14. The instant action arises out of Defendants’ attempts to collect upon an outstanding  obligation (“subject debt”) Plaintiff is said to owe to Cumberland.   15. The subject debt arose in connection with purchases made at Cumberland.   16. Upon information and belief, after Plaintiff’s purported default on the subject debt,  Cumberland placed the subject debt with Checkredi for collection purposes.   18. On unanswered calls, Plaintiff was left a voicemail message from Checkredi, wherein  Checkredi would state that it was a debt collector attempting to collect upon a debt.   19. Upon speaking with Plaintiff, Checkredi advised that it was attempting to collect upon the  subject debt, which totaled approximately $11.   20. After speaking with Plaintiff, Checkredi, without any sort of authorization on the part of  Plaintiff, subsequently withdrew $11, as well as an additional $25, from Plaintiff’s checking  account.   21. Plaintiff was shocked and confused to find that Checkredi made these unauthorized  withdrawals.   22. Plaintiff was additionally confused as to why Checkredi withdrew an extra $25 from his  checking account, as this additional fee was never mentioned by Checkredi’s representative during  the conversation between the parties.   23. Upon information and belief, Checkredi withdrew the money from Plaintiff’s account at  the direction of Cumberland, and both Defendants unlawfully retaining the funds from Checkredi’s  unauthorized withdrawal.   24. All of Defendants’ collection actions at issue occurred within the one year preceding the  date of the filing of this Complaint.   25. Plaintiff suffered actual and concrete damages stemming from Defendants’ conduct,  including the pecuniary loss associated with the unauthorized withdrawal, as well as the emotional  distress stemming from having funds taken from his bank account without authorization   26. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiff’s statutorily protected interest to be free from  deceptive, misleading, harassing, and unfair collection conduct.  27. Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and as a class action against Defendants on  behalf of the following class:  All persons residing in the state of Florida from whom Checkredi  withdrew sums of money, from such persons’ bank account or other  financial account, absent such persons’ authorization for such  withdrawal, in connection with Checkredi’s efforts to collect upon  any obligation said to be owed to Cumberland, during the one year  preceding the filing of this action through the date of class  certification.   28. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(a).   29. Upon information and belief, the Class consists of hundreds or more persons throughout  the state of Florida, such that joinder of all Class members is impracticable.   30. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the Class members that relate to  Checkredi’s violations of the FDCPA and Defendants’ violations of the FCCPA, particularly  because they are based on a common course of conduct by Defendants.   31. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the proposed Class because they are  based on the same legal theories, and Plaintiff has no interest that are antagonistic to the interests  of the Class members.   32. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class and has retained competent legal  counsel experienced in class actions and complex litigation.   34. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication  of this controversy, as the pursuit of hundreds of individual lawsuits would cause a strain on  judicial resources and could result in inconsistent or varying adjudications, yet each Class member  would be required to prove an identical set of facts in order to recover damages  35. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 34 as though fully set forth herein.    36. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3) of the FDCPA.     37. Checkredi is a debt collector, as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a, because it is a person who  use any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal purpose of  which is the collection of debts, and because they regularly use the mails and/or telephones to  collect, or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly consumer delinquent debts owed or due or  asserted to be owed or due another. Checkredi further identifies itself as a debt collector   39. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692d, prohibits a debt collector from engaging “in  any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in  connection with the collection of a debt.”    40. Checkredi violated §1692d when it harassingly and abusively withdrew funds from  Plaintiff’s bank account without authorization. Withdrawing funds from a consumer’s bank  account absent authorization is inherently conduct with the natural consequence of harassing,  oppressing, and abusing such consumer.  b. Violations of FDCPA § 1692e et seq.   41. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e, prohibits a debt collector from using “any  false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any  debt.”     42. In addition, this section enumerates specific violations, such as:  “The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in . . .  the seizure . . . of any property . . . of any person unless such action is lawful . . .  .” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4).  “The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken . . . .” 15 U.S.C. §  1692e(5)  “The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to  collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.”  15 U.S.C.  §1692e(10).   44. Checkredi further violated §§ 1692e and e(10) through its confusing and misleading  representations as to the amount  Defendants were attempting to collect in connection with the  subject debt. Although Checkredi informed Plaintiff that the subject debt totaled $11, it  nevertheless withdrew (without authorization) a total of $36 from Plaintiff’s account, leaving  Plaintiff confused and concerned as to what purported charges made up the $25 additional to the  balance of the subject debt as represented by Checkredi.   c. Violations of FDCPA § 1692f   45. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692f, prohibits a debt collector from using “unfair  or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” § 1692f(1) further prohibits,  “[t]he collection of any amount . . . unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement  creating the debt or permitted by law.”    46. Checkredi violated §§1692f and f(1) when it unfairly and unconscionably withdrew funds  from Plaintiff’s bank account without authorization. It was unlawful for Checkredi to make such  withdrawal’s completely absent authorization.    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, PATRICK J. FAY, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court  grant the following:  a. Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the  aforementioned bodies of law;   b. Certification of the Class requested above and appointment of the Plaintiff as Class  Representative and of his counsel as Class Counsel;  c. Statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a);  d. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees as provided under 15 U.S.C.  §1692k(a)(3); and  e. Awarding any other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.  55. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 34 as though fully set forth herein.   56. Under Florida law, the elements for a cause of action for unjust enrichment are: (1) the  plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant, who has knowledge thereof; (2) defendant  voluntarily accepts and retains the benefit conferred; and (3) the circumstances are such that it  would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof to the  plaintiff. Hillman v. Const. Corp. v. Wainer, 636 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).   PLAINTIFF INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS  AGAINST CHECKREDI   PLAINTIFF INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS  AGAINST DEFENDANTS  