56.  This Action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the class members under the FDCPA,  MOC and RCPA with the class made up of the following class consumers:  All persons against whom Defendants filed a STATE COLLECTION COMPLAINT  and/or obtained a settlement, default or default judgment or judgment related to the  collection of an NCSLT type education debt without sufficient, admissible evidence or  based on collection cases that lacked assignments or proof showing that the NCSLT type  Plaintiffs had standing or the right to sue Michigan class members through these STATE  COLLECTION COMPLAINTS with Defendant law firms signing off on material  misrepresentations of debt ownership on behalf of Defendant TSI for NCSLT.   57.  While the exact number of Class members can only be determined through appropriate  discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of members of the Class through Michigan  in the last six years.   58.  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 20 of 40    Pg ID 20 8         Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Michigan  Classes, as all members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants’ wrongful conduct,  as complained of herein.   59.         There are common questions of law and fact affecting members of the Class, which  common questions predominate over questions that might affect individual members. These  questions include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:  a.  Whether Defendants sued Michigan class members without standing or proof  of ownership or assignment of ownership of the SPECIFIC debt each Michigan  consumer is being sued upon. In short: Defendants held no chain of title  showing the SPECIFIC debt is owned by the NCSLT Plaintiff suing the  Michigan Consumer.;  b.  Whether Defendants had sufficient evidence of the existence of the alleged  NCSLT type education debts when they negotiated settlements or obtained  default judgments against Michigan consumers;  c.  Whether the alleged debtors and Michigan consumer were furnished with chain  of title evidence showing NCSLT had the right to sue the SPECIFIC Michigan  debtor on the Specific NCSLT debt the State Lawsuits were based upon;  d.  Whether Defendants filed materially false and deceptive lawsuits where  NCSLT had no standing to sue Michigan consumers on debts NCSLT had not  proof it owned the debt of the person or consumer it is suing;  e.  Whether Defendants are filing NCSLT type lawsuits knowing that they lack  the necessary paperwork and proof to complete or try the case and are filing  the lawsuits for a default or settlement of the claim.   f.  Whether Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are entitled to damages,  including punitive damages, costs, and/or attorneys’ fees, for Defendants’ acts  and conduct as alleged herein, and the proper measure thereof.   60.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Class members. Plaintiff has  no interests that conflict with the interests of other Class members. Plaintiff has retained  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 21 of 40    Pg ID 21 8  counsel competent and experienced in the prosecution of class action litigation.   61.        A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable.  Furthermore,  as the damages suffered by individual Class members might be relatively small, the expense  and burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to redress  individually the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this  action as a class action.   62.         Members of the Class can be identified from records maintained by Defendants and each  class member is a Defendant in a State Court Action by NCSLT/TSI collecting an NCSLT type  debt, and can be notified of the pendency of this action by United States mail using a form of  notice customarily used in similar class actions.   63.  At Exhibit 3 and in violation of the FDCPA, RCPA and MOC, Defendant TSI as  Servicer for the NSCLT trusts at Exhibit 1 is collecting on defaulted student loans through  collection lawsuits filed by Defendant Shermeta at the direction of Defendant TSI even though  there is no proof or chain of title from the Original Lender of the student loans to the NCSLT  Plaintiffs TSI operates through in suing Michigan Class Members.    64.         As detailed in the State Complaints against Plaintiffs in Exhibit 3 specifically and  against Michigan consumers generally, Defendant TSI is suing Class members through NCSLT  Plaintiffs on educational loans allegedly owed to TSI and NCSLT from 2004 through 2007.   2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 22 of 40    Pg ID 22 8   65.          The lawsuits are brought by an Attorney Network of which Defendant Shermeta is a  member at the instruction and request by Defendant TSI even though the Defendants have no  assigned proof of ownership of the SPECIFIC DEBT claimed to be owed by the class members  to the State NCSLT Plaintiff in these state actions. Please see examples at Exhibit 3.   66.         In violation of the FDCPA, MOC and RCPA, at the time that the NCSLT type State and  local lawsuits are filed by the Defendant law firms for the NCSLT Servicer, Defendant TSI,  there exists no chain of title from the Original Lender of the student loans to the SPECIFIC  NCSLT Plaintiff in the state lawsuits and the lawsuits are filed and served with no or proof of  ownership of the debt NCSLT Plaintiff.    67.  