supposed post charge-off  interest and fees that have accrued will continue to accrue.    37.  Failure to account for the accrual of interest and fees or the breakdown of the same  is deceptive and misleading as Plaintiff is unable to determine whether interest and fees would  continue to accrue until the debt is settled.    38.  If interest and fees will continue to accrue during the collection process, the  collection letter must explicitly state so:   A reasonable consumer could read the notice and be misled into believing that she  could pay her debt in full by paying the amount listed on the notice. In fact,  however, if interest is accruing daily, or if there are undisclosed late fees, a  consumer who pays the "current balance" stated on the notice will not know  whether the debt has been paid in full. The debt collector could still seek the  interest and fees that accumulated after the notice was sent but before the balance  was paid, or sell the consumer's debt to a third party, which itself could seek the  interest and fees from the consumer.  Because the statement of an amount due, without notice that the amount is  already increasing due to accruing interest or other charges, can mislead the  least sophisticated consumer into believing that payment of the amount stated  will clear her account, we hold that the FDCPA requires debt collectors, when  they notify consumers of their account balance, to disclose that the balance may  increase due to interest and fees. We think that requiring such disclosure best  achieves the Congressional purpose of full and fair disclosure to consumers that is  embodied in Section 1692e. It also protects consumers such as plaintiffs who may  hold the reasonable but mistaken belief that timely payment will satisfy their debts.  (Emphasis Added)  10  Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., LLC, 817 F.3d 72, 76, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5327, *6-7  (2d Cir. N.Y. 2016)   39.  Furthermore, if the account is including interest and fees, the balance claimed due  and owing in the Letter may not be the amount due at the time of payment because of additional  interest and fees applied to the account.    40.  In the alternative, if interest and fees are not continuing to accrue post charge-off  then Defendants should state that the interest and fees provided are a onetime charge.    41.  A collection Letter must clearly display the balance owed, the confusing added  interest and fees makes it impossible for a consumer to know how much is owed and if the debt  will be considered paid if payment in full is made.    42.  The confusing and misleading added amounts overshadows the “g-notice” language  and coerces the consumer not to exert his rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.    43.  Stating inaccurate balance amounts is materially misleading to Plaintiff since it is a  knowingly false statement.    44.  Defendant’s false statement overshadowed Plaintiff’s §1692g right to dispute or  validate the debt as he would be confused regarding the correct balance owed.    45.  The Defendants have failed to provide the consumer with a statutorily compliant  initial communication letter.   46.  Plaintiff has suffered an informational injury as he was not provided with the  information statutorily required to be included in the initial communication letter from  Defendants.   47.  As a result of Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices,  Plaintiff has been damaged.  11  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, or  misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   51.  Defendants violated said section by:  a. Making a false and misleading representation in violation of § 1692e(10);  b. Falsely representing the character amount or legal status of the debt in violation  of §1692e(2);   c. Making statement that are open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at  least one of which is inaccurate.   52.  By reason thereof, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant  DRS and Defendant JHPDE’s conduct violated Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, actual  damages, statutory 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.  Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed toward Plaintiff  violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.  12   55.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, a debt collector may not use any unfair or  unconscionable means in connection with the collection of any debt.    56.  Defendant violated this section by  a. Unfairly adding additional interest and fees after charge-off, when no interest and  fees post charge-off are allowed by contract or law; and  b. Failing to state whether interest and fees will continue to accrue.   57.   By reason thereof, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant’s  conduct violated Section 1692f, et seq. of the FDCPA and is entitled to actual damages, statutory  damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.   58.  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.   59.  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. § 1692g.   60.  When a debt collector solicits payment from a consumer, it must, within five days of  an initial communication, provide the consumer with a written validation notice.   61.  Although Defendants provided the required §1692g notices, Defendants violated 15  U.S.C. §1692g by:  13  a. Failing to advise Plaintiff as to the basis for the additional interest and fees and  therefore not properly identifying the amount of the debt as is required by  1692g(a)(1); and   b. Unlawfully adding interest and fees post charge-off that overshadowed the “G- Notice” language and coerces the consumer not to exert if rights to dispute under  the FDCPA.     62.  By reason thereof, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendants’  conduct violated Section 1692g et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs  and attorneys’ fees.   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.  §1692f et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C.  §1692g et seq.  