10.  Plaintiff's alleged debt was primarily for personal, family or household purposes  and is therefore a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).   11.  Sometime after the incurrence of the debt, but before the initiation of this action,  Plaintiff is alleged to have fallen behind on payments allegedly owed on the alleged debt.    12.  At a time known only to Defendant, Plaintiff's alleged debt was assigned or  otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection.    13.  In its efforts to collect the alleged debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter.  (“Exhibit 1.”)    14.  The letter was the initial communication to Plaintiff from Defendant.   15.  Defendant's letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).   16.  As set forth in the following Counts, Defendant's letter violated the FDCPA.   3  17.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein.     18.  15 U.S.C. § 1692g provides that within five days after the initial communication  with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the  information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the  consumer a written notice containing certain enumerated information.   19.  One such requirement is that the debt collector provide “the name of the creditor  to whom the debt is owed.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2).   20.  A debt collector has the obligation not just to convey the name of the creditor to  whom the debt is owed, but also to convey such clearly.   21.  A debt collector has the obligation not just to convey the name of the creditor to  whom the debt is owed, but also to state such explicitly.    22.  Merely naming the creditor without specifically identifying the entity as the  current creditor to whom the debt is owed is not sufficient to comply with 15 U.S.C. §  1692g(a)(2).    23.   Even if a debt collector conveys the required information, the debt collector  nonetheless violates the FDCPA if it conveys that information in a confusing or contradictory  fashion so as to cloud the required message with uncertainty.     24.  When determining whether the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed has  been conveyed clearly, an objective standard, measured by how the “least sophisticated  consumer” would interpret the notice, is applied.    25.  Defendant's letter fails to explicitly identify the name of the creditor to whom the  debt is owed.    26.  Defendant’s letter states, “Current Creditor: American Express.”   27.  There is no entity named “American Express” registered with the New York State  Department of State, Division of Corporations.   28.  Conversely, there are sixty-one (61) disparate entities registered in New York that  begin their legal name with “American Express.”   29.  The least sophisticated consumer would likely be confused as to which of the  4  36.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein.     37.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or  misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   38.  While § 1692e specifically prohibits certain practices, the list is non-exhaustive,  and does not preclude a claim of falsity or deception based on any non-enumerated practice.   39.  Collection notices are deceptive if they can be reasonably read to have two or  more different meanings, one of which is inaccurate.    40.  The question of whether a collection letter is deceptive is determined from the  perspective of the “least sophisticated consumer.”    41.  For purposes of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, the failure to clearly and accurately identify  the creditor to whom the debt is owed is unfair and deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer.    42.  Because the collection letter in the instant case is reasonably susceptible to an  5  46.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all  persons similarly situated in the state of New York from whom Defendants attempted to collect a  delinquent consumer debt using the same unlawful conduct described herein, from one year  before the date of this Complaint to the present. This action seeks a finding that Defendant’s  conduct violates the FDCPA, and asks that the Court award damages as authorized by §  1692k(a)(2) of the FDCPA.   47.  Defendants regularly engages in debt collection, using the same tactics described  herein, in their attempts to collect delinquent consumer debts from other persons.   48.  The Class consists of more than 35 persons from whom Defendants attempted to  collect delinquent consumer debts.   49.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Common questions of law  or fact raised by this class action complaint affect all members of the Class and predominate over  any individual issues. Common relief is therefore sought on behalf of all members of the Class.  This class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy.   50.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would  create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of  the Class, and a risk that any adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class  would, as a practical matter, either be dispositive of the interests of other members of the Class  not party to the adjudication, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their  interests. Defendants have acted in a manner applicable to the Class as a whole such that  declaratory relief is warranted.  6  Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g  Validation of Debts   Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e  False or Misleading Representations as to the Name of the  Creditor to Whom the Debt is Owed  