- 2 -   12.  This Action is properly maintained as a statewide class action. The Class consists  of:   All New York consumers who were sent letters and/or notices from RFS,  attempting to collect a debt, which contain at least one the violations alleged  herein.   The Class period begins one year to the filing of this Action.   14.  Plaintiff is at all times to this lawsuit, a "consumer" as that term is defined by 15  U.S.C. §1692a(3).    15.  RFS collects and attempts 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.   16.   RFS is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).   17. On or about November 9, 2014, Plaintiff had his prescription filled at Duane Reade  Pharmacy.   18. On or about November 24, 2014, Plaintiff had a second prescription filled at Duane  Reade Pharmacy.   19. On the date each prescription was filled, Plaintiff was covered by Horizon Blue Cross  Blue Shield of New Jersey.  - 5 -   21. For some reason unknown to Plaintiff, Oxford paid the claim submitted by Duane  Reade Pharmacy, directed to Duane Reade Pharmacy.   22. At the time Oxford paid the claim submitted by Duane Reade Pharmacy, Oxford  knew or could have reasonable known that Plaintiff was not insured by Oxford.    23.  Sometime prior to February 6, 2015 Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial  obligation to Oxford.     24.  Sometime prior to February 6, 2015, the alleged Oxford obligation became due.   25.  Oxford is a "creditor" as defined by 15. U.S.C. §1692a(4).   26.  At sometime prior to February 6, 2015, Oxford, either directly or through  intermediate transactions assigned, placed with, transferred or the Oxford obligation to RFS for  the purpose of collection.   27.  At the time the Oxford obligation was assigned, placed with, transferred to RFS,  such obligation was overdue.   28.  On or about February 6, 2015, RFS caused to be delivered to Plaintiff a letter in  an attempt to collect the alleged Oxford obligation. A copy of said letter is annexed hereto as  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.   29.  The February 6, 2015 letter was sent or caused to be sent by persons employed by  RFS as a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).    30.  The February 6, 2015 letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C.  §1692a(2).   31.  The February 6, 2015 letter stated at the top in large bold face:  - 6 -  32.  The February 6, 2015 letter also states in the first paragraph, also in bold face:  "Since you were note eligible for prescription plan benefits on these fill dates, "Oxford is due  full reimbursement of the amounts paid."   33.  As of February 6, 2015, no court has determined that, Oxford is due full  reimbursement of the amounts paid.    34.  The February 6, 2015 letter provided instructions to follow in the event Plaintiff  disputed the alleged debt because he believed there was a billing error, and was coverage by  another health plan.    35.  Such instructions stated:   Method #1 - Contact the pharmacy that filled the prescription to correct the billing:   Notify your pharmacist of this billing error and request to have the claims reversed to  Oxford and billed to the insurance carrier that provided coverage on these dates of fill.   Obtain a printout from the pharmacy indicating the claims were reversed, and return this  with the payment stub below and write "billing corrected by pharmacy" on the payment  stub.  Method # 2- Make payment to Oxford using the payment stub below and submit the claims  to your new insurance carrier for reimbursement:   Contact your new insurance carrier that should have paid for these prescription claims  and obtain a member reimbursement prescription claim form.  Submit these claims to  your new carrier for reimbursement.   36.  The February 6, 2015 letter stated near the bottom and above the payment coupon  the following:  44.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 44 as if the  same were set forth at length.   45.  Collection letters and/or notices such as those sent by Defendant, are to be  evaluated by the objective standard of the hypothetical “least sophisticated consumer.”   46.  Section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA requires the debt collector to give what is  commonly referred to as a thirty-day (30) notice within five (5) days of its initial communication  with the consumer and send the consumer a written notice containing:  a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty   days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity   of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be   assumed to be valid by the debt collector.   47.  Upon reading the February 6, 2015 letter and the document included in the same  envelope, annexed hereto as Exhibit B, the least sophisticated consumer would be confused as to  what he must do to effectively dispute the alleged debt.   48.  The least sophisticated consumer, who wanted to dispute the alleged debt or any  portion thereof,  would be confused and unsure as to whether he should choose Method #1, as  stated in the letter February 6, 2015 letter, or Method #2, as also stated in the February 6, 2015  letter, or the instructions on the separate document also included in the same envelope as the  February 6, 2015 letter, or whether he was required to follow all 3 methods.   50.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 50 as if the  same were set forth at length.   51.  15 U.S.C. §1692e prohibits a debt collector from using "false, deceptive, or  misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt."    FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a)(3)   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. § 1692e et seq.  