13. The Account allegedly went into default with the original creditor prior to the filing of this  Complaint.   14. After the Account allegedly went into default, the Account was sold to or otherwise  transferred to Atlantic for collection.   15. Diverse then transferred the account to Atlantic for collection.   16. The Account constitutes a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5) and is a  “consumer debt” as that term is defined by Tex. Fin. Code § 392.001(2).   17. Plaintiff disputes the amount Atlantic was attempting to collect on the Account.   18. Plaintiff requests that Atlantic cease all further communication on the Account.   19. Atlantic’s collector(s) were employee(s) of Atlantic at all times mentioned herein.   20. Atlantic acted at all times mentioned herein through its employee(s).   21. During the one year prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint, Atlantic and/or  representative(s), employee(s) and/or agent(s) of Atlantic made telephone calls to Plaintiff to  collect the Account.   22. On January 7, 2021, Atlantic attempted collections by sