105.  Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.  106.  Prior to the filing of the action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,  County of Putnam Index No. 169-2014, Debt Collectors had an obligation to conduct a  17 meaningful review including but not limited to a meaningful review to determine  whether or not the statute of limitations had expired, whether or not the statute of  limitations had been tolled under New York law, whether the owner of the debt had a  right to file a lawsuit in New York, and whether or not each assignor of the debt notified  the consumer of the assignment.  107.  Prior and subsequent to the filing of the aforementioned action, there was no review  of the original creditor and/or the statute of limitations applicable to the original creditor,  whether or not there ever was a payment made by the consumer, the date of the last  payment made by the consumer, the date on which the consumer ceased attending school  on at least a half-time basis, the date on which the cause of action accrued, whether or  not the statute of limitations had been tolled under New York law, whether the out-of- state owner of the debt had a right to file a lawsuit in New York, and/or whether or not  each assignor of the debt notified the consumer of the assignment.  108.  Prior and subsequent to the filing of the aforementioned action, F&G relied on and/or  obtained nothing but a charge-off date to determine the statute of limitations accrual date  and/or relied on nothing but a charge-off date to determine the statute of limitations  accrual date.  109.  As a result of the aforementioned failures and actions, Debt Collectors violated 15  USC 1692e.  110.  Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.  111.  Prior to the filing of the action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,  County of Putnam Index No. 170-2014, Debt Collectors had an obligation to conduct a  18 meaningful review including but not limited to a meaningful review to determine  whether or not the statute of limitations had expired, whether or not the statute of  limitations had been tolled under New York law, whether the owner of the debt had a  right to file a lawsuit in New York, and whether or not each assignor of the debt notified  the consumer of the assignment.  112.  Prior and subsequent to the filing of the aforementioned action, there was no review  of the original creditor and the statute of limitations applicable to the original creditor,  whether or not there ever was a payment made by the consumer, the date of the last  payment made by the consumer, the date on which the consumer ceased attending school  on at least a half-time basis, the date on which the cause of action accrued, whether or  not the statute of limitations had been tolled under New York law, whether the out-of- state owner of the debt had a right to file a lawsuit in New York, and/or whether or not  each assignor of the debt notified the consumer of the assignment.  113.  Prior and subsequent to the filing of the aforementioned action, F&G relied on and/or  obtained nothing but a charge-off date to determine the statute of limitations accrual date  and/or relied on nothing but a charge-off date to determine the statute of limitations  accrual date.  114.  As a result of the aforementioned failures and actions, Debt Collectors violated 15  USC 1692e.  115.  Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.  116.  Prior to the filing of the action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,  County of Putnam Index No. 171-2014, Debt Collectors had an obligation to conduct a  19 meaningful review including but not limited to a meaningful review to determine  whether or not the statute of limitations had expired, whether or not the statute of  limitations had been tolled under New York law, whether the owner of the debt had a  right to file a lawsuit in New York, and whether or not each assignor of the debt notified  the consumer of the assignment.  117.  Prior and subsequent to the filing of the aforementioned action, there was no review  of the original creditor and the statute of limitations applicable to the original creditor,  whether or not there ever was a payment made by the consumer, the date of the last  payment made by the consumer, the date on which the consumer ceased attending school  on at least a half-time basis, the date on which the cause of action accrued, whether or  not the statute of limitations had been tolled under New York law, whether the out-of- state owner of the debt had a right to file a lawsuit in New York, and/or whether or not  each assignor of the debt notified the consumer of the assignment.  118.  Prior and subsequent to the filing of the aforementioned action, F&G relied on and/or  obtained nothing but a charge-off date to determine the statute of limitations accrual date  and/or relied on nothing but a charge-off date to determine the statute of limitations  accrual date.  119.  