1. An order certifying that Count I may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule  23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing Plaintiffs and the  undersigned counsel to represent the class as previously set forth and defined above;   15. On February 29, 2012, Jonbu Tunji Adebo allegedly incurred a financial obligation to the  State of New Jersey (the “Adebo Debt”).   16. The Adebo Debt arose out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or  services which were the subject of the transaction were primarily for personal, family or  household purposes, namely fees emanating from medical services rendered to Jonbu  Tunji Adebo at certain state hospitals.    17. Jonbu Tunji Adebo’s medical debt to the State of New Jersey is a “debt” as defined by 15  U.S.C. §1692a(5).    18. Sometime after the incurrence of the Adebo Debt, but before the initiation of this action,  Jonbu Tunji Adebo was alleged to have fallen behind on payments owed on the Adebo  Debt.   20. FAMS contends that the Adebo Debt is past-due and in default.    21. At the time the Adebo Debt was referred to FAMS, the Adebo Debt was past-due.   22. At the time the Adebo Debt was referred to FAMS, the Adebo Debt was in default.    23. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant acted in an attempt to collect the Adebo Debt.    24. On or about August 8, 2016, FAMS mailed or caused to be mailed a letter to Jonbu Tunji  Adebo. (Annexed and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true copy of the letter dated  August 8, 2016 sent by FAMS to Jonbu Tunji Adebo, except the undersigned counsel has  in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 redacted the financial account numbers and Jonbu  Tunji Adebo’s street address to protect his privacy).   25. FAMS mailed the August 8, 2016 letter attached as Exhibit A as a part of their efforts to  collect the Adebo Debt.    26. Jonbu Tunji Adebo received the letter attached as Exhibit A in the mail.    27. Jonbu Tunji Adebo read the letter attached as Exhibit A upon receipt of the letter in the  mail.    28. Exhibit A was sent in connection with the collection of the Adebo Debt.   29. Exhibit A seeks to collect the Adebo Debt.    3. An award of statutory damages for Jonbu Tunji Adebo, Emmanuella Philippe, and the  class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k;   30. Exhibit A conveyed information regarding the Adebo Debt including the Balance Owed,  FAMS reference number, and a demand for payment.   31. The letter attached as Exhibit A is a “communication” as that term is defined by 15  U.S.C. §1692a(2).   33. The letter attached as Exhibit A is the first written communication Defendant sent to  Jonbu Tunji Adebo regarding the Adebo Debt.    34. Exhibit A represents FAMS’s initial collection “communication” with Jonbu Tunji  Adebo as “communication” is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2).   35. Besides the letter attached as Exhibit A, Jonbu Tunji Adebo did not receive any other  document from FAMS purporting to contain the initial disclosures required by 15 U.S.C.  §1692g.   36. The letter attached as Exhibit A states in relevant part:   4. Attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k;  and    51. On October 22, 2011, Emmanuella Philippe allegedly incurred a financial obligation to  the State of New Jersey (the “Philippe Debt”).   52. The Philippe Debt arose out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or  services which were the subject of the transaction were primarily for personal, family or  household purposes, namely fees emanating from medical services rendered to  Emmanuella Philippe at certain state hospitals.    53. Emmanuella Philippe’s medical debt to the State of New Jersey is a “debt” as defined by  15 U.S.C. §1692a(5).    54. Sometime after the incurrence of the Philippe Debt, but before the initiation of this  action, Emmanuella Philippe was alleged to have fallen behind on payments owed on the  Philippe Debt.   55. On or before August 8, 2016, the Philippe Debt was referred by Emmanuella Philippe’s  creditor to FAMS for the purpose of collections.    57. At the time the Philippe Debt was referred to FAMS, the Philippe Debt was past-due.   58. At the time the Philippe Debt was referred to FAMS, the Philippe Debt was in default.    59. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant acted in an attempt to collect the Philippe Debt.    60. On or about August 8, 2016, FAMS mailed or caused to be mailed a letter to Emmanuella  Philippe. (Annexed and attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true copy of the letter dated  August 8, 2016 sent by FAMS to Emmanuella Philippe, except the undersigned counsel  has in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 redacted the financial account numbers and  Emmanuella Philippe’s street address to protect her privacy).   