12. Plaintiff brings claims, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “FRCP”)  Rule 23, individually and on behalf of the following consumer class (the “Class”):  • Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all persons  similarly situated in the State of New York from whom Defendant attempted to collect  a consumer debt using the same unlawful form letter herein, from one year before the  date of this Complaint to the present.   • The Class satisfies all the requirements of Rule 23 of the FRCP for maintaining a class  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 are hundreds and/or thousands of persons who have  received debt collection letters and/or notices from Defendant that violate specific  provisions of the FDCPA. Plaintiff is complaining of a standard form letter and/or  notice that is 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);  • 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 Defendant violated various provisions of the FDCPA;  b.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been injured by Defendant’s  conduct;  4  c.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class have sustained damages and are  entitled to restitution as a result of Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s conduct is allowed to proceed without remedy they  will continue to reap and retain the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains.  5  • Defendant has 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 repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered  “1” through “13” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length  herein.   15. Defendant 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.   16. Upon information and belief, within the last year Defendant commenced efforts to collect an  alleged consumer “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5), when it mailed a Collection Letter  to Plaintiff seeking to collect an unpaid balance allegedly originating with Cellco Partnership.   17. On or around December 4, 2017, Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter (the “Letter”). See  Exhibit A.   18. The Letter was sent or caused to be sent by persons employed by Defendant as a “debt  collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).   19. The Letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2).   20. The Letter states in pertinent part: “Amount of the debt as of the date of this letter: $2,210.22.”   21. As a result of the following Counts Defendant violated the FDCPA.  First Count  15 U.S.C. §1692e et seq.  False or Misleading Representations as to Status of Debt   22. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered  “1” through “21” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length  6  herein.   23. Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards Plaintiff violated various  provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.    24. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e, a debt collector is prohibited from using false, deceptive, or  misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt.    25. While § 1692e specifically prohibits certain practices, the list is non-exhaustive, and does not  preclude a claim of falsity or deception based on non-enumerated practice.    26. Collection notices are deceptive if they can be reasonably read to have two or more different  meanings, one of which is inaccurate.    27. The question of whether a collection letter is deceptive is determined from the perspective of  the “least sophisticated consumer.”    28. Defendant’s conduct constitutes a false, deceptive and misleading means and representation in  connection with the collection of the debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.    29. The Letter can reasonably be read by the least sophisticated consumer to have two or more  meanings concerning the actual balance due, one of which must be inaccurate, in violation of  15 U.S.C. § 1692e.    30. By stating a “Amount of the debt as of the date of this letter: $2,210.22” Defendant falsely  suggested that immediate payment of the balance would benefit Plaintiff by implying that the  Balance would be subject to change, and could be subject to additional interest.1   31. Plaintiff’s account was not subject to the accrual of interest.   32. In the alternative, Plaintiff’s account was subject to the accrual of interest, but Defendant’s  1  Islam, v. American Recovery Service Incorporated, 17-CV-4228 (BMC), 2017 WL 4990570, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct.  31, 2017). Holding that Avila compels the conclusion that any ambiguity as to post-dated accruals in a collection  notice gives rise to a claim under the general prohibition of § 1692e – even if the ambiguity does no harm or even  inures to the benefit of the debtor.   7  communication failed to adequately disclose same.   33. Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards Plaintiff violated various  provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to § 1692(e).   34. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant's conduct  violated Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. 