As a result of the aforementioned failures and actions, Debt Collectors violated 15  USC 1692e.  120.  Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.  121.  Prior to the filing of the action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,  County of Putnam Index No. 172-2014, Debt Collectors had an obligation to conduct a  20 meaningful review including but not limited to a meaningful review to determine  whether or not the statute of limitations had expired, whether or not the statute of  limitations had been tolled under New York law, whether the owner of the debt had a  right to file a lawsuit in New York, and whether or not each assignor of the debt notified  the consumer of the assignment.  122.  Prior and subsequent to the filing of the aforementioned action, there was no review  of the original creditor and the statute of limitations applicable to the original creditor,  whether or not there ever was a payment made by the consumer, the date of the last  payment made by the consumer, the date on which the consumer ceased attending school  on at least a half-time basis, the date on which the cause of action accrued, whether or  not the statute of limitations had been tolled under New York law, whether the out-of- state owner of the debt had a right to file a lawsuit in New York, and/or whether or not  each assignor of the debt notified the consumer of the assignment.  123.  Prior and subsequent to the filing of the aforementioned action, F&G relied on and/or  obtained nothing but a charge-off date to determine the statute of limitations accrual date.  124.  As a result of the aforementioned failures and actions, Debt Collectors violated 15  USC 1692e.  125.  Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.  126.  For the reasons set forth  above and explained in the aforementioned motion to  dismiss and reply, there is no arguable basis for the action in the Supreme Court of the  State of New York, County of Putnam Index No. 169-2014 not to have been  voluntarily dismissed at some point between the date it was filed and the present.  21 127.  As a result of the failure to voluntarily dismiss the aforementioned lawsuit, Debt  Collectors have violated 15 USC § 1692f (1) and 15 USC § 1692e (5).  128.  Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.  129.  For the reasons set forth  above and explained in the aforementioned motion to  dismiss and reply, there is no arguable basis for the action in the Supreme Court of the  State of New York, County of Putnam Index No. 170-2014 not to have been  voluntarily dismissed at some point between the date it was filed and the present.  130.  As a result of the failure to voluntarily dismiss the aforementioned lawsuit, Debt  Collectors have violated 15 USC § 1692f (1) and 15 USC § 1692e (5).  131.  Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.  132.  For the reasons set forth  above and explained in the aforementioned motion to  dismiss and reply, there is no arguable basis for the action in the Supreme Court of the  State of New York, County of Putnam Index No. 171-2014 not to have been  voluntarily dismissed at some point between the date it was filed and the present.  133.  As a result of the failure to voluntarily dismiss the aforementioned lawsuit, Debt  Collectors have violated 15 USC § 1692f (1) and 15 USC § 1692e (5).  134.  Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.  135.  For the reasons set forth  above and explained in the aforementioned motion to  dismiss and reply, there is no arguable basis for the action in the Supreme Court of the  State of New York, County of Putnam Index No. 172-2014 not to have been  22 voluntarily dismissed at some point between the date it was filed and the present.  136.  As a result of the failure to voluntarily dismiss the aforementioned lawsuit, Debt  Collectors have violated 15 USC § 1692f (1) and 15 USC § 1692e (5).  137.  Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.  138.  Werner is a consumer.  139.  Assignees retain attorneys to attempt to collect debts from New York consumers by  filing lawsuits in New York against New York consumers in the name of plaintiffs who  have no legal right to maintain an action in a New York state court; and these lawsuits  allege that these plaintiffs are authorized to proceed with the lawsuit.  140.  Prior to the aforementioned filing of the aforementioned lawsuits, Assignees provide  to the attorneys retained to file these lawsuits nothing but a charge-off date to determine  the statute of limitations accrual date.  Assignees do not provide to the attorneys retained  to file these lawsuits information as to whether there ever was a payment made by the  consumer, the date of the last payment made by the consumer, the date on which the  consumer ceased attending school on at least a half-time basis, the existence and nature  of any agreement by the consumer regarding the forbearance of payments, and/or each  assignor’s notification to the consumer of the assignment.  141.  Assignees and/or Debt Collectors retain attorneys to file the aforementioned lawsuits  without providing the aforementioned information, knowing that the consumer never  made a payment, knowing that the consumer did not execute any agreement regarding  the forbearance of payments, knowing that any agreement regarding the forbearance of  payments did not toll the statute of limitations, knowing that the statute of limitations to  23 file a lawsuit in New York had expired, and/or knowing that each assignor of the debt  did not notify the consumer of the assignment.  142.  Assignees and/or Debt Collectors direct F&G to rely on the charge-off date to  determine the statute of limitations accrual date and/or F&G purposefully relies on  nothing but a charge-off date to determine the statute of limitations accrual date.  143.  The above actions and omissions are consumer oriented for the following reasons:  a. They were directed at Werner;   b. Assignees and/or Debt Collectors regularly attempt to collect student loans and other  consumer debts from hundreds of thousands of consumers.  Upon information and  belief, the same or similar actions, misrepresentations and violations of the FDCPA  were directed at numerous numbers of these hundreds of thousands of consumers.  144.  A consumer would receive a lawsuit indicating, from the name of the plaintiff, that it  related to a student loan debt.  The consumer knew they owed money on a student loan.   The lawsuit would represent that the plaintiff was authorized to bring this lawsuit.  The  statute of limitations to bring this lawsuit would have expired prior to the bringing of this  lawsuit making it illegal to bring the lawsuit or requiring the lawsuit to be dismissed and  therefore eliminating the ability of the plaintiff to collect the debt via this lawsuit.  Based  on the method for calculating the statute of limitations and the knowledge required to  determine the applicable statute of limitations, a consumer would have no ability to  ascertain the statute of limitations had expired.  145.  As a result of receiving a lawsuit which the consumer knew related to a student loan  and which represented that the plaintiff was authorized to bring this lawsuit and knowing  they owed money on a student loan, the consumer would believe that they had an  24 obligation to pay or all a portion of the debt or have a judgment against them despite the  expiration of the statute of limitations.  146.  As a result of the above, the aforementioned actions and omissions were deceptive or  misleading.  147.  Werner suffered injuries as a result of the deceptive or misleading acts including but  not limited to the aforementioned violations of his rights under the FDCPA, the cost of  retaining an attorney to defend him against four different lawsuits filed after the  expiration of the statute of limitations, and the emotional distress of being sued without  any legal basis.  148.  In light of the facts set forth above, each of the actions, misrepresentations and  violations of the FDCPA set forth above constitute a violation of General Business Law  349 by Assignees and Debt Collectors.  149.  Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.  150.  F&G, by virtue of their being attorneys and having the legal authority to file  lawsuits, have a duty to take reasonable steps to ascertain their client’s legal right to sue  and the existence of a legal right to prevail in the lawsuit both prior and after filing a  lawsuit against a person.  151.  Without excuse or justification, F&G negligently failed, both prior and after filing a  lawsuit against Werner on four different occasions, to take the aforementioned  reasonable steps including determining whether or not the statute of limitations had  expired, whether or not the statute of limitations had been tolled under New York law,  whether the owner of the debt had a right to file a lawsuit in New York, and whether or  25 not each assignor of the debt notified the consumer of the assignment.  152.  The aforementioned failures by F&G, based on their experience as debt collection  attorneys, amounts to gross negligence.  153.  F&G is liable to Werner for the damages incurred as a result of this negligence  154.  Since F&G was grossly negligent for the reasons described above, F&G also is liable  for punitive damages.  155.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(a) and (b)(3).  156.  The classes consist of  I.  (a) all consumers (b) sued by F&G (c) on or after January 28, 2014  through the date of the filing of this action (d) on behalf of an entity which  is not authorized to do business in New York but which does business in  New York (e) to collect a student loan debt;  II.  (a) all consumers (b) sued by F&G (c) on or after January 28, 2014  through the date of the filing of this action (d) to collect a student loan  debt where under the terms of the loan agreement the consumer had  chosen a “Full Deferral Repayment Option” (e) where prior to the filing of  the lawsuit the consumer never had made a payment towards the student  loan debt (f) where prior to filing a lawsuit, F&G possessed, obtained, or  was provided nothing about (i) whether or not there ever was a payment  made by the consumer, (ii) the date of the last payment made by the  consumer, (iii) the date on which the consumer ceased attending school on at  26 least a half-time basis, and/or the existence of a written fully executed  forbearance agreement which contained language regarding the statute of  limitations (f) the loan agreement did not allow for any oral modifications  and/or required a jointly signed agreement to effectuate any modifications  and (g) under the terms of the loan agreement a forbearance of any  payment due date did not automatically toll the statute of limitations,  default date, “Deferment End Date”, or “Repayment Period”.    69. Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.   70. In an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Putnam, Index  No. 169-2014:  a. Debt Collectors sued Werner after the expiration of the statute of limitations;  b. Debt Collectors sued Werner on behalf of a Plaintiff which had no legal right to  bring an action in a court in New York state;  c. Debt Collectors sued Werner on behalf of a Plaintiff who was not able to prove it had  a legal right to collect the debt at issue since they were not able to prove that each  prior assignor notified Werner of the assignment of the debt.   71. For one or more of the above reasons, by suing Werner in the above-identified lawsuit,  Debt Collectors violated 15 USC 1692e, 15 USC 1692e(2)(A), 15 USC 1692e(5),15  USC 1692f , and/or 15 USC 1692f(1).  72. Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.   73. In an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Putnam, Index  No. 170-2014:  a. Debt Collectors sued Werner after the expiration of the statute of limitations;  b. Debt Collectors sued Werner on behalf of a Plaintiff which had no legal right to  bring an action in a court in New York state;  12 c. Debt Collectors sued Werner on behalf of a Plaintiff who was not able to prove it had  a legal right to collect the debt at issue since they were not able to prove that each  prior assignor notified Werner of the assignment of the debt.   74. For one or more of the above reasons, by suing Werner in the above-identified lawsuit,  Debt Collectors violated 15 USC 1692e, 15 USC 1692e(2)(A), 15 USC 1692e(5),15  USC 1692f , and/or 15 USC 1692f(1).  75. Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.   76. In an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Putnam, Index  No. 171-2014:  a. Debt Collectors sued Werner after the expiration of the statute of limitations;  b. Debt Collectors sued Werner on behalf of a Plaintiff which had no legal right to  bring an action in a court in New York state;  c. Debt Collectors sued Werner on behalf of a Plaintiff who was not able to prove it had  a legal right to collect the debt at issue since they were not able to prove that each  prior assignor notified Werner of the assignment of the debt.   77. For one or more of the above reasons, by suing Werner in the above-identified lawsuit,  Debt Collectors violated 15 USC 1692e, 15 USC 1692e(2)(A), 15 USC 1692e(5),15  USC 1692f , and/or 15 USC 1692f(1).  78. Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.   79. In an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Putnam, Index  No. 172-2014.  13 a. Debt Collectors sued Werner after the expiration of the statute of limitations;  b. Debt Collectors sued Werner on behalf of a Plaintiff which had no legal right to  bring an action in a court in New York state;  c. Debt Collectors sued Werner on behalf of a Plaintiff who was not able to prove it had  a legal right to collect the debt at issue since they were not able to prove that each  prior assignor notified Werner of the assignment of the debt.   80. For one or more of the above reasons, by suing Werner in the above-identified lawsuit,  Debt Collectors violated 15 USC 1692e, 15 USC 1692e(2)(A), 15 USC 1692e(5),15  USC 1692f , and/or 15 USC 1692f(1).  81. Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.   82. The Summons prepared by F&G in the action in the Supreme Court of the State of New  York, County of Putnam Index No. 169-2014 sets forth that F&G’s client’s address is  in Massachusetts.   