61. FAMS mailed the August 8, 2016 letter attached as Exhibit C as a part of their efforts to  collect the Philippe Debt.    62. Emmanuella Philippe received the letter attached as Exhibit C in the mail.    63. Emmanuella Philippe read the letter attached as Exhibit C upon receipt of the letter in the  mail.    64. Exhibit C was sent in connection with the collection of the Philippe Debt.   65. Exhibit C seeks to collect the Philippe Debt.    66. Exhibit C conveyed information regarding the Philippe Debt including the Balance  Owed, FAMS reference number, and a demand for payment.   67. The letter attached as Exhibit C is a “communication” as that term is defined by 15  U.S.C. §1692a(2).   68. The letter attached as Exhibit C is the first written communication Emmanuella Philippe  received from Defendant.    70. Exhibit C represents FAMS’s initial collection “communication” with Emmanuella  Philippe as “communication” is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2).   71. Besides the letter attached as Exhibit C, Emmanuella Philippe did not receive any other  document from FAMS purporting to contain the initial disclosures required by 15 U.S.C.  §1692g.   72. The letter attached as Exhibit C states in relevant part:   87. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all the above paragraphs as though fully stated herein.   88. In sending the letters attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit C, FAMS violated 15 U.S.C.  §§1692, 1692e(2)(A), 1692(e)(10), and 1692g(a)(1).   89. 15 U.S.C. §1692e provides:                   §1692e.   False or Misleading Representations  A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means  in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of  the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:  (2) The false representation of --  (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt;  (10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt  to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer;   91. FAMS violated §1692g(a)(1) by asserting flatly in Exhibits A & C, which were the  notices required by §1692g, that the Balance Owed on both the Adebo Debt and Philippe  Debt was a sum certain and failing to inform either of the Plaintiffs in its initial  communication with them that the Balance Owed on their respective debts would  increase due to interest and/or fees.    92. A least sophisticated consumer could read Exhibit A and Exhibit C and be misled into  believing that they could pay their debt in full by paying the “Balance Owed” listed on  the detachable payment coupon. In fact, however, if interest and/or fees are accumulating  on the debt, a consumer who pays the "Balanced Owed" stated on the notice and payment  coupon will not know whether the debt has been paid in full. FAMS could still seek the  interest and/or fees that accumulated after the initial notice was sent but before the  balance was paid. In Jonbu Tunji Adebo’s case, FAMS did in fact seek interest and/or  fees that had accumulated as evidenced by Exhibit B, which that shows a “Current  Balance” of $12,160.00, which is $697.00 higher than the “Balance Owed” listed in  Exhibit A. In Emmanuella Philipps’ case, FAMS did in fact seek interest and/or fees that  had accumulated as evidenced by Exhibit D, which that shows a “Current Balance” of  $4,571.00, which is $655.00 higher than the “Balance Owed” listed in Exhibit C.   94. Nondisclosure of the amount of the debt, where the debt will increase over the course of  the collection, is a well recognized violation. See, e.g., Miller v. McCalla, Raymer,  Patrick, Cobb, Nichols & Clark, LLC, 214 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2000).   95. Courts in this district and others have recognized that an initial communication validation  notice, like the one attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit C violates the FDCPA unless it  states the total amount due as of the date the letter is sent and discloses whether the  amount of the debt will increase because of interest or fees accruing on the unpaid  principal. See, e.g. Marucci v. Cawley & Bergmann, LLP, 2014 WL 7140496 (D.N.J.  Dec. 15, 2014); Smith v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuius, P.C., 2008 WL 2885887 (D.N.J.  July 23, 2008); Avila v. Riexinger & Associates, LLC, 817 F. 3d 72 (2d. Cir. 2016).   96. FAMS violated 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a) by failing to disclose in the letter attached as  Exhibit A, or within five days thereafter, the correct amount of the Adebo Debt as  required by 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a)(1). Exhibit B clearly shows that the amount listed in  Exhibit A was either not correct or in the alternative, that FAMS failed to disclose that  the amount of the Adebo Debt disclosed in Exhibit A would increase because of interest  and/or fees.    98. FAMS violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2)(A) because the letter attached as Exhibit A made a  false representation as to the amount of the Adebo Debt, misrepresented its character (as  fixed), and misrepresented its legal status (not disclosing that it was continuing to accrue  interest).    VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT  