10.  A simple statement that the debt was owed to TeleCheck, would have  sufficed to identify effectively the name of creditor to whom the debt was then owed.   Moreover, the placement of the current creditor information within the privacy notice  made it unlikely that anyone would see -- let alone understand it.    11.  Defendant’s collection actions complained of herein occurred within one  year of the date of this Complaint.     12.  Defendant’s collection communications are to be interpreted under the  “unsophisticated consumer” standard, see, Gammon v. GC Services, Ltd. Partnership,  27 F.3d 1254, 1257 (7th Cir. 1994).  13.  Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-12.   14.  Section 1692g of the FDCPA requires that, within 5 days of Defendant’s  first communication to a consumer, they had to provide Ms. Parker with an effective  validation notice, containing, among other disclosures, “(2) the name of the creditor to  whom the debt is owed;” see, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2).     15.  Defendant’s form collection letter violates § 1692g(a)(2) of the FDCPA  because it failed to identify effectively that TeleCheck was the current creditor to whom  the debt was owed.  See, Braatz v. Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, 2011  U.S.Dist.LEXIS 123118 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Walls v. United Collection Bureau, 2012  4  4   U.S.Dist.LEXIS 68079 (N.D. Ill. 2012); Deschaine v. National Enterprise Systems, 2013  U.S.Dist.LEXIS 31349 (N.D. Ill. 2013); and Pardo v. Allied Interstate, 2015  U.S.Dist.LEXIS 125526 (S.D. Ind. 2015).   16.  Defendant’s violation of § 1692g of the FDCPA renders it liable for  statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.  17.  Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-12.   18.  Section 1692g of the FDCPA requires that, within 5 days of Defendant’s  first communication to a consumer, the Defendant provide the consumer with an  effective validation notice, i.e., notice that the consumer has 30 days after receipt of the  notice to challenge the validity of the debt, or any portion of the debt, and seek  verification of it.     19.  Specifically, nowhere in Defendant’s initial collection letter to Ms. Parker  (Exhibit C) did it set forth the statutorily-required 30-day validation notice.  Moreover,  Defendant did not provide Ms. Parker with a 30-day validation notice within 5 days of  Defendant’s initial collection communication to Ms. Parker.  Accordingly, Defendant has  violated § 1692g of the FDCPA.     20.  Defendant’s violation of § 1692g of the FDCPA renders it liable for  statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.  21.  Plaintiff, Luana Parker, brings this action individually and as a class  action on behalf of all persons similarly situated in the State of Indiana from whom   5  5   Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt, via the same initial form  collection letter (Exhibit C), that Defendant sent to Plaintiff, from one year before the  date of this Complaint to the present.  This action seeks a finding that Defendant’s form  letter violates the FDCPA, and asks that the Court award damages as authorized by §  1692k(a)(2) of the FDCPA.   22.  Defendant TRS regularly engages in debt collection, using the same form  collection letter they sent Plaintiff Parker, in their attempts to collect delinquent  consumer debts from other consumers.   23.  The Class consists of more than 35 persons from whom Defendant TRS  attempted to collect delinquent consumer debts by sending other consumers the same  form collection letter they sent Plaintiff Parker.   24.  Plaintiff Parker’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class.  Common  questions of law or fact raised by this class action complaint affect all members of the  Class and predominate over any individual issues.  Common relief is therefore sought  on behalf of all members of the Class.  This class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.   25.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class  would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual  members of the Class, and a risk that any adjudications with respect to individual  members of the Class would, as a practical matter, either be dispositive of the interests  of other members of the Class not party to the adjudication, or substantially impair or  impede their ability to protect their interests.  Defendant has acted in a manner  applicable to the Class as a whole such that declaratory relief is warranted.  6  6    26.  Plaintiff Parker will fairly and adequately protect and represent the  interests of the Class.  The management of the class action proposed is not  extraordinarily difficult, and the factual and legal issues raised by this class action  complaint will not require extended contact with the members of the Class, because  Defendant’s conduct was perpetrated on all members of the Class and will be  established by common proof.  Moreover, Plaintiff Parker has retained counsel  experienced in class action litigation, including class actions brought under the FDCPA.  7.  Ms. Parker fell behind on paying her bills, including a debt she allegedly  owed to Goes Loving Care.  Defendant TRS sent Ms. Parker an initial form collection  letter, dated May 18, 2015, which stated that it was about: “Customer: Goes Loving  Care”.  The letter also stated that Ms. Parker should “See reverse side for important  information including the Federal Validation notice, and the enclosed Telecheck Privacy  Statement”.  A copy of Defendant’s letter is attached as Exhibit C.   8.  The “Federal Validation” notice is the information that is required by §  1692g of the FDCPA, i.e., that the consumer has 30 days to dispute the debt, the name  of the current creditor, etc., see, 15. U.S.C. § 1692g.     9.  The backside of Defendant’s letter did not contain a validation notice, but it   3  3   did state under the “Privacy Statement” that the “current creditor”, TeleCheck Services,  Inc., had certain policies.  Defendant’s letter failed to explain what the relationship or  difference was between the “Customer” and the “Current Creditor”, see, Exhibit C.   Violation Of § 1692g –  No Effective 30-Day Validation Notice   Violation Of § 1692g(a)(2)  Failure To Identify Effectively The Current Creditor  