18.  In or around December of 2007, a third party, CSGA, LLC obtained  a default judgment against Plaintiff.   19.  Between December of 2009 and July of 2013, Plaintiff received  multiple collection letters from four different creditors, each claiming at they  owned the judgment.     20.  In or around May 30, 2016 Plaintiff received a collection letter from  Defendant claiming that assignment of judgment has been transferred from CSGA,  LLC to Defendant.     21.  On or around June 28, 2016, Plaintiff sent a Cease & Desist Letter to  Defendant to stop contacting Plaintiff and to verify the alleged debt.     22.  On or around August 12, 2016 Defendant sent Plaintiff a Bill of Sale  and Assignment indicating that Defendant purchased the judgment and became  the assignee of the judgment on August 24, 2015 from third party DRS  Acquisitions, LLC. However, the Bill of Sale did not even identify Plaintiff’s  specific judgment.     23.  Instead, the Bill of Sale tracked the ownership of judgments from  December of 2007 to August of 2015. The Bill of Sale stated that the judgment  was originally recorded by CSGA, LLC in December of 2007 and then changed  ownership to these companies on the listed dates:  1) DRS Acquisitions, LLC on December 21, 2009;  2) LPI on January 10, 2010;  3) DRS, LLC on November 10, 2011;  4) DRS Acquisitions, LLC on July 11, 2013;  5) LVNV Funding, LLC on April 29, 2016; and,  6) Caddis Funding, LLC   57.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each allegation set forth above.   58.  Actions for relief under the unfair competition law may be based on  any business act or practice that is within the broad definition of the UCL.  Such  violations of the UCL occur as a result of unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business  acts and practices.  A plaintiff is required to provide evidence of a causal  connection between a defendants' business practices and the alleged harm--that is,  evidence that the defendants' conduct caused or was likely to cause substantial  injury. It is insufficient for a plaintiff to show merely that the Defendant’s conduct  created a risk of harm.  Furthermore, the "act or practice" aspect of the statutory  definition of unfair competition covers any single act of misconduct, as well as  ongoing misconduct.  75.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference, the preceding paragraphs of this  Complaint.   76.  Defendant’s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways, including  but not limited to:   (a)  Falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of  Plaintiff’s debt (§ 1692e(2)(A));    (b)  Using false representations and deceptive practices in connection  with collection of an alleged debt from Plaintiff (§ 1692e(10);   (c)  Using unfair or unconscionable means against Plaintiff in connection  with an attempt to collect a debt (§ 1692f));   (d)  Collecting an amount from Plaintiff that is not expressly authorized  by the agreement creating the debt (§ 1692f(1));  and,   (e)  Collecting an amount from Plaintiff that is not permitted by law (§  1692f(1)).   78.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference, the preceding paragraphs of this  Complaint.   79.  Pursuant to §1788.17 of the RFDCPA: “[n]otwithstanding any other  provision of this title, every debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a  consumer debt shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1692b to 1692j,  inclusive, of, and shall be subject to the remedies in Section 1692k of, Title 15 of  the United States Code. However, subsection (11) of Section 1692e and Section  1692g shall not apply to any person specified in paragraphs (A) and (B) of  subsection (6) of Section 1692a of Title 15 of the United States Code or that  person's principal. The references to federal codes in this section refer to those  codes as they read January 1, 2001.” Cal. Civ. Code §1788.17   80.  Thus by engaging in conduct prohibited by Sections e(2)(A), e(10), f,  and f(1) of the FDCPA, Defendant violated the RFDCPA.    81.  As a direct proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs and  the Class have suffered actual damages and other harm, thereby entitling them to  seek statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.00 each, actual damages and  reasonably incurred attorney’s fees and costs. Cal. Civ. Code §1788.30.   Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act  [On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Sub-Class]   Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act   (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)  [On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class]   Violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act  [On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class]  