10.  The debt at issue (the “Consumer Debt”) is a financial obligation Plaintiff incurred  primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.    11.  The Consumer Debt is a “debt” governed by the FDCPA and FCCPA. See 15 U.S.C  §1692a (5); Fla. Stat. §559.55(6).   12.  Plaintiff is a “consumer” within the meaning of the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C  §1692a(3).   13.  FHC is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA and FCCPA. See 15 U.S.C  §1692a (6); Fla. Stat. §559.55(7).   14.  On a date better known by FHC, it began attempting collect the Consumer Debt  from Plaintiff.   15.  On or about June 28, 2018, FHC sent a collection letter to Plaintiff (the “Collection  Letter”) in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. A copy of the Collection Letter is attached  hereto as Exhibit “A.”    16.  The Collection Letter constitutes “collection activity” within the meaning of  §559.715 of the FCCPA.   18.  FHC’s collection activities against Plaintiff constituted a criminal misdemeanor  under Florida law. See, Fla. Stat. § 559.785.   19.  Florida law specifically and unequivocally states: [a]fter January 1, 1994, no  person shall engage in business in this state as a consumer collection agency or continue to do  business in this state as a consumer collection agency without first registering in accordance with  this part, and thereafter maintaining a valid registration.  Fla. Stat. § 559.553(1).   20.  The FCCPA defines “consumer collection agency” as “any debt collector or  business entity engaged in the business of soliciting consumer debts for collection or of collecting  consumer debts, which debt collector or business is not expressly exempted as set forth in s.  559.553(4).” Fla. Stat. § 559.55(7).    21.  FHC is a “consumer collection agency” as defined by the FCCPA because it is a  debt collector and collects consumer debts through the mail from Florida consumers.   23.  Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 559.553(1) and 559.55(7), FHC was required to be licensed  as a consumer collection agency by the State of Florida.   24.  Since the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in LeBlanc, at least two Judges in the Southern  District of Florida have ruled that collection activity by an unlicensed debt collector violates the  FDCPA. See Balthazor v. Security Credit Services, LLC, 2012 WL 171097, *3 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 20,  2012) (Cohn, J.); Collins v. Erin Capital Management, LLC, Case No. 1:12-cv-22839-CMA (S.D.  Fla. 2013) (Altonaga, J.) (Order dated Oct. 28, 2013).   25.  Based upon an online license search last conducted on September 28, 2018 at the  website maintained by the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, FHC has never been licensed to  collect consumer debts in the State of Florida.2   26.  Plaintiff maintains that FHC’s unlicensed collection activity is unlawful; Plaintiff  has filed the instant lawsuit alleging that any and all of FHC’s debt collection activities taken  against the Plaintiffs and members of the class were in direct violation of the FDCPA and/or  Florida law.   27.  Defendant FHC knew or should have known that it was not licensed as a Consumer  Collection Agency, yet Defendant never disclosed to any consumer that it was in fact a crime for  FHC to directly or indirectly collect upon the Consumer Debt.   29.  Any potential bona fide error defense which relies upon FHC’ mistaken  interpretation of the legal duties imposed upon them by the FDCPA would fail as a matter of law.  Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A., 130 S.Ct. 1605, 176 L. Ed. 2d 519  (2010).  30.  This action is brought on behalf of the following class:  The Unlicensed Debt Collection Class:   (i) all persons in the State of Florida (ii) who were sent a letter (iii)  between June 28, 2017 and June 28, 2018 (iv) from Defendant (v)  in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or  household purposes, (vi) while Defendant was not licensed to collect  debt in Florida.    31.  Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that the class is so numerous that joinder  of all members is impracticable because Defendant have dispatched thousands of identical dunning  letters to members of the class attempting to collect consumer debts.  A.   32.  Common questions of law and fact exist to the class and predominate over any  issues involving only individual class members.   34.  Excluded from the class are Defendant’s agents and employees, Plaintiff’s  attorneys and their employees, the Judge to whom this action is assigned, and any member of  the Judge’s staff and immediate family.  40.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding Factual Allegations.   41.  Under Count I, FHC is liable to Plaintiff for its attempt to collect debts while  unlicensed.    42.  FHC’s failure to obtain a consumer debt collection license as mandated by Florida  Statutes § 559.553, while actively engaging in debt collection in the State of Florida, violated 15  U.S.C § 1692e and e(10) because attempting to collect a debt while not licensed as required by  Florida law is a false, deceptive, and misleading practice.   43.  FHC’s failure to obtain a consumer debt collection license as mandated by Florida  Statutes § 559.553, while actively engaging in debt collection in the State of Florida, violated 15  U.S.C § 1692e(2)(A) because attempting to collect a debt and/or actually collecting a debt while  not licensed as required by Florida law constitutes a false representation of the character and legal  status of the debt.   VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e et seq.  