13.  Plaintiff brings claims, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  (hereinafter “FRCP”) Rule 23, individually and on behalf of the following nationwide consumer  class (the “Class”):  • The class consists of all persons whom Defendant's records reflect were sent  a collection letter in substantially the same form letter as the letters sent to the  Plaintiff on or about November 21, 2017 and January 10, 2018 ; and (a) the  collection letter was sent to a consumer seeking payment of a personal debt  purportedly owed to the NEW YORK METHODIST HOSPITAL  (“Creditor”); and (b) the collection letters was not returned by the postal  service as undelivered; (c) and Plaintiff asserts that the letter contained  violations of the FDCPA.   • The Class period begins one year to the filing of this Action.   14.  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 was 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;  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 have  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 proceed to without remedy they will continue to  reap and retain the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains.  • 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.  15.  Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt (“the debt”).   16.  The debt was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is  therefore a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).   17.  The debt was incurred on a credit card.   18.  The debt was incurred on a credit card issued by Creditor.   19.  Sometime after the incurrence of the debt Plaintiff allegedly fell behind on  payments owed.   20.  Thereafter, at an exact time known only to Defendant, the debt was then assigned  or otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection.   21.  In its efforts to collect the debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter dated  November 21, 2017 (“Exhibit A.”)(Hereinafter referred to as “letter”).   22.  The letters states “This debt may be covered entirely or in part by your insurance  carrier (e.g. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Medicare/Medicaid, your union or other) – provided you are  qualified. If you feel that you may qualify, please complete the back portion of this letter and  return it in the enclosed return envelope. If you do not qualify please enclose your payment.”   23.  The letter then immediately goes on to provide the consumer dispute notice.   24.  The letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).  Count I & II  Violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g, 1692e   25.  Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered “1” through “24” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set  forth at length herein.    26.  15 U.S.C. § 1692g provides that within five days after the initial communication with a  consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the  information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send  the consumer a written notice containing certain enumerated information.   27.  One such request is that the debt collector provides Notice, which includes “a statement that  if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the  debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt  or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment  will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4).   28.  This Notice is an important statutory right which must be effectively and clearly conveyed  to the consumer.    29.  The Notice must be sufficiently prominent to be readily noticed. It cannot be overshadowed  by its placement, nor by other language or notices in the letter.    30.  Even if a debt collector conveys the required information, the debt collector nonetheless  violates the FDCPA if it conveys that information in a confusing or contradictory fashion so  as to cloud the required message with uncertainty.   31.  The question of whether a collection letter is deceptive is determined from the perspective  of the “least sophisticated consumer.”   32.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or misleading  representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   33.  A collection letter is deceptive under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e if it can reasonably be read by the  least sophisticated consumer to have two or more meanings, one of which is inaccurate.    34.  The letter states “This debt may be covered entirely or in part by your insurance carrier (e.g.  Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Medicare/Medicaid, your union or other) – provided you are  qualified. If you feel that you may qualify, please complete the back portion of this letter and  return it in the enclosed return envelope. If you do not qualify please enclose your payment.”    35.  Immediately after stating the language quoted in paragraph 34 of this Complaint, the letter  states “Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute  the validity of the debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume the debt is valid. If you  notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice that the debt, or any  portion thereof is disputed this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of  a judgment and mail you such judgment or verification.”   36.  Based upon the foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer could believe that they did not  have the right to dispute the debt without providing a reason.   37.  Based on the foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer can read this statement and  reasonably deduce that if they don’t believe they qualify for insurance, then they must pay.   38.  Based upon the foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer could believe that they only had  the options of filling out the form on the back portion of the letter or enclosing payment.    39.  Based upon the foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer would believe that the 30 day  validation language meant that the consumer only had 30 days to respond by filling out the  form or enclosing payments.   40.  Based upon the foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer could believe that the 30 day  language did not relate to the time in which they could dispute the debt.    41.  Based upon the foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer could believe that the validation  rights are affected by the language about having to enclose payment or fill out the insurance  forms.   42.  Based upon the foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer could believe that the validation  rights language is not separate from the language about enclosing payment or filling out the  insurance form.    43.  Based upon the foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer could believe that the validation  rights language is not separate from the language about enclosing payment or filling out the  insurance form, but rather the dispute language refers to disputing based on insurance  coverage and nothing more.   44.  Defendant failed to express in any way that the options in no way affected the consumer’s  validation rights.    45.  Because of this failure, Defendant overshadowed the validation rights.   46.  Defendant also used deceptive practices in the Assignment and Release Authorization  section on the back of the letter within the insurance form.   47.  Said section states in small font:   “I hereby assign any and all benefits that I may be  entitled, to the creditor indicated, on the reverse side of  this page, and authorize said benefits to be paid directly  to said creditor or to its agency or representative who  will be acting on their behalf. I understand further that  I am financially responsible to said creditor for all  charges not covered by this assignment. I further  authorize the release of any and all medical information  requested by my insurance company to process this  claim.”   48.  Within the above paragraph there is a very key term to signing the Authorization.  Specifically, that the consumer is agreeing to be financially responsible to said creditor for  all charges not covered by this assignment.    49.  The false pretenses to pursue medical coverage is just a ploy to have the debtor sign an  agreement making them immediately liable for the debt.   50.  The least sophisticated consumer would fill out the form expecting coverage from their  insurance company, but in reality, the consumer would be losing their right to dispute the  debt.   51.  This is deceptive and misleading because it leads the least sophisticated consumer to be  unaware of what they are agreeing to.   52.  The Authorizations also overshadows the consumer’s validation rights by taking away their  right to dispute the debt within the 30 days.   53.  By filling out the form and signing the Assignment and Release Authorization Section the  consumer would be losing said right.   54.  A collection letter is deceptive under §1692e if it is reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate  reading by the least sophisticated consumer.    55.  Defendant’s letter is in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(a) and 1692e(10) for overshadowing  the Plaintiff validation rights within the thirty day period, and for engaging in deceptive and  false practice 