11.  Plaintiff brings this action as a state wide class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “FRCP”), on behalf of herself and all New York  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.   12.  This Action is properly maintained as a class action. The Class is initially defined  as:   All New York consumers who were sent letters and/or notices from  FRONTLINE concerning a debt owned by LVNV FUNDING, LLC  (“LVNV”) where the original creditor was WEBBANK, which included the  alleged conduct and practices described herein.  The class definition may be subsequently modified or refined.  The Class  period begins one year to the filing of this Action.    13.  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 may be hundreds and/or thousands of  persons who were sent debt collection letters and/or notices from the  Defendants that violate specific provisions of the FDCPA. Plaintiff is  complaining of a standard form letter and/or notice.  (See Exhibit A, except  that the undersigned attorney has, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2  redacted the financial account numbers and/or personal identifiers in an effort  to protect Plaintiff’s privacy);   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 the Defendants violated various provisions of the FDCPA  including but not limited to:     15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e; 1692e(2)(A); 1692e(5); 1692e(10); and 1692f  et seq.  b.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been injured by the  Defendants’ 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.  14.  Plaintiff is at all times to this lawsuit, a "consumer" as that term is defined by 15  U.S.C. § 1692a(3).   15.  Sometime prior to January 3, 2017, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial  obligation to WEBBANK, LLC (“WEBBANK”).   16.  The WEBBANK 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.   17.  Plaintiff incurred the WEBBANK obligation by obtaining goods and services  which were primarily for personal, family and household purposes.   18.  Plaintiff did not incur the WEBBANK obligation for business purposes.   19.  The WEBBANK obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).   20.  WEBBANK is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(4).   21.  At some time prior to January 3, 2017, the WEBBANK obligation was purchased  by and/or sold to LVNV.   22.  At the time the WEBBANK obligation was purchased by and/or sold to LVNV,  the obligation was in default.   23.  On or before January 3, 2017, LVNV referred the WEBBANK obligation to  FRONTLINE for the purpose of collections.   24.  At the time LVNV referred the WEBBANK obligation to FRONTLINE, the  obligation was past due.   25.  At the time LVNV referred the WEBBANK obligation to FRONTLINE, the  obligation was in default.   26.  Defendant caused to be delivered to Plaintiff a letter dated January 3, 2017, which  was addressed to Plaintiff.  Exhibit A, which is fully incorporated herein by reference.   27.  The January 3, 2017 letter was sent to Plaintiff in connection with the collection  of the WEBBANK obligation.    28.  The January 3, 2017 letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §  1692a(2).   29.  The January 3, 2017 letter is the initial written communication sent from  Defendant to the Plaintiff.   30.  Upon receipt, Plaintiff read the January 3, 2017 letter.   31.  The January 3, 2017 letter provided the following information regarding the  WEBBANK obligation:  Current Creditor to whom the debt is owed: LVNV FUNDING LLC  Original Creditor:  42.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, repeats and realleges all  prior allegations as if set forth at length herein.   43.  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.”   44.  Defendant’s January 3, 2017 letter would lead the least sophisticated consumer to  believe that Defendant stated that the amount due could increase due to additional interest or  other charges.   45.  The form, layout and content of Defendant’s letter would cause the least  sophisticated consumer to be confused about his or her rights.   46.  The form, layout and content of Defendant’s letter would cause the least  sophisticated consumer to be confused as to whether the balance of the WEBBANK obligation  could increase.   47.  The form, layout and content of Defendant’s letter would cause the least  sophisticated consumer to be confused as to whether the balance of the WEBBANK obligation  could increase due to interest or other charges.   48.  The form, layout and content of Defendant’s letter would cause the least  sophisticated consumer to believe that the balance of the WEBBANK obligation could increase.   49.  The form, layout and content of Defendant’s letter would cause the least  sophisticated consumer to believe that the balance of the WEBBANK obligation could increase  due to interest or other charges.   50.  Defendant’s collection letters were designed to cause the least sophisticated  consumer to believe that the balance of the WEBBANK obligation could increase due to interest or  other charges.   51.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e of the FDCPA by using any false,  deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with their attempts to collect  debts from Plaintiff and others similarly situated.   52.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e of the FDCPA in connection with their  communications to Plaintiff and others similarly situated.   53.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e of the FDCPA by falsely representing that  the balance could increase due to interest or other charges.     54.  Defendant’s false, misleading and deceptive statement(s) is material to the least  sophisticated consumer.   55.  Section 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from making a false  representation of the character, amount or legal status of a debt.   56.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by making false representations of  the character, amount and legal status of the debt.   57.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by falsely representing that the  balance could increase due to interest, late charges or other charges.    58.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) as Defendants were prohibited from  charging or adding interest or other charges.   59.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) as Defendants never intended to  charge or add interest or other charges.   60.  Section 1692e(5) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from threatening to take  any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.   61.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) by stating that the amount due could  increase due to additional interest or other charges when in fact the amount due would not and  did not increase.   62.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) by threatening to increase the amount  due by adding additional interest or other charges when in fact the amount due would not and did  not increase.   63.  Section 1692e(10) prohibits the use of any false representation or deceptive  means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.   64.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) by implying that the amount due  could increase due to additional interest or other charges when in fact the amount due would not  and did not increase.   65.  Defendants’ implication that the amount due could increase due to additional  interest or other charges when in fact the amount due would not and did not increase violated  various provisions of the FDCPA including but not limited to:  15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e;  1692e(2)(A); 1692e(5); 1692e(10); and 1692f et seq.   66.  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.   67.  Defendants utilized unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to  collect the debt by representing that the amount due could increase due to additional interest or  other charges when in fact the amount due would not and did not increase.   68.  Defendants’ conduct as described herein constitutes unfair or unconscionable  means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.   69.  Congress enacted the FDCPA in part to eliminate abusive debt collection  practices by debt collectors.   70.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have a right to free from abusive debt  collection practices by debt collectors.   71.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have a right to receive proper notices  mandated by the FDCPA.   72.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated were sent letters which have the propensity  to affect their decision-making with regard to the debt.   73.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have suffered harm as a direct result of the  abusive, deceptive and unfair collection practices described herein.   74.  Plaintiff has suffered damages and other harm as a direct result of the Defendants’  actions, conduct, omissions and violations of the FDCPA described herein.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:  (a)  Declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a Class Action and  certifying Plaintiff as Class representative and her attorneys as Class Counsel;  (b)  Awarding Plaintiff and the Class statutory damages;  (c)  Awarding Plaintiff and the Class actual damages;  (d)  Awarding pre-judgment interest;  (e)  Awarding 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: November 9, 2017  s/ Joseph K. Jones   Joseph K. Jones, Esq.  FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, 15 U.S.C. §   1692 et seq.  VIOLATIONS   