83. The Complaint prepared by F&G in the action in the Supreme Court of the State of  New York, County of Putnam Index No. 169-2014 sets forth in paragraph 2 the  following statement of fact:  “Plaintiff is authorized to proceed with this action”   84. As evidence by F&G’s admissions in the aforementioned opposition to the  aforementioned motion to dismiss, the aforementioned Plaintiff was not authorized to  do business in New York at the time the aforementioned lawsuit was filed or at any  time thereafter.  14  85. As explained in the aforementioned motion to dismiss and reply, the aforementioned  Plaintiff had no legal right to file the aforementioned lawsuit; and therefore the  statement of fact in paragraph 2 of the aforementioned lawsuit is false.   86. The false statement in a lawsuit served upon a consumer could mislead a putative- debtor as to the legal status of the underlying debt; and therefore Debt Collectors  violated 15 USC § 1692e, 15 USC § 1692e (10), 15 USC § 1692e (2) (A), 15 USC §  1692e (5) as a result of the false statement.  87. Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.   88. The Summons prepared by F&G in the action in the Supreme Court of the State of New  York, County of Putnam Index No. 170-2014 sets forth that F&G’s client’s address is  in Massachusetts.   89. The Complaint prepared by F&G in the action in the Supreme Court of the State of  New York, County of Putnam Index No. 170-2014 sets forth in paragraph 2 the  following statement of fact:  “Plaintiff is authorized to proceed with this action”   90. As evidence by F&G’s admissions in the aforementioned opposition to the  aforementioned motion to dismiss, the aforementioned Plaintiff was not authorized to  do business in New York at the time the aforementioned lawsuit was filed or at any  time thereafter.   91. As explained in the aforementioned motion to dismiss and reply, the aforementioned  Plaintiff had no legal right to file the aforementioned lawsuit; and therefore the  statement of fact in paragraph 2 of the aforementioned lawsuit is false.   92. The false statement in a lawsuit served upon a consumer could mislead a putative- 15 debtor as to the legal status of the underlying debt; and therefore Debt Collectors  violated 15 USC § 1692e, 15 USC § 1692e (10), 15 USC § 1692e (2) (A), 15 USC §  1692e (5) as a result of the false statement.  93. Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.   94. The Summons prepared by F&G in the action in the Supreme Court of the State of New  York, County of Putnam Index No. 171-2014 sets forth that F&G’s client’s address is  in Massachusetts.   95. The Complaint prepared by F&G in the action in the Supreme Court of the State of  New York, County of Putnam Index No. 171-2014 sets forth in paragraph 2 the  following statement of fact:  “Plaintiff is authorized to proceed with this action”   96. As evidence by F&G’s admissions in the aforementioned opposition to the  aforementioned motion to dismiss, the aforementioned Plaintiff was not authorized to  do business in New York at the time the aforementioned lawsuit was filed or at any  time thereafter.   97. As explained in the aforementioned motion to dismiss and reply, the aforementioned  Plaintiff had no legal right to file the aforementioned lawsuit; and therefore the  statement of fact in paragraph 2 of the aforementioned lawsuit is false.   98. The false statement in a lawsuit served upon a consumer could mislead a putative- debtor as to the legal status of the underlying debt; and therefore Debt Collectors  violated 15 USC § 1692e, 15 USC § 1692e (10), 15 USC § 1692e (2) (A), 15 USC §  1692e (5) as a result of the false statement.  16 99. Werner realleges paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint.  100.  The Summons prepared by F&G in the action in the Supreme Court of the State of  New York, County of Putnam Index No. 172-2014 sets forth that F&G’s client’s  address is in Massachusetts.  101.  The Complaint prepared by F&G in the action in the Supreme Court of the State of  New York, County of Putnam Index No. 172-2014 sets forth in paragraph 2 the  following statement of fact:  “Plaintiff is authorized to proceed with this action”  102.  As evidence by F&G’s admissions in the aforementioned opposition to the  aforementioned motion to dismiss, the aforementioned Plaintiff was not authorized to  do business in New York at the time the aforementioned lawsuit was filed or at any  time thereafter.  103.  As explained in the aforementioned motion to dismiss and reply, the  aforementioned Plaintiff had no legal right to file the aforementioned lawsuit; and  therefore the statement of fact in paragraph 2 of the aforementioned lawsuit is false.  104.  The false statement in a lawsuit served upon a consumer could mislead a putative- debtor as to the legal status of the underlying debt; and therefore Debt Collectors  violated 15 USC § 1692e, 15 USC § 1692e (10), 15 USC § 1692e (2) (A), 15 USC §  1692e (5) as a result of the false statement.  }  FIRST MARBLEHEAD DATA SERVICES, INC.   }  }  }  Defendants.  } 