As shown by Exhibit 3, the NCSLT type State and Local lawsuits that TSI directs its  Michigan collection law firms to file in the State of Michigan all say the NCSLT Plaintiff has  been assigned the debt while offering no proof of the specific chain of title of assignment of the  debt of the debtor being “assigned” to NSCLST.    68.  While fully aware that it cannot actually demonstrate the existence of any assignment of  the SPECIFIC debts it is suing Michigan debtors for in State and local courts, TSI and their  Defendant attorneys file “computer template” collection lawsuits alleging to be the owners of  debts they are suing upon without any specific proof of debt to the SPECIFIC Michigan  consumer alleged to owe the debt. Please see Exhibit 3.    69.  TSI’s sole intention is to obtain default judgments or settlements of the state or local  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 23 of 40    Pg ID 23 8  lawsuits without ever having had admissible prima facie evidence to substantiate its claims  through the NCSLT Plaintiffs. During the Class Period Defendants have filed thousands of debt- collection lawsuits state-wide all similar in shape and format to Exhibit 3.   70.  Upon information and belief, at large percentage of the lawsuits that Defendants file  against consumers result in default judgments. This is because the vast majority of the legal  actions that Defendant law firms file for NCSLT go uncontested, allowing TSI to collect on  alleged debts that either are invalid or no proof of ownership.   71.  Defendants take advantage of the fact that, under most states’ civil procedure law, the  public employees who oversee the default-judgment process engage in a largely ministerial  function, relying upon the representations and certifications of the attorneys who practice before  the court. Given that tens of thousands of such lawsuits are filed every year, judicial system  personnel would be overwhelmed if they had to investigate the validity of each and every default  judgment application.         72.  Here and as is perpetrated throughout the State of Michigan, Defendants file collection  claims using form or template “Pool Supplements” to create a false belief in consumers and  courts that they have the assigned right to collect on Specific debts they are suing upon. Please  see Exhibit 6. Defendant Attorneys sign off on the lawsuits knowing the Plaintiff NCSLT entity  or TSI lack the require assignment and chain of title paperwork necessary to prove they have a  right to sue the state or local court Defendant or class members. Please see Exhibit 3.    73.  An entity that itself meets the definition of debt collector is liable for the unlawful  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 24 of 40    Pg ID 24 8  collection activities carried out by another debt collector on its behalf. See, e.g., Pollice v.  Nat’l Tax Funding, L.P., 225 F.3d 379, 404 (3rd Cir. 2000). Courts apply vicarious liability to  debt collectors like TSI and Defendant law firms even when the debt collector they hire is an  attorney. See, e.g., Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 15 F.3d 1507, 1516 (9th Cir.1994)  (holding a debt collector vicariously liable for an attorney's violation of the FDCPA venue  provision).    74.  Further, the debts are being assigned to Defendant TSI to use Defendant law firms to  prosecute Michigan collection lawsuits for NCSLT trusts and entities, and in the alternative,  Defendants don’t have standing to bring the lawsuits as licensees (MCL 339.904(2)) and a  collection agency under MCL 339.901(b).    75.  Further, when a debtor or State defendant fights back against the lawsuit, Defendants TSI  and their attorney networks create Affidavits to show proof of ownership of the debt even though  the Affidavits show no assignments of the debt and the Affiants sign the Affidavits without  personal knowledge or of they are swearing under oath to.     76.  By way of example, in Ms. Gurny’s case against her in the 35th District court (Exhibit 3),  Defendants seek to overcome her defense under Michigan’s Statute of Limitations statute at  M.C.L. § 600.5807(8), by creating a Loan Payment History purporting to show her last payment  made was $29.14 on 9/24/2012. The Loan Payment History Report at Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 states  that the last payment was made on 2012-09-24:  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 25 of 40    Pg ID 25 8   77.  Yet, in the Affidavit created by TSI for the State Action against Ms. Gurny, the Affiant   swears under oath in Paragraph 10 that the last payment made was on 12/11/2013: Please see Exhibit 8.    78.  Ms. Gurny has no recollection of making any payments to NCSLT within the six years   prior to the date of the state lawsuits filed against her. Please see Exhibit 2.    79.  The TSI Affiant person swearing under oath should already know the dates, times and  events that resulted in the true assignment of the SPECIFIC debt of Ms. Gurny. However, the  Affidavit created by TSI at Exhibit 8 to use in a Summary Motion against Ms. Gurny in the  State Action relies ambiguous and uncertain language to say something passed but isn’t sure if it  went to some “intermediary” first at Paragraph 11 of the Affidavit created by TSI:  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 26 of 40    Pg ID 26 8  Please see Exhibit 8.      80.  The Affidavit at Exhibit 8 cites no personal knowledge of the Affiant beyond examining  computer records or documents created by TSI to show previous holdings of other Lenders and  cannot commit to the Assignment of the debt to its own Plaintiff NCSLT.   81.  