10.    On December 9, 2009, Defendants filed a foreclosure lawsuit in Cook County  court against Plaintiff, Case No. 09 CH 49203.  In June 2010, F&S filed an Affidavit of Prove- Up Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/15-1506 (“Affidavit”), contemporaneously with motions for  judgment and default, in that lawsuit.   11.  The Affidavit purports to be based upon personal knowledge and seeks judgment  for specified damages and dollar amounts, including, inter alia, for specified dollar amounts for  inspections, preservation, appraisal, insurance, taxes and attorneys’ fees.    12 .  The Affidavit purports to be notarized, and signed by an officer of Deutsche Bank  4  National Trust Company, but, the foreclosure lawsuit lodged against Plaintiff has been  specifically identified in General Administrative Order No. 2011-11 of the Cook County Court,  County Department, Chancery Division (the “Order”), as one of a long list of F&S foreclosure  actions containing affidavits with altered content such as altered additions of insurance costs,  preservation costs, inspection costs, and/or taxes incurred on the property.     13.  F&S presented said Affidavit to the Cook County foreclosure court on June 24,  2010, to obtain a foreclosure judgment in Plaintiff’s case, and the court entered such judgment  against Plaintiff on that date; but the Affidavit contains false, altered specifications of the amount  of insurance costs, preservation costs, inspection costs, and/or taxes incurred in connection with  Plaintiff’s loan/mortgage/property, which Defendants asserted to be due and owing by Plaintiff.   Yet, pursuant to and consistent with the Affidavit, F&S obtained judgment against Plaintiff.    14.  F&S and Doe Defendants caused similar false affidavits, containing unverified  and/or false content, to be filed with courts in foreclosure actions filed by lenders and Doe  Defendants against similarly situated home loan borrowers.   15.  Such alteration or forgery of affidavits, which are instruments employed for debt  collection, are prohibited by applicable law.     16.  The false affidavits have resulted in improper judgments, improper reporting of  debts to credit bureaus, and court-sanctioned debts for improper or unlawful amounts.     17.  The conduct of F&S and Doe Defendants was willful and demonstrates reckless  disregard for Plaintiff and the Class.     18.  As a result of Defendants’ above-described conduct, Plaintiff and the Class were  damaged; for example, they had foreclosure judgments entered against them, Defendants  asserted and entered debts against them that were invalid and unenforceable and for incorrect  5  amounts, their credit ratings were adversely, prematurely, and detrimentally affected, and they  are entitled to statutory damages.   19.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend her Complaint accordingly to file additional  causes of action arising out of such facts.    29.  Plaintiff brings her claims individually and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 23 on   behalf of a Class presently defined as all persons named as a defendant in a foreclosure lawsuit  containing an affidavit altered by Fisher and Shapiro, LLC, one of its agents, or a Doe  Defendant.  Excluded from the Class are current and former executives and officers of  Defendants, Defendants’ counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel, and any member of the judiciary presiding  7  over this action.  Plaintiff reserves her right to amend the class definition as appropriate and/or  following discovery.     30.   Plaintiff reasonably believes that the Class includes at least 1,700 members as   more fully described above, making joinder of all members of the Class impracticable.   31.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct as set forth herein is generally applicable with  respect to the Class as a whole, so that declaratory relief and corresponding injunctive relief are  appropriate.     32.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other Class members.    33.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class; Plaintiff has  no interests antagonistic to the Class; and Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and  experienced in class action litigation.   34.  Common questions of law or fact exist as to all members of the Class, and  predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members, including, without  limitation, as follows:  a. Did Defendants alter affidavits employed in foreclosure lawsuits filed  against Plaintiff and the Class?  b. Does the alteration of said affidavits violate the Fair Debt Collection  Practices Act, as more fully set forth herein?  c.  Are Plaintiff and the Class entitled to declaratory relief as more fully set  forth herein?   35.  A class action provides a superior and manageable method for fairly and  efficiently adjudicating this controversy because, among other things, joinder of all members of  the Class is impracticable, and many members of the Class cannot feasibly vindicate their rights  by individual suits because they cannot afford to hire counsel and/or because the monetary value  of their recoveries are outweighed by the burden and expense of litigating individual actions  8  against the Defendants.   36.  Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference each of the preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein in full.   37.  F&S and Doe Defendants are “debt collectors” and/or enforcers of security  interests pursuant to the FDCPA, and/or routinely file foreclosure lawsuits on behalf of lenders  including in order to collect debts asserted by lenders and enforce lender security interests.      38.  Said Defendants, by their aforesaid conduct and use of false and misleading  affidavits in foreclosure actions filed against Plaintiff and the Class as set forth more fully above,  violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including without limitation FDCPA prohibitions  against using any false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the  collection of any debt.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e.      39.  Defendants’ above-described conduct is further prohibited, for example, by the  following FDCPA provisions:  (a)  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2) by falsely representing the  character, amount, or legal status of the debt;  (b)  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) by communicating credit  information which is known or which should be known to be false;  (c)  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) by attempting to collect an  amount that is not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt  or permitted by law; and  (d)  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) by failing to cease collection of  the debt or any disputed portion thereof until the debt collector obtained  9  verification of the debt.  Indeed, as set forth above, the above-described affidavits presented by F&S and Doe Defendants  to the foreclosure courts in order to obtain judgment against Plaintiff and the Class contained  fraudulent and false or altered assertions of debt amounts purportedly owed by Plaintiff and the  Class for, inter alia, inspections, preservation, appraisal, insurance, taxes and/or attorneys’ fees.   As such, Defendants’ employment of said affidavits misrepresented the character and amount of  the asserted debts purportedly owed by Plaintiff and the Class, which were known to be false,  without obtaining verification of said amounts due, and without agreement by Plaintiff and the  Class.   40.  F&S and other Doe Defendants intentionally, frequently and persistently  employed false and misleading affidavits in order to collect on lender debts.  The above- described Order identifies approximately 1,700 instances of such conduct.   41.  As a result of Defendants’ numerous above-described violations of the FDCPA,  Plaintiff and the Class were damaged and are entitled to actual and statutory damages pursuant to  15 U.S.C. § 1692k in an amount to be proven at trial.  42.  Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs  as if set forth fully herein.    43.  The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS §  505 et seq. (“ICFA”), is designed to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, false or  misleading business practices.   44.  The ICFA prohibits false, deceptive, misleading and unfair acts or practices,  10  “including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false  promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact,  with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact.”  54.  Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs  as if set forth fully herein.   55.   Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to a declaration of the parties’ rights and   Defendants’ obligations pursuant to the FDCPA, including whether Defendants’ conduct violates  the FDCPA and whether Defendants are liable for their above-described conduct in violation of  these statutes, as more fully set forth above.     56.  Plaintiff and other Class members, and Defendants, have adverse legal interests,  and there is a substantial controversy between Plaintiff and other Class members, and  Defendants, so as to warrant issuance of a declaratory judgment as to whether Defendants’  practice of altering affidavits used in foreclosure proceedings is unlawful and violates the  FDCPA, and issuance of notice to the Class regarding same.     57.  As a result of Defendants’ above-described conduct in violation of the FDCPA,  Plaintiff and the Class are additionally entitled to corresponding injunctive and equitable relief.    DECLARATORY JUDGMENT INCLUDING   CORRESPONDING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF  28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   VIOLATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD   AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT          (UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT)  