10.  That the said letter violates the FDCPA, including but not limited to  § 1692g(a)(2), in that the letter does not clearly identify the creditor to whom the debt is  owed.   11.  That the letter's caption makes reference to the Law Office of Mel  Harris, giving the consumer the impression that the account is owned by Mel Harris.   12.  That Chase Bank USA, N.A. is referred to only as the original  creditor, not the current creditor or simply the creditor, which gives the consumer the  impression that Chase once owned the debt but as of the mailing of the letter, Chase no  longer does so.   13.  That, further, defendant's name is Zenith Acquisition Corp. and the  letter directs plaintiff to make checks or money orders payable to defendant, thereby  leading to the reasonable inference that defendant actually now owns the debt, having  acquired it previously.   14.  That neither plaintiff nor the least sophisticated consumer would  know, by reading the letter, who is the current creditor of the debt sought to be collected.   15.  That, on a fair reading of the letter, the current creditor could be a)  Law Office of Mel Harris; b) Chase Bank USA, N.A.; or c) defendant itself.   16.  That, as a result of defendant's said insufficient identification of the  creditor to whom the debt is owed, defendant is, further, in violation of the FDCPA,  §§1692e and 1692e(10) in that defendant's said letter constitutes a deceptive and  misleading means to attempt to collect a debt.  17.  That plaintiff re-a lieges paragraphs 1 to 16 as if fully re-stated   18.  That each of the deceptive and misleading acts and practices  above-mentioned was committed by defendant in the conduct of a business, trade or  commerce or the furnishing of a service in New York State and constitutes a violation of  23.  That plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-22 as if fully re-stated herein.   24.  That this action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and the members of  a class. The class consists of all persons who defendant's records reflect resided in the  United States and who were sent a collection letter (a) bearing the defendant's  letterhead in substantially the same form as the letter sent to plaintiff; (b) the collection  letter was sent to a consumer seeking payment of an alleged consumer debt; (c) the  collection letter was not returned by the postal service as undelivered; and (d) the letter  contained violations of 15 U.S.C. §§1692e, 1692e(10) and 1692g(a)(2).  The Class shall be defined as follows: All natural persons  to whom were sent by defendant at an address within the  United States a notice for the collection of a consumer debt,  which notice contains the statement, in sum or substance:  "Re: LMH001-Law Office of Mel Harris ... Original Creditor: Chase  Bank USA NA. .. Your CHASE BANK USA NA account has been listed  with our office for collection ... make your check or money order payable  to Zenith Acquisition Corporation."  The class does not include defendant and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other  entity related to or affiliated with defendant, including, without limitation, persons who  are officers, directors, employees, associates or partners of defendant.   25.  That pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a class action  is appropriate and preferable in this case because:  (A)  Based on the fact that the collection letter that is the gravamen of  this litigation is a mass-mailed form letter, the class is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, thousands of persons have  received similar debt collection letters from defendant which violate the various  provisions of the FDCPA.  (B)  There are questions of law and fact common to the class and these  questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The  principal question presented by this claim is whether defendant violated the FDCPA by  sending collection letters with an insufficient identification of the name of the creditor to  whom the debt is owed, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§1692e, 1692e(10) and 1692g(a)(2).  (C)  The only individual issue is the identification of the consumers who  received the letters (the class members), a matter capable of ministerial determination  from the records of defendant.  (D)  The claims of plaintiff are typical of those of the class members. All  are based on the same facts and legal theories.  (E)  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the class members'  interests. Plaintiff has retained experienced counsel. Plaintiff's interests are consistent  with those of the members of the class.   26.  That a class action is superior for the fair and efficient adjudication  of the class members' claims. Congress specifically envisions class actions as a  principal means of enforcing the FDCPA in 15 U.S.C. §1692k. The members of the class  are generally unsophisticated individuals, whose rights will not be vindicated in the  absence of a class action. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the  class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications resulting in the  establishment of incompatible or varying standards of conduct for defendant and would  not be in the interest of judicial economy.   27.  That if the facts are discovered to be appropriate, plaintiff will seek  to certify a class action pursuant to rule 23(b)(1)(A) or 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure.   28.  That communications from debt collectors, such as those sent by  defendant, are to be evaluated by the objective standard of the hypothetical "least  sophisticated consumer".   29.  That as a result of the above violations, defendant is liable to  plaintiff and the members of the class for statutory damages in an amount to be  determined at the time of trial, plus costs and attorneys' fees.  WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment be entered  against defendant as follows:  (a)  certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure, Rule 23;  (b)  statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k in an amount to  be determined at the time of trial;  (c)  awarding class members the maximum statutory damages  pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k;  (d)  statutory damages pursuant to NYGBL §349 in an amount to be  determined at the time of trial;  (e)  enjoining defendant from committing further deceptive acts and  practices against plaintiff pursuant to NYGBL §349;  (f)  reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements pursuant to 15  U.S.C. §1692k and NYGBL §349(h); and  (g)  for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.  5.  That plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 to 4 as if fully re-stated herein.   6.  That at a time within the knowledge of defendant, defendant began  collecting a consumer debt allegedly incurred by plaintiff for personal purposes.   7.  That, on information and belief, sometime in early 2011, defendant  wrote to plaintiff in an attempt to collect said debt. Said letter was defendant's first  written communication with plaintiff.   8.  That said letter states in its caption, in pertinent part,:  ''Re: LMH001-LAW OFFICE OF MEL HARRIS ... Original Creditor: Chase  Bank USA NA. .. Your CHASE BANK USA NA account has been listed  with our office for collection ... make your check or money order payable  to Zenith Acquisition Corporation."  Defendant sent no other letter to plaintiff within 5 days after the said letter.  9.  That plaintiff re-a lieges paragraphs 1 to 8 as if fully re-stated herein.   FDCPA§§1692e, 1692e(10) and 1692g(a)(2)   NYGBL§349  