11.  Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of the following case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.  P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).   12.  The Class consists of:   a. all individuals with addresses in the State of Texas;  b. to whom Defendant Capital sent a collection letter attempting to collect a  consumer debt;  c. that uses the term “satisfy in full;”  d. for a discounted settlement offer;  e. which letter was sent on or after a date one (1) year prior to the filing of this  action and on or before a date twenty-one (2l) days after the filing of this action.   13.  The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of  Defendants and those companies and entities on whose behalf they attempt to collect and/or  have purchased debts.   14.  Excluded from the Plaintiff Classes are the Defendants and all officer, members,  partners, managers, directors and employees of the Defendants and their respective immediate  families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their immediate  families.    15.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Classes, which common  issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue  is whether the Defendant's collection actions such as the referenced letters attached as Exhibit  A violate 15 U.S.C. § l692e.   16.  The Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same  facts and legal theories. The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  Plaintiff Classes defined in this complaint. The Plaintiffs have retained counsel with experience  in handling consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiffs  nor their attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this  action.   17.  This action has been brought, and may properly be maintained, as a class action  pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because there is a  well-defined community interest in the litigation:  a. Numerosity: The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,  that the Plaintiff Classes defined above are so numerous that joinder of all  members would be impractical.  b. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist as  to all members of the Plaintiff Classes and those questions predominance over  any questions or issues involving only individual class members. The principal  issue is whether the Defendant’s communications to consumers, in the forms  attached as Exhibit A violate 15 U.S.C. §l692e.  c. Typicality: The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members.  The Plaintiffs and all members of the Plaintiff Classes have claims arising out of  the Defendants' common uniform course of conduct complained of herein.  d. Adequacy: The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  class members insofar as Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to the absent  class members. The Plaintiffs are committed to vigorously litigating this matter.  Plaintiffs have also retained counsel experienced in handling consumer lawsuits,  complex legal issues, and class actions. Neither the Plaintiffs nor their counsel  have any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue the instant  class action lawsuit.  e. Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available means for the fair  and efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual joinder of all  members would be impracticable. Class action treatment will permit a large  number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single  forum efficiently and without unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that  individual actions would engender.   18.  Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  is also appropriate in that the questions of law and fact common to members of the Plaintiff  Classes predominate over any questions affecting an individual member, and a class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.   19.  Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiffs may, at  the time of class certification motion, seek to certify a class(es) only as to particular issues  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).  20.  Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length  herein.   21.  On a date better known to the original creditor Fitness In Training (formerly world  gym), the Plaintiff incurred an obligation.   22.  The Fitness In Training (formerly world gym). obligation arose out of transactions  in which money, property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, are  primarily for personal, family or household purposes.   23.  The Fitness In Training (formerly world gym) obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15  U.S.C. §1692a (5).   24.  Fitness In Training (formerly world gym) is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C.§  1692a(4).   25.  Fitness In Training (formerly world gym) contracted the Defendant Capital to collect  the alleged debt.   26.  Defendants collect and attempt 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.  Violation I –June 3, 2019 Collection Letter   27.  On or around June 3, 2019 Defendant Capital sent the Plaintiff a collection letter (the  “Letter”) regarding the alleged debt owed to Fitness In Training (formerly world gym). A true  and correct copy of the Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   28.  The letter states: “We are pleased to offer the above-listed satisfy-in-full offer on  behalf of our client, Fitness In Training (formerly world gym).  This offer is good for 10 days  from the date of this letter. We are not obligated to renew this offer.  By clearing up this  delinquent obligation, we will request that the 3 national credit bureaus update the tradeline  associated with your account to reflect this payment activity.”   29.  By describing the effect of a discounted payment as “satisfy in full,” the letter  falsely and deceptively states two contradictory terms, one of which is false.  Either (1) the  account is paid in full, or (2) the account was settled for a discount at less than full.    30.  By using both the term “satisfy,” which means payment less than full and the term  “in full,” which means paid in full, the letter is contradictory and materially misleading to the  consumer who would be unable to ascertain the true effects of making the payment requested  in the letter.      31.  These contradictory terms are also deceptive and confusing to the Plaintiff as to  what exactly will be reported on the Plaintiff’s credit report.   32.  It is unclear if the balance will reflect zero, and further if it will state it was “paid in  full”, or “settled for less than full balance.”   33.  Under the FDCPA, a collection letter is materially misleading if it is open to more  than one interpretation, one of which is false.    34.  Plaintiff sustained an informational injury as she was unable to ascertain whether  acceptance of the settlement amount would actually satisfy his account.   35.  As a result of Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices,  Plaintiff has been damaged.  36.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully state herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length  herein.     37.  Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff  violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.   38.   Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive or  misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   39.   Defendant violated said section  a.  by omitting material information creating a false and misleading representation of  the status of the debt in violation of §1692e(10); and  b.  by falsely representing the character, amount or legal status of the debt in violation  of §1692e(2)(A);   40.   By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant’s  conduct violated Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages,  costs and attorneys’ fees.  VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT  15 U.S.C. § 1692e et seq.  