14.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “FRCP”), on behalf of himself and all consumers and their  successors in interest (the “Class”), who were sent debt collection letters and/or notices from the  Defendants which are in violation of the FDCPA, as described in this Complaint   15.  This Action is properly maintained as a statewide class action. The Class consists  of:   All New York City consumers who were sent letters and/or notices from SIMM  concerning a debtor owned by JH CAPITAL GROUP and/or JH Portfolio Debt  Equities, LLC., which was beyond the applicable statute of limitation, and did not  inform the consumer that the legal time for suing the consumer to collect the debt  had expired, and/or     Offer to settle the debt for less than the outstanding balance in one than one  payment and did not inform the consumer that if he/she made a payment, that JH  CAPITAL GROUP and/or JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC's, right to sue to make  him/her pay the entire debt may start again.   - 3 -   The Class period begins one year to the filing of this Action.   16.  The Class satisfies all the requirements of Rule 23 of the FRCP for maintaining a  class action:   Upon information and belief, the Class is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable because there are hundreds and/or thousands of  persons who have received debt collection letters and/or notices from the  Defendant that violate specific provisions of the FDCPA. Plaintiff is  complaining of a standard form letter and/or notice that are sent to hundreds  of persons (See Exhibit A, except that the undersigned attorney has, in  accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 partially redacted the financial account  numbers in an effort to protect Plaintiff’s privacy);  - 4 -   There are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class and which  predominate over questions affecting any individual Class member.  These  common questions of law and fact include, without limitation:  a.  Whether Defendants violated various provisions of the FDCPA;  b.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been injured by Defendant's  conduct;  c.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class have sustained damages and are  entitled to restitution as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing and if  so, what is the proper measure and appropriate statutory formula to  be applied in determining such damages and restitution; and  d.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to declaratory and/or  injunctive relief.   Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class, which all arise from the same  operative facts and are based on the same legal theories.   Plaintiff has no interest adverse or antagonistic to the interest of the other  members of the Class.   Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the Class and has  retained experienced and competent attorneys to represent the Class.   A Class Action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the claims herein asserted. Plaintiff anticipates that no unusual  difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action.   A Class Action will permit large numbers of similarly situated persons to  prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously and without  the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would  engender.  Class treatment will also permit the adjudication of relatively small  claims by many Class members who could not otherwise afford to seek legal  redress for the wrongs complained of herein.  Absent a Class Action, class  members will continue to suffer losses of statutory protected rights as well as  monetary damages.  If Defendants' conduct is allowed to proceed without  remedy, they will continue to reap and retain the proceeds of their ill-gotten  gains.   Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class,  thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding  declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.  - 5 -  17.  Plaintiff is at all times to this lawsuit, a "consumer" as that term is defined by 16  U.S.C. §1692a(3).    18.  SIMM 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.   19.   SIMM is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).   20.   SIMM is considered a debt collector pursuant to the regulations of the New York  City Department of consumer affairs.   21.   JH 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.   22.   JH is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).   23.   JH is considered a debt collector pursuant to the regulations of the New York City  Department of consumer affairs.   24.  Sometime prior to September 30, 2010, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial  obligation to CHASE BANK USA, N.A. ("CHASE").     25.  Sometime prior to September 30, 2010, the CHASE obligation became past due.   26.  CHASE is a "creditor" as defined by 15. U.S.C. §1692a(4).   27.  At sometime prior to January 23, 2016, CHASE, either directly or through  intermediate transactions sold the CHASE obligation to JH.   28.  At some prior to January 23, 2016, JH purchased the CHASE obligation.  - 6 -   29.  At the time the CHASE obligation was sold to JH, such obligation was past due.   30.  At the time the CHASE obligation was sold to JH, such obligation was beyond  the applicable statute of limitations.   31.  On or about December 1, 2014, JH placed the CHASE obligation with SIMM for  the purpose of collection.   32.  At the time the CHASE obligation was placed with SIMM, such obligation was  past due.   33.  