10. Under 34 CFR §34.5, prior to initiating wage garnishment ofstudent loans. Pioneer is required to send anotice ofproposed garnishment, said notice to include an explanation ofthe debtor's rights, including, but not limited to, those rights found at 34 CFR §34.6. Those rights include the right to inspect and copy records related to the debt, to enter into av/ritten repayment agreement to repay the debt, and to demand ahearing in accordance with 34 C.F.R. 34.8 related to the debt.  12. In its "Administrative Wage Garnishment Proceedings Notice", Pioneer fails toprovide thenotice of rights under 34 CFR§34.6, as required by 34CFR§34.5.  13. Inthealternative, if the "Administrative Wage Garnishment Proceedings Notice" is not the final notice provided to consumers prior to initiating wage garnishment, itfalsely and deceptively implies thatit isinorder to create a false sense of urgency.  14. In describingthe wage garnishment process,LetterA states: This maybe yourlastopportunity to make satisfactory payment arrangements on your student loan(s). Ifthese arrangements are not made, we will begin or continue the process ofverifying your employment for Administrative Wage Garnishment...  15. Letter A, sent to Plaintiffon orabout April 1,2016, does not disclose to Plaintiffand Class Members that they can infact have at least two other methods three avoid a garnishment: request a loan rehabilitation; object tothe existence, amount orcurrent enforceability ofthe debt; orfile for bankruptcy and seek to discharge the debt with an undue hardship exemption.  16. Contrary to the statement in Letter A, Federal Law allows Plaintiffand Class Members to avoid awage garnishment by submitting arequest for aloan rehabilitation. Pending the evaluation ofthe loan rehabilitation, orduring the pendency ofthe loan rehabilitation. Pioneer is prohibited from initiating a wage garnishment.  18. Further, contrary to thestatement inLetter A, Federal Law allows Plaintiffand Class Members to avoid a wage garnishment byfiling a bankruptcy proceeding andseeking to dischargethe debt with an undue hardship exemption.  19. The debtthatDefendant sought to collect from Plaintiffwas originally incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19are herein incorporated.  21. Under Rule 23 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs bring this action for themselves and on behalfofa class initially defined as follows: All natural persons who are residents ofVirginia who are similarly situated to the Plaintiffin that,within oneyearof thecommencement of thisaction and continuing to the date that anorder isentered certifying this class. Pioneer sent them a letter in a form substantially similar or materially identical to Exhibit A.  22. The proposed Class isso numerous that joinder ofall members would be impracticable. Plaintiffdoes notknow the sizeof theclass, although this information is known bythe defendant and isreadily ascertainable indiscovery. Based upon information readily available concerning the defendant, the size ofits operation, and its specialization inthe collection of student loans. Plaintiffestimates and accordingly alleges thatthere are hundreds and, in all probability, thousands of individuals intheclass.  23. There is a community ofinterest among the members ofthe proposed Class in that there are questions oflaw and fact common to the proposed Class that predominate over questions affecting only individual members.  25. Plaintiffis represented bycounsel competent and experienced in both consumer protection specific to student loans, and class action litigation, and she has no conflicts with the members of the Class.  26. The common questions oflaw and fact predominate over any individual questions, inthat the letters are form letters, andanyindividual questions aresubordinate to the common questions ofwhether Pioneer violated the FDCPA by misrepresenting the class members' rehabilitation rights.  27. Aclass action issuperior toother methods for the fair and efficient adjudication ofthe controversy. Because the damages suffered by individual class members are relatively small compared to the expense and burden oflitigation, itwould be impractical and economically unfeasible for class members to seek redress individually. The prosecution ofseparate actions by the individual class members, even ifpossible or likely, would create a risk of inconsistent orvarying adjudications with respect tothe claims asserted by individual class members and could create incompatible standards ofconduct for the defendants. Moreover, because most class members are unaware oftheright tomake nine payments within ten months to qualify for rehabilitation, they are unlikely to bring an independent action, and aclass action is the only way that these violations can be rectified.  29. Paragraphs 1 through 28 are herein incorporated.  30. Pioneer violated the FDCPA by falsely representing that it was going to perform an Administrative Wage Garnishment, without first providing the notices required by34 CFR § 34.5 and 34.6. In the alternative, Pioneer falsely implied that the Administrative Wage Garnishment Proceedings Notice was theNotice of Proposed Garnishment required under 34CFR §34.5. Pioneer's violations include, but are not limited to,the following: A. Itfalsely represented a ithad the authority togarnish wages atthe time of the letter, ifpayment arrangements were not made atthat time, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, 1692e(4), 1692e(5)and 1692e(10). B. Itfalsely represented the character, amount orlegal status ofthe debts, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, 1692e(2)(A)and § 1692e(10).  32. Pioneer further violated the FDCPA byfalsely representing PlaintiffandClass Members can avoid a wage garnishment by entering into a repayment agreement, without further disclosing that Plaintiffand Class Members could also avoid a wage garnishment by filing for bankruptcy and seeking todischarge the debt with anundue hardship exemption. Pioneer's violations include, but are not limited to, the following: A. Itfalsely represented a that a wage garnishment could only be stopped by paying the loan in full orentering into awritten agreement with Pioneer, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692e(10). B. Itfalsely represented the character, amount orlegal status ofthe debts, in violation of 15U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692 e(2)(A) and 1692e(10).  33. Underl5 U.S.C. § 1692k, Pioneer is liable to thePlaintiffandtheClass Members to whom it sent the letter. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffseeks onbehalfofherselfand theclass members, class certification and statutory damages, actual damages, declaratory relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee, and costs, and such other reliefthe Court deems appropriate. 6. Plaintiff is a "consumer" as that term is defined by FDCPA § 1692a(3).  7. The Plaintiffwas a debtor with federal student loans that were placed into defaultstatus.  8. ThePlaintiffs federal student loans were "debts" as thatterm is defined bythe FDCPA.  9. The loans were assignedto Pioneerfor collectionpurposes.  Claims for Violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. 