23.  On or about January 7, 2015, Defendant sent a written communication to Mr.  Kemper in connection with the collection of the debt allegedly owed by him.  A true and correct  copy of the January 7, 2015 communication to Mr. Kemper is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   24.  The January 7, 2015 communication was the first communication Mr. Kemper  received from Defendant.   26.  The January 7, 2015 communication to Mr. Kemper stated that Defendant “has  been retained by Bank of America, N.A., successor-in-interest to FIA Card Services (the  “Bank”), in connection with the above-referenced account.  Please be advised that the Bank  intends to invoke its right to file a lawsuit against you.”  See Ex. A.   27.  The January 7, 2015 communication then stated:  If you notify this firm within thirty (30) days after your receipt of this letter, that  the debt or any portion thereof, is disputed, we will obtain verification of the debt  or a copy of the judgment, if any, and mail a copy of such verification or  judgment to you.  Upon your written request within the same thirty (30) day  period mentioned above, we will provide you with the name and address of the  original creditor, if different from the current creditor.  Ex. A.   28.  Defendant’s January 7, 2015 communication also stated:  This communication is from a debt collector.  We are attempting to collect a debt  and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.    Ex. A.   29.  Defendant’s January 7, 2015 communication violated 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a)(4) by  failing to inform Plaintiff that Defendant need mail verification of the debt, or a copy of the  judgment, if any, to him only if he notified Defendant in writing that he disputed the debt.   30.  That is, a debt collector need only provide verification of a debt, or a copy of an  applicable judgment, if the consumer disputes the debt in writing.  By failing to include this “in  writing” requirement in its initial debt collection letter, Defendant misstated Plaintiff’s rights  under the FDCPA.   32.  Defendant’s misstatement of the rights afforded by the FDCPA would cause the  least-sophisticated consumer to understand, incorrectly, that orally disputing a debt would trigger  Defendant’s obligation to obtain and send verification of the debt.  Such a misunderstanding  could lead the least-sophisticated consumer to waive or otherwise not properly vindicate her  rights under the FDCPA.    33.  Moreover, failing to dispute the debt in writing would cause a consumer to waive  the important protections afforded by 15 U.S.C. §1692g(b)—namely, that a debt collector cease  contacting the consumer until the debt collector provides the consumer with verification of the  alleged debt.   35.  Upon information and good-faith belief, Defendant’s January 7, 2015  communication is based on a form template used by Defendant to collect consumer debts in  default on behalf of Bank of America, N.A.  36.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class consisting of:  (a) All persons with an address within the United States, (b) to whom Andreu,  Palma & Andreu, PL mailed an initial debt collection communication that  stated: “If you notify this firm within thirty (30) days after your receipt of this  letter, that the debt or any portion thereof, is disputed, we will obtain  verification of the debt or a copy of the judgment, if any, and mail a copy of  such verification or judgment to you,” (c) in the one year preceding the date of  this complaint, (d) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt.  Excluded from the Class is Defendant, its officers and directors, members of their immediate  families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which  Defendant has or had controlling interests.   37.  The proposed Class satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) because, upon information  and belief, it is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  The exact number of  Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through  appropriate discovery.  The proposed Class is ascertainable in that, upon information and belief,  the names and addresses of all members of the proposed Class can be identified in business  records maintained by Defendant.     39.  Plaintiff satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) because he will fairly and adequately  protect the interests of the members of the Class and has retained counsel experienced and  competent in class action litigation.  Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to or in conflict  with the members of the Class that he seeks to represent.   40.  A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all members is impracticable.     41.  Furthermore, as the damages suffered by individual members of the Class may be  relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impracticable for the  members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs done to them.  There will be no  difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.   42.  Issues of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any  questions that may affect only individual members, in that Defendant has acted on grounds  generally applicable to the Class.  Among the issues of law and fact common to the Class are:  a) Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA as alleged herein;  b) Defendant’s failure to properly provide in its initial debt collection letter the  disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. §1692g;  c) the existence of Defendant’s identical conduct particular to the matters at issue;  d) the availability of statutory penalties; and  e) the availability of attorneys’ fees and costs.  43.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs  1 through 42.   45.  Defendant’s January 7, 2015 communication was its initial communication to Mr.  Kemper.   46.  The January 7, 2015 communication was in connection with an attempt to collect  the Debt from Plaintiff.   48.  The January 7, 2015 communication did not contain the proper disclosures  required by 15 U.S.C. §1692g, nor did Defendant provide such disclosures within five days  thereafter.   49.  Specifically, the January 7, 2015 communication violated 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a)(4)  by failing to inform Plaintiff that Defendant need only mail verification of the debt to him, and a  copy of any judgment, if he notified Defendant in writing that he disputed the debt.   PRACTICES ACT, 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a)(4)  