At the time the CHASE obligation was place with SIMM, such obligation was  beyond the applicable statute of limitations.   34.  At the time the CHASE obligation was place with SIMM, SIMM knew or should  have known that such obligation was beyond the applicable statute of limitations.   35.  On or about January 23, 2015, Defendants caused to be delivered to Plaintiff a  letter in an attempt to collect the CHASE obligation. A copy of said letter is annexed hereto as  Exhibit A except that the undersigned attorney has, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2  partially redacted the financial account numbers in an effort to protect Plaintiff’s privacy.   36.  The January 23, 2015 letter was sent or caused to be sent by persons employed by  Defendants as a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).    37.  The January 23, 2015 letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C.  §1692a(2).   38.  Upon receipt of the January 23, 2015, Plaintiff read said letter.    39.  Defendants contend that the alleged CHASE obligation is in default.  - 7 -   40.  The CHASE obligation arose out of a transaction in which money, property,  insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family  or household purposes.    41.  The January 23, 2015 letter contained the following statements:  47.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 46 as if the  same were set forth at length.   48.  Collection letters and/or notices such as those sent by Defendants, are to be  evaluated by the objective standard of the hypothetical “least sophisticated consumer.”   49.  Because the January 23, 2015, letter failed to contain the required information  relating to the consumer's rights as to the statute of limitations, as required by Chapter 2 of title  20 of the administrative code of the City of New York, DCA 20-493.2(b) Defendants violated 15  U.S.C. §1692e(10) by using false deceptive and misleading means in connection with the  collection of a debt.   50.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10) by not informing to Plaintiff, in the  January 23, 2015 letter  that the applicable statute of limitations had expired on the CHASE  obligation.   51.  Defendants further violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10) by not informing to Plaintiff  that if he made the first payment pursuant to "Option 3" in the January 23, 2015 letter, that the  statue of limitation may start and JH right to sue him to pay the entire debt may start again.  - 9 -   52.  The least sophisticated consumer upon reading the January 23, 2015 letter would  be mislead and deceived into making the first payment of "Option 3" that would restart the statue  of limitation without knowing such an event would happen.   53.  The least sophisticated consumer after making the first payment of "Option 3"  would be in a worse position than not making a payment at all.   54.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2)(A) by falsely representing the character  and legal status of the debt.   55.  The least sophisticated consumer upon reading the January 23, 2015 letter, would  believe that the debt was still enforceable in a court of law.    56.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 55 as if the  same were set forth at length.   57.  Section 1692f et seq. of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using unfair or  unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.   58.  Because the January 23, 2015, letter failed to contain the required information  relating to the consumer's rights as to the statute of limitations, as required by Chapter 2 of title  20 of the administrative code of the City of New York, DCA 20-493.2(b) Defendants violated 15  U.S.C.§1692f by engaging in unfair means to collect a consumer debt.   59.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692f by not informing to Plaintiff, in the January  23, 2015 letter  that the applicable statute of limitations had expired on the CHASE obligation.   60.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692f by not informing to Plaintiff that if he  made the first payment pursuant to "Option 3" in the January 23, 2015 letter, that the statue of  limitation may start and JH right to sue him to pay the entire debt may start again.  - 10 -  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant on each count as  follows:  (a)  Declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a Class Action and  certifying Plaintiff as Class representative and the attorney, Joseph K. Jones, Esq. and Benjamin  J. Wolf, Esq., as Class Counsel;  (b)  Awarding Plaintiff and the Class statutory damages;  (c)  Awarding Plaintiff and the Class actual damages;  (d)  Pre-judgment interest;  (e)  Post judgment interest;   (f)  Awarding Plaintiff costs of this Action, including reasonable attorneys'  fees and expenses; and  (g)  Awarding Plaintiff and the Class such other and further relief as the Court  may deem just and proper.  Dated: New York, New York   May 1, 2015   /s/ Joseph K. Jones   Joseph K. Jones (JJ-5509)  Law Offices of Joseph K. Jones, LLC  555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700  New York, NY 10017  (646) 459-7971 telephone  (646) 459-7973 facsimile  jkj@legaljones.com  /s/ Benjamin J. Wolf  Benjamin J. Wolf (BW-3338)  Law Offices of Joseph K. Jones, LLC  555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700  New York, NY 10017  (646) 459-7971 telephone  (646) 459-7973 facsimile  bwolf@legaljones.com  - 11 -  Attorneys for Plaintiff  - 12 -  FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. §1692  VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. §1692f et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. § 1692e et seq.  