On Monday, September 18, 2017, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)  took action against the National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts and Defendant TSI for illegal  student loan debt collection lawsuits. The CFPB found that, since November 1, 2014, law firms  like Defendant Shermeta that were hired by Defendant TSI filed hundreds of debt collection  lawsuits with the documentation necessary to prove Trust ownership of the loans. Please see  Exhibit 5.   82.  The CFPB’s Consent Order that TSI stipulated to at Exhibit 5 goes specifically to the  same facts as in this case and hundreds throughout Michigan with the use by Defendants TSI and  Shermeta of false Affidavits and invisible debt assignments to prove ownership of these debts  that Shermeta’s lawsuits are based upon when it states on Paragraph 49:  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 27 of 40    Pg ID 27 8   83.  The Consent Order that Defendant TSI stipulated to cites the fact that,   “Affiants lacked personal knowledge of the business records, including the electronic  data, show that Consumers owed Debts to the Trusts. Affiants were instructed to review  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 28 of 40    Pg ID 28 8  certain data on a computer screen as part of an effort to verify some information the  Affidavits about the Debts. Affiants, however, did not always know the source of the data  on that screen, how the data was obtained or maintained, whether it was accurate, or  whether that data meant that the Debt was in fact owed to the Trusts.”   Paragraph 19 of the Consent Order at Exhibit 5.   84.  Further in the Consent Order, TSI stipulated that:  “Each Affiant also swore that he/she had “personal knowledge of the record management  practices and procedures of the Plaintiff [the Trust] and the practices and procedures  Plaintiff requires of its loan servicers and other agents.” In fact, certain Affiants lacked  personal knowledge of the record management practices and procedures of the Trusts and  the practices and procedures the Trusts required of its loan servicers and other agents.”  Please see Paragraph 20 of the Consent Order at Exhibit 5.   85.  The Defendant law firms like Shermeta that TSI picks out of its Attorney Network are  considered collection agencies under MCL 339.901(b) as they are “a person directly or indirectly  engaged in soliciting a claim for collection or collecting or attempting to collect a claim owed or  due or asserted to be owed or due another, or repossessing or attempting to repossess a thing of  value owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another arising out of an expressed or implied  agreement.”    86.  M.C.L. § 339.915a(f); MSA 18.425(915a) (f) provides that a licensee under the MCPA is  prohibited from “soliciting, purchasing, or receiving an assignment of a claim for the sole  purpose of instituting an action on the claim in a court.”  TSI is claims to be the Servicer for  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 29 of 40    Pg ID 29 8  NCSLT (Exhibit 1) and in the state complaints at Exhibit 3, has Defendant law firms file  collection law suits for NCSLT Plaintiffs and state for example:   • in Paragraph 4 of the lawsuit against Ms. Gurny in the 35th District Court, the  pleadings state “the contract was duly assigned, in the normal course of business,  to Plaintiff,” at Exhibit 3; and  • in Paragraph 4 of the lawsuit against Ms. Gurny in Wayne County Circuit Court  the pleadings state “the contract was duly assigned, in the normal course of  business, to Plaintiff,” at Exhibit 3.   87.  The loan contracts are assigned to Defendant Shermeta by TSI to file Breach of Contract  collection actions.  MCL 339.901(e) states that, “Creditor or principal shall not include a person  who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt solely for the purpose of facilitating collection  of the debt for the assignor or transferor.  As NCLST, TSI and the Defendant law firms are each  “an entity that receives a debt in default for the purpose of collecting the debt is not a creditor  and is therefore a debt collector/collection agency subject to the act.”     88.  If as Defendants claim that they were suing Michigan class members with the original  lender on the education loans assigning them the debt, then Defendant TSI (Exhibit 1) and  Defendant law firms were assigned the Default student loan debts to file legal collection claims  against Michigan debtors in collection lawsuits for the purpose of “facilitating collection of the  debt for the assignor or transferor” for NCSLT entities. Please see Exhibit 3.    89.  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 30 of 40    Pg ID 30 8  Defendants did not have standing to bring these collection lawsuits under the following  provisions of the Michigan collection practices act M.C.L. § 339.901 et seq.;   MSA 18.425(901)  et seq.  that prohibit the following actions by a licensed collection agency:  (b) Furnishing legal advice, or otherwise engaging in the practice of law, or representing that the  person is competent to do so, or to institute a judicial proceeding on behalf of another.  (d) Employing or retaining an attorney to collect a claim.   A licensee may exercise authority on  behalf of a creditor to employ the service of an attorney if the creditor has specifically authorized  the collection agency in writing to do so and the licensee's course of conduct is at all times  consistent with a true relationship of attorney and client between the attorney and the creditor.    After referral to an attorney, the creditor shall be the client of the attorney, and the licensee shall  not represent the client in court.   