1. The amount of the debt;   10.  Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the following case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(a) and 23(b)(3).   11.  The Class consists of:   a.  all individuals with addresses in the State of New York;  b.  to whom Defendant sent an initial collection letter;  c.  attempting to collect a consumer debt;  d.  on behalf of another;  e.  including a statement that a settlement amount must be paid by a date within 30  days of the collection letter; and  f.  which letter was sent on or after a date one (1) year prior to the filing of this action  and on or before a date twenty-one (21) days after the filing of this action.   12.  The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of  Defendants and those companies and entities on whose behalf they attempt to collect and/or have  purchased debts.   13.  Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are the Defendants and all officers, members,  partners, managers, directors and employees of the Defendants and their respective immediate  families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their immediate families.    14.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class, which common issues  predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue is whether  the Defendant’s written communications to consumers, in the forms attached as Exhibit A, violate  15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692g et seq.   15.  The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same  facts and legal theories. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff  Class defined in this complaint. The Plaintiff has retained counsel with experience in handling  consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiff nor her attorneys  have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.   16.  This action has been brought, and may properly be maintained, as a class action  pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because there is a well- defined community interest in the litigation:  a. Numerosity: The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,  that the Plaintiff Class defined above is so numerous that joinder of all members  would be impractical.  b. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist as  to all members of the Plaintiff Class and those questions predominance over any  questions or issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue  is whether the Defendant’s written communications to consumers, in the forms  attached as Exhibit A violate 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692g et seq.  c. Typicality: The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members.  The Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff Class have claims arising out of the  Defendant’s common uniform course of conduct complained of herein.  d. Adequacy: The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  class members insofar as Plaintiff has no interests that are averse to the absent  class members. The Plaintiff is committed to vigorously litigating this matter.  Plaintiff has also retained counsel experienced in handling consumer lawsuits,  complex legal issues, and class actions. Neither the Plaintiff nor her counsel have  any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue the instant class  action lawsuit.  e. Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available means for the fair  and efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual joinder of all  members would be impracticable. Class action treatment will permit a large  number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single  forum efficiently and without unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that  individual actions would engender.   17.  Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  is also appropriate in that the questions of law and fact common to members of the Plaintiff Class  predominate over any questions affecting an individual member, and a class action is superior to  other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.   18.  Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff may, at  the time of class certification motion, seek to certify a class(es) only as to particular issues pursuant  to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).  19.  Plaintiff repeats the above allegations as if set forth herein.   2. The name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;   20.  Prior to March 19, 2021, Plaintiff allegedly incurred an obligation to the Original  Creditor, MidHudson Emergency Physician Services, PLLC (hereinafter “MidHudson”), who is a  “creditor” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (4).   21.  The obligation arose out of medical services which were incurred solely for personal  purposes. The subject obligation is therefore a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a (5).   22.  Upon information and belief, MidHudson contracted the Defendant for the purpose  of debt collection. Therefore, Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (6).   23.  Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been  incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States  Postal Services, telephone and internet.  Violation – March 19, 2021 Collection Letter   24.  On or about March 19, 2021, Defendant sent the Plaintiff an initial collection letter  regarding the subject debt owed to MidHudson. (See Letter Attached as Exhibit A.)   25.  The letter ostensibly provides the notices as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g regarding  disputing the debt.   26.  However, Defendant included additional language beyond the g-notice:  “Our client MidHudson Emergency Physician Services,  PLLC has authorized us to offer you a settlement on your  accounts that have been placed for collection with Bay Area  Credit Service (BACS). If you take advantage of this offer,  we will settle your accounts with SEE SUMMARY on  reverse side for the amount of $267.75. This is a savings to  you of $114.75. This settlement amount must be paid in one  payment and this offer is valid until 04-08-21. We are not  obligated to renew this offer.”   27.  Defendants violated §§ 1692(e) and (g) by including a settlement offer that  overshadowed Plaintiff’s debt validation rights under 1692(g) because it coerced Plaintiff to pay off the  debt rather than enforce her rights to have the debt validated, and in the event that it could not be  validated, extinguished altogether.    28.  This plainly encourages Plaintiff to overlook her statutory debt validation rights because  it induces Plaintiff to take advantage of the reduced settlement offer prior to the expiration of the 30-day  debt validation window.    29.  Plaintiff would be coerced into believing that she had one of two choices – either accept  the settlement offer and forgo her right to challenge the debt, or challenge the debt and give up the  settlement offer altogether.    3. A statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after  receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any  portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt- collector;   30.  The least sophisticated consumer would be tempted to just “take the offer and run”  instead of exercising her rights to have the debt validated.   31.  In this way, Plaintiff is induced to overlook her statutory debt validation rights, and the  collection letter is clearly designed to do exactly that.   32.  The least sophisticated consumer is especially vulnerable to this kind of ploy. In many  instances, consumers who are behind on their payments face insurmountable odds, e.g., loss of  employment, divorce, etc., and dealing with a scarcity of resources, will often choose the path of least  resistance.   33.  In this case, that means accepting an offer to pay a reduced settlement rather than  challenging the debt, therefore inducing the consumer to overlook her debt validation rights.   34.  Absent from the Letter is an explanation that the consumer would still have the ability  to challenge the debt if she accepted the offer to settle, or that accepting the settlement offer would not  foreclose the ability to request debt validation.   35.  Therefore, Defendant is essentially “demanding payment” within the 30-day debt  validation period because Plaintiff is being offered a settlement that would expire prior to the deadline  for validating the debt under 1692g.   36.  Plaintiff would have been able to make an educated decision whether to dispute the  debt or pay if she were provided an appropriate g-notice.   37.  Plaintiff was unable to properly evaluate her options of how to handle this collection  letter and the underlying debt.   38.  These violations by Defendant were knowing, willful, negligent and/or intentional,  and Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violations.   39.  Defendant’s collection efforts with respect to this alleged debt from Plaintiff  effectively stripped Plaintiff of her right to dispute the validity of the debt and caused Plaintiff to  suffer concrete and particularized harm, inter alia, because the FDCPA provides Plaintiff with the  legally protected right to dispute the validity of the debt.   4. A statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in  writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion  thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of  the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy  of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer  by the debt collector; and   40.  Defendant’s deceptive, misleading and unfair representations with respect to their  collection efforts were material misrepresentations that affected and frustrated Plaintiff's ability to  intelligently respond to Defendant’s collection efforts because Plaintiff could not adequately  determine how to dispute the debt without risking a law suit.   41.  Defendant’s actions created an appreciable risk to Plaintiff of being unable to  properly respond to or handle Defendant’s debt collection.   42.  Plaintiff was confused and misled to her detriment by the statements in the dunning  letter, and relied on the contents of the letter to her detriment.   43.  Plaintiff would have pursued a different course of action were it not for Defendant’s  violations.   44.  As a result of Defendant’s deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices,  Plaintiff has been damaged.  45.  Plaintiff repeats the above allegations as if set forth herein.   46.  Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff  violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.   47.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or  misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   48.  Defendant violated said section by misrepresenting the status of the debt, in violation  of § 1692e (2)(A).    49.  Additionally, Defendants violated said section by deceptively and/or misleadingly  providing additional language beyond the g-notice language which served to strip Plaintiff of  her right to dispute the validity of the debt, in violation of § 1692e (10).   5. A statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the  thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer  with the name and address of the original creditor, if different  from the current creditor.  b. Disputed Debts  If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within  the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any  portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and  address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection  of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains  verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address  of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or  name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by  the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not  otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period  referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt  collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or  that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor.  Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period  may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the  consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of  the original creditor.   50.  By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment in that Defendant’s  conduct violated Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs  and attorneys’ fees.  51.  Plaintiff repeats the above allegations as if set forth herein.   52.  Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff  violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.   53.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g:  a. Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in  connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the  following information is contained in the initial communication or the  consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing –   54.  Defendant violated this section by providing language in the Letter that  overshadowed and/or was inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the  debt, thereby violating §1692g (b).   55.  In addition, Defendant violated § 1692(a) by effectively failing to provide the  requisite g-notice.   56.  By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment in that Defendant’s  conduct violated Section 1692g et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs  and attorneys’ fees.  VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. §1692g et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. §1692e et seq.  