22.  Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt (“the alleged Debt”).     23.  The alleged Debt is an alleged obligation of Plaintiff to pay money arising out of a  transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the  transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.   24.  The alleged Debt does not arise from any business enterprise of Plaintiff.   25.  The alleged Debt is a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).   26.  At an exact time known only to Defendant, the alleged Debt was assigned or  otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection.    27.  At the time the alleged Debt was assigned or otherwise transferred to Defendant for  collection, the alleged Debt was in default.  5   28.  In its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Defendant caused correspondence,  including a collection letter dated September 16, 2020, to be sent to Plaintiff.  (A true and accurate  copy of that collection letter (the “Letter”) is annexed hereto as “Exhibit 1.”)   29.  The Letter conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt.   30.  The Letter was the initial written communication Plaintiff received from Defendant  concerning the alleged Debt.   31.  The Letter is a “communication” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).    32.  15 U.S.C. § 1692g protects Plaintiff’s concrete interests. Plaintiff has the interest  and right to receive clear, accurate and unambiguous collection letters from Defendant that would  allow Plaintiff to identify the source of the alleged Debt and confirm that the alleged Debt was  actually owed.  As set forth herein, Defendant deprived Plaintiff of these rights.   33.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e protects Plaintiff’s concrete interests. Plaintiff has the interest  and right to be free from deceptive and/or misleading communications from Defendant. As set  forth herein, Defendant deprived Plaintiff of these rights.   34.  Plaintiff’s injury is “particularized” and “actual” in that the Letter that deprived  Plaintiff of the aforementioned rights was addressed and sent to Plaintiff specifically.    35.  Plaintiff’s injury is directly traceable to Defendant’s conduct because Defendant  sent the Letter, and but for Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff would not have been deprived of the  aforementioned rights.    36.  Plaintiff has been misled by Defendant’s conduct.    37.  Defendant’s conduct as described in this Complaint was willful, with the purpose  to either harm Plaintiff or with reckless disregard for the harm to Plaintiff that could result from  Defendant’s conduct.  6   38.  Plaintiff justifiably fears that, absent this Court’s intervention, Defendant will  continue to use abusive, deceptive, unfair and unlawful means in its attempts to collect the alleged  Debt and other alleged debts.   39.  Plaintiff justifiably fears that, absent this Court’s intervention, Defendant will  ultimately cause Plaintiff unwarranted economic harm.   40.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff wasted time, was caused to be  confused and unsure as to Plaintiff’s rights, and ultimately sought counsel and advice causing  Plaintiff the risk of incurring damages including reasonable attorneys’ fees in reviewing Plaintiff’s  rights under the law and prosecuting this claim.   41.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff’s counsel was caused to expend time,  energy, and money to investigate Plaintiff’s rights under the law and the legitimacy of the alleged  Debt.   42.  The deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights will be redressed by a favorable decision  herein.     43.  A favorable decision herein would redress Plaintiff’s injury with money damages.    44.  A favorable decision herein would serve to deter Defendant from further similar  conduct.    45.  Plaintiff is enrolled in Medicaid.     46.  Other than for co-pays, Medicaid patients may not be balance-billed.     47.  The alleged Debt is not a co-pay, but rather represents unlawful balance billing.     48.  By sending a collection letter to Plaintiff to collect on the alleged Debt, Defendant  misrepresented the status of the debt as collectible, when it was not.     49.  Plaintiff's injury is “particularized” and “actual” in that the letter that caused the  7  injury was addressed and sent to Plaintiff specifically.    50.  Plaintiff's injury is directly traceable to Defendant's conduct because Defendant  sent the Letter.    51.  A favorable judicial resolution of Plaintiff's case would redress Plaintiff's injury  with damages.    52.  The deprivation of Plaintiff's rights will be redressed by a favorable decision herein.     53.  Plaintiff has been misled by Defendant's actions.    54.  Plaintiff justifiably fears that, absent this Court's intervention, Defendant will  continue to use abusive, deceptive, unfair and unlawful means in its attempts to collect the Debt.   55.  Plaintiff justifiably fears that, absent this Court's intervention, Defendant will  ultimately cause her unwarranted economic harm.   56.  As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff was forced to hire counsel and  therefore has incurred damages including reasonable attorneys' fees in reviewing Plaintiff's rights  under the law and prosecuting this claim.   57.  As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff's counsel was forced to expend time  and money to investigate the enforceability of the Debt.   58.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiff can prove that all actions taken by Defendant  as described in this Complaint were taken willfully, with either the desire to harm Plaintiff with  knowledge that its actions would very likely harm Plaintiff, and/or with knowledge that its actions  were taken in violation of the law.  59.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all  consumers similarly situated in the State of New York.  8   60.  Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of:  All consumers to whom Defendant sent a collection letter to collect the  balance bill on a Medicaid debt, which letter was sent on or after a date  one year prior to the filing of this action to the present.   61.  This action seeks a finding that Defendant’s conduct violates the FDCPA, and asks  that the Court award damages as authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.   62.  The Class consists of more than thirty-five persons.   63.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class.  Common questions of law  or fact raised by this action 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.  A class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.   64.  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.  Defendant  has acted in a manner applicable to the Class as a whole such that declaratory relief is warranted.   65.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the Class.  The management of the class is not extraordinarily difficult, and the factual and legal issues raised  by this action 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 has retained counsel experienced in actions brought under consumer protection  laws.  9 