20.  Prior to November of 2018, Kathleen visited Menorah Medical Center in Overland  Park, Kansas.   22.  In or around November of 2018, Menorah Medical Center referred the Debt to  Defendant for collection from Plaintiffs and Defendant then contacted Plaintiffs regarding the  Debt.   23.  Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed to settle the entire balance of the Debt for a one- time payment by Plaintiffs of $318.79.   24.  On or about November 25, 2018, as agreed, Plaintiffs drafted, signed, and mailed  Defendant a check for $318.79.  The check was numbered 3039 and referenced account number  ending 2997 in the memo line.   25.  On or about November 29, 2018, Defendant received Plaintiffs’ check number 3039  for $318.79.   26.  Also, on or about November 29, 2018, Defendant used the information contained  on Plaintiffs’ check to prepare a second, electronic check from Plaintiffs’ CapFed Account.  This  electronic check contained the same account number, routing number, and check number as the  check that Plaintiffs mailed to Defendant, but the payment amount was listed as $832.80.  The  electronic check contained an electronic signature that reads “Menorah Medical Center.”  Under  the signature line stated “by MENORAH MEDICAL CENTER as authorized signature for JOHN  36.  Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of multiple classes of  individuals pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   37.  The aforementioned classes of individuals (collectively referred to as the “Classes”)  are defined as:  a. all persons from whom Defendant collected funds in excess of the  amount such persons authorized Defendant to collect during the  applicable statute of limitations.  (hereinafter sometimes referred to as  the “FDCPA Class”).  b. All persons from whom Defendant collected funds via an electronic  fund transfer from an “account” as defined by 15 U.S.C.§1693a(2)  without first obtaining authorization from the person to perform said  transfer and without notifying such person that such transfer would or  may be processed as an electronic fund transfer.  (hereinafter sometimes  referred to as the “EFTA Class”).   38.  The Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.  Upon  information and belief, Defendant has collected funds in excess of amounts authorized by  consumers and has performed electronic funds transfers from myriad consumer “accounts” as that  term is defined by 15 U.S.C.§1693a(2) without first obtaining authorization from the person to  perform said transfer and without notifying such person that such transfer would or may be  processed as an electronic fund transfer.  Given the aforementioned conduct across the potential  class, there exists a presumption of numerosity.   40.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims for the Classes, which arise from the  same operative facts and are predicated on the same legal theories.   41.  There are no individual questions of fact, other than whether a Class member did  not authorize Defendant to perform an electronic funds transfer in the amount actually taken by  Defendant and whether a Class member was provided with notice that a transfer would or may be  treated as an electronic fund transfer, which can be determined by a ministerial inspection of  Defendant’s records.   42.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes.  Plaintiffs  are committed to vigorously prosecuting this matter and have retained counsel experienced in  handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business practices.  Neither Plaintiffs nor  counsel for Plaintiffs have any interests that might cause them to not vigorously pursue this claim.   44.  A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate  claims against Defendant is small as the maximum statutory damages in an individual action under  both the FDCPA and EFTA are $1,000.  Management of the Class claims is likely to present  significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many class claims.  The identities of  individual Class members may be easily obtained from Defendant’s records.   45.  As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA and EFTA, Defendant is liable to  Plaintiffs and Class members for statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.  46.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each of the preceding paragraphs  in this complaint as though fully set forth herein.   47.  By creating an electronic check using the information from Plaintiffs’ actual check  without Plaintiff’s knowledge, consent, or permission, and then withdrawing both amounts from  Plaintiffs’ CapFed Account, Defendant collected funds from Plaintiffs without having any lawful  authority to do so.   48.  In its attempts to collect the debt allegedly owed by Plaintiffs to Menorah Medical  Center, Defendant violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692, in one or more of the following ways:  a. Used unfair and/or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt  in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692f;  b. Collected funds from Plaintiffs despite having no lawful authority to do so in  violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692f(1);  c. Was otherwise deceptive and failed to comply with the provisions of the  51.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each of the preceding paragraphs  in this complaint as though fully set forth herein.   52.  The EFTA, and Regulation E promulgated thereunder, prohibit the initiation of  electronic funds transfers without first obtaining the account holder’s authorization.  15 U.S.C.  §1693b(a)(; 12 C.F.R. §205.3.   53.  Defendant violated the EFTA and Regulation E by initiating or causing to be  initiated an electronic funds transfer in the amount of $832.80 without first obtaining either  Plaintiff’s authorization.   54.  Section 1693b(a) of the EFTA authorizes the Federal Reserve Board of Governors  (the “Board”) to prescribe regulations to carry out the purpose and provisions of the statute, which  the board has done by promulgating Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. §205.   56.  Defendant’s initiation of an electronic transfer in the amount of $832.80 was neither  authorized nor permitted by 12 C.F.R. §205.3 or 15 U.S.C. §1693b(a).   57.  Defendant violated the EFTA and Regulation E because it initiated or caused to be  initiated an electronic funds transfer in the amount of $832.80 from Plaintiffs’ CapFed Account  without first obtaining Plaintiffs’ authorization to do so.   58.  Neither Jonathan nor Kathleen never received any notice that he would be charged  $832.80, or that such payment would or may be processed as an electronic fund transfer.   59.  Neither Jonathan nor Kathleen have provided Defendant with any authorization,  orally or in writing, to transfer $832.80 from Plaintiffs’ CapFed Account to Defendant.    60.  Defendant has not obtained any authorization, either orally or in writing, from  either Jonathan or Kathleen to transfer $832.80 from Plaintiff’s CapFed Account to Defendant.   61.  Defendant has not provided either Jonathan or Kathleen with any form of notice  that a payment of $832.80 will or may be processed as an electronic fund transfer.   62.  Neither Jonathan nor Kathleen have informed Defendant that he or she waived his  or her right to provide Defendant with written authorization to execute the transfer of funds from  Plaintiff’s CapFed Account to Defendant.   63.  Defendant’s conduct in violating the EFTA and Regulation E directly and  proximately caused Plaintiffs to suffer damages as set forth in the paragraphs above.  