10.  All of Defendant’s collection actions at issue in this matter occurred within  one year of the date of this Complaint.   11.  Defendant’s collection communications are to be interpreted under the  “unsophisticated consumer” standard.  See, Gammon v. GC Services, Ltd. Partnership,  27 F.3d 1254, 1257 (7th Cir. 1994).  12.  Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-11.   13.      Section 1692e of the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from taking actions  that cannot legally be taken in connection with the collection of a debt, including, but not  limited to, the false representation of the character, amount or legal status of any debt,  see, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A), and/or taking or threatening to take actions that cannot  legally be taken in connection with the collection of a debt, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5).   4  4    14.  Attempts by debt collectors to collect time-barred debts violate § 1692e of  the FDCPA.  See, Phillips v. Asset Acceptance, 736 F.3d. 1076, 1079 (7th  Cir. 2013)  (filing time-barred lawsuit); McMahon v. LVNV Funding, 744 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir.  2014)(sending collection letters on time-barred debts); Crawford v. LVNV Funding, 758  F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014)(filing proofs of claim on time-barred debts);  and, Pantoja v.  Portfolio Recovery Associates, 2015 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 26908 (N.D. Ill, 2015)(sending  collection letters on time-barred debts with the same language at issue here).   15.  By sending the collection letters at issue for a debt that was time-barred  under Indiana Law, Defendant PRA violated § 1692e of the FDCPA.     16.  Defendant’s violation of § 1692e of the FDCPA renders it liable for   actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  See, 15 U.S.C. §  1692k.  17.  Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-11.   18.  Section 1692f of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any  unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt, see, 15 U.S.C. §  1692f.     19.  Defendant, by attempting to collect a time-barred debt, used an unfair or  unconscionable means to collect a debt, in violation of § 1692f of the FDCPA.     20.  Defendant’s violation of § 1692f of the FDCPA renders it liable for   actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  See, 15 U.S.C. §   1692k.  5  5   21.  Plaintiff Neeley brings this action individually and as a class action on  behalf of all persons similarly situated in the State of Indiana from whom Defendant  attempted to collect a delinquent time-barred Sears debt, by sending collection letters  similar to the letters Defendant sent to Plaintiff, from one year before the date of this  Complaint to the present.  This action seeks a finding that Defendant’s collection  practice, of sending collection letters in an attempt to collect debts that were beyond the  statute of limitations, violates the FDCPA, and asks that this Court award damages as  authorized by § 1692k(a)(1) and (2) of the FDCPA.   22.  Defendant PRA regularly engages in debt collection on debts which are  beyond the statute of limitations by sending consumer letters similar to those at issue  here.   23.  The Class consists of more than 35 persons from whom Defendant  attempted to collect delinquent consumer debts by sending collection letters on time- barred debts.   24.  Plaintiff Neeley’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.   25.  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   6  6   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.  Defendant has acted in a manner  applicable to the Class as a whole such that declaratory relief is warranted.   26.  Plaintiff Neeley will fairly and adequately protect and represent the  interests of the Class.  The management of the class action proposed is not  extraordinarily difficult, and the factual and legal issues raised by this class action  complaint will not require extended contact with the members of the Class, because  Defendant’s conduct was perpetrated on all members of the Class and will be  established by common proof.  Moreover, Plaintiff Neeley has retained counsel  experienced in class action litigation, including class actions brought under the FDCPA.  7.  Due to financial difficulties caused by his spouse at the time, during 2000  Plaintiff Neeley was forced to stop paying some of his debts, which included a debt he  allegedly owed for a Sears credit card.  After this debt became delinquent it was  allegedly transferred/sold to other debt buyers who, at some unknown point in time, sold  or transferred the debt to Defendant PRA.   8.  Defendant sent Mr. Neeley collection letters, dated August 14, 2014,  November 12, 2014 and February 17, 2015, demanding payment of the Sears debt via  various proposed payment plans.  These letters also stated, in pertinent part:  * * *  3  3   Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it and we will not report it  to any credit reporting agency.  * * *  Copies of these letters are attached as Group Exhibit C.   9.  Although the statute of limitations in the State of Indiana for filing a lawsuit  to collect the delinquent debt at issue was, pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-11-2, six  years from the date of the last payment, Defendant PRA’s letters fails to inform the  consumer that it cannot sue them to collect the debt and fails to inform them that a  payment on the debt may restart the statute of limitations.  Instead, the letters weakly  state that PRA has chosen not to sue, which, coupled with the repeated demands for a  payment plan, make it look as if the debt is still legally enforceable.   Violation Of § 1692f Of The FDCPA --  Unfair Or Unconscionable Collection Actions   Violation Of § 1692e Of The FDCPA –  False, Deceptive Or Misleading Collection Actions  