The licensee may act as an agent of the creditor in dealing with  the attorney only if the creditor has specifically authorized the licensee to do so in writing.  (f) Soliciting, purchasing, or receiving an assignment of a claim for the sole purpose of  instituting an action on the claim in a court.  [MCL 339.915a(b), (d), and (f).   90.  Additionally, the letters used by Defendant Shermeta at Exhibit 9 show they are violating  the following Michigan Statute created to prevent the combination of attorneys and collection  agencies being housed in the same office:  339.915a Licensee; additional prohibited acts.  Sec. 915a.  A licensee shall not commit any of the following acts:  (a) Listing the name of an attorney in a written or oral communication, collection letter, or  publication.  (b) Furnishing legal advice, or otherwise engaging in the practice of law, or representing that the  person is competent to do so, or to institute a judicial proceeding on behalf of another.  (c) Sharing quarters or office space, or having a common waiting room with a practicing attorney  or a lender.  (d) Employing or retaining an attorney to collect a claim.    91.  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 31 of 40    Pg ID 31 8  Defendants are violating 339.915a (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) as demonstrated by the lawsuits  at Exhibit 3 and the Defendant law firm collection letters attached at Exhibit 7.   92.  Plaintiff tentatively defines two classes including all persons in the State of Michigan who,  during the one year (FDCPA) and six years (RCPA/MOC prior to the filing of this complaint were  the victims of “NCSLT/TSI Collection Lawsuits” created by Defendants in violation of Federal  and State law.    93.  The FDCPA Class consists of all persons with a Michigan address that are subject to the  Defendants’ collection lawsuits in violation of § 1692e, § 1692e (10), § 1692e (5), § 1692e (2)(A),  § 1692f and § 1692d.   94.  The RCPA/MOC Class consists of all persons with a Michigan address that have received  Defendant collection lawsuits in violation of MCLA 445.252(n), MCLA 445.252(e), MCLA  445.252(a), MCLA 445.252(f) and MCLA 445.252(q).     95.  There are questions of law and fact common to each class, which common issues  predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The principal and common  issue is whether Defendants’ conduct in connection with the collection of a debt violates the  FDCPA and RCPA/MOC.   96.  There are no individual questions here. All Michigan class members receive the same or  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 32 of 40    Pg ID 32 8  similar computer template “NCSLT Collection Lawsuits” with lacking assignment, proper  documentation and chain of title ownership and the proper standing to sue the Michigan violation  of the FDCPA and RCPA/MOC.    97.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff is committed  to vigorously litigating this matter. He is greatly annoyed at being the victim of Defendants’ illegal  practices and wishes to see that the wrong is remedied. To that end, he has retained counsel  experienced in litigating consumer advocacy and class claims. Neither Plaintiff nor their counsel  has any interests which might cause them to not vigorously pursue this claim.   98.  Plaintiff claims are typical of the claims of the classes, which all arise from the same  operative facts and are based on the same legal theories out of Exhibits 1, 3 and 6. Please see  Exhibit 8 which is the Plaintiffs showing they are sued on debts they dispute and NCSLT has no  proof of debt ownership.    99.  A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy. Most of the consumers who are subject to this practice and policy of Defendant  undoubtedly have no knowledge that their rights are being violated by illegal collection  practices. The interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate  claims against Defendants is small because the maximum damages in an individual action are  $1,000. Management of this class claim is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties than  those presented in many class claims, e.g, for securities fraud.      100.  Certification of each class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil  2:17-cv-13298-LJM-RSW    Doc # 1    Filed 10/09/17    Pg 33 of 40    Pg ID 33 8  Procedure is appropriate because:  (a)  The questions of law and fact common to the members of each class predominate  over any questions affecting an individual member: and  (b)  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy.  101.  There are questions of law and fact common to the class members, which common   questions predominate over any questions that affect only individual class members.  The  predominant questions are:    a. Whether defendants had a practice of using filing NCSLT  collection lawsuits without standing, proper paperwork or  ownership/chain of title of the debts Defendants are suing upon  against Michigan class members and consumers in violation of  the FDCPA and RCPA/MOC   102.  Certification of each class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also  is appropriate because Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to each class,  thereby making declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate with respect to each class as a whole.   103.  Plaintiff requests certification of a hybrid class action, combining the elements of FRCP  23(b)(3) for monetary damages and FRCP 23(b)(2) for equitable relief.   