10.  Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the following case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.  P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).   11.  The Class consists of:   a. all individuals with addresses in New York;  b. to whom Defendant sent a collection letter related to a consumer debt;  c. attributing “adjustments” to the consumer that do not reflect any activity on the  account which is attributable to the consumer, without disclosing that fact;  d. 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.   12.  The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of  Defendant and those companies and entities on whose behalf they attempt to collect and/or have  purchased debts.   14.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class, which common  issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue  is whether the Defendant’s written communications to consumers, in the forms attached as  Exhibit A, violates 15 U.S.C. § l692e. and § 1692g et seq.   15.  The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same  facts and legal theories. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  Plaintiff Class defined in this complaint. The Plaintiff has retained counsel with experience in  handling consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiff  nor her attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this  action.   17.  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  Class 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.  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.   20.  At a time better known to Defendant, an obligation was allegedly incurred to the  original creditor, HSBC Bank Nevada N.A. (hereinafter “HSBC”).   21.  Subsequently, upon information and belief, HSBC sold or transferred the debt to  Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (hereinafter “Capital One”).    22.  Capital One, upon information and belief, sold or transferred the defaulted debt to  Defendant for the purpose of debt collection on September 15, 2020. Therefore, Defendant is a  “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a(6).   23.  Upon information and belief, the original subject obligation arose out of credit card  transactions. The subject debt was incurred by Plaintiff solely for personal, household or family  purposes.   24.  The Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a(3).   25.  The subject obligation is consumer-related, and therefore a “debt” as defined by 15  U.S.C.§ 1692a(5).   27.  On or about February 23, 2021, Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter related to  the subject debt. (See “Letter” at Exhibit A.)   28.  In relevant part, towards the top of Defendant’s Letter, it states:  Total Amount of Debt Due at charge-off:   $6,191.42  Interest:   $0.00  Non-Interest Charges/Fees or Balance Adjustments:   $-0.04  Payments:  $0.00  Balance:  $6,191.38   29.  The Letter goes on to state: “This letter is in reference to the account listed above.  We purchased this account on 09/15/2020 and have recently been notified by CAPITAL ONE  BANK (USA) N.A. of a balance reduction on your account.”   30.  Defendant refers to the .04 balance reduction in the above list.    31.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiff did not make a payment to Defendant in the  amount of $0.04.   32.  Based on Defendant’s representations in the Letter, Defendant purchased the subject  debt more than five months before the date of this Letter.   33.  Plaintiff is not aware of any reason that Defendant reduced the balance to the subject  debt, especially several months after purchasing the defaulted debt.   34.  Defendant failed to provide any explanation for why a balance reduction was made  to her account.    35.  However, upon information and belief, Defendant did not sua sponte credit the  account for $0.04.    37.  No such notice was provided to Plaintiff describing the $0.04 amount other than that  which is provided in the Letter attached hereto as Exhibit A, which only characterizes the $0.04  amount as “Non-Interest Charges/Fees or Balance Adjustments.”   38.  Therefore, the nature of the $0.04 amount is unknown and its deduction from the  total amount due was in error.   39.  Thus, Defendant misstates the current balance on the account and the Letter is open  to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate.   40.  The characterization as “Non-Interest Charges/Fees or Balance Adjustments” is  deceptive and misleading.   41.  In fact, Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of attributing purported  “balance adjustments” to consumers that do not reflect any activity on the account which is  attributable to the consumer, without disclosing that fact.   42.  Defendant created and inserted numbers as “balance adjustments” which are not  attributable to the consumer.   43.  Regarding the subject incident, the implication of the $0.04 value is that it represents  actual activity on the account and is attributable to the consumer’s action or request.   44.  This is material because it goes to the amount of the debt, which is the most material  term in a collection letter. It is further material because it serves to undermine Defendant’s right  to collect this debt and casts a suspicious shadow over Defendant’s collection activities in  general, which affects the decision-making of Plaintiff.    46.  The fact that the amount sought by Defendant is less than the charge-off amount does  not exonerate Defendant of its obligation to provide clarity to Plaintiff about the nature of the  balance adjustment.    47.  The difference between the amount due and the charge-off amount is more than just  a technical defect. It goes to the essence of Defendant’s right to collect the debt.   48.  By failing to explain the nature of the balance adjustment, Defendant failed to  effectively provide notice of the amount of the debt to Plaintiff.    49.  The inclusion of “balance adjustments” which post-date any actual account activity  by the consumer, without disclosure of the material fact that the “balance adjustments” were not  a result of real consumer activity is deceptive.   50.  Defendant seeks to collect an amount that misrepresents the total amount of debt due,  in violation of 15 U.S. Code § 1692e and §1692g et seq.    51.  In result, Plaintiff incurred an informational injury as Defendant misstated and  mischaracterized the total amount of the debt.     52.  Congress is empowered to pass laws and is well-positioned to create laws that will  better society at large.   53.  As it relates to this case, Congress identified a concrete and particularized harm with  a close common-law analogue to the traditional tort of fraud.   54.  Now, consumers have a right to receive proper notice of the amount of debt due.  When a debt collector fails to effectively inform the consumer of the nature of a balance  adjustment, in violation of statutory law, the debt collector has harmed the consumer.   56.  These violations by Defendant were knowing, willful, negligent and/or intentional,  and Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violations.   57.  Plaintiff would have pursued a different course of action were it not for Defendant’s  statutory violations.   58.  As a result of Defendant’s deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices,  Plaintiff has been damaged.  59.  Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.   60.  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.   61.  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.   63.  By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment in that Defendant’s  conduct violated Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs  and attorneys’ fees.  64.  Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.   65.  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. § 1692g.   67.  Defendant violated §1692g:   a. As Defendant did not state the correct amount of the debt, in violation of §  1692g(a)(1);   68.  By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment in that Defendant’s  conduct violated Section 1692g 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.   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. §1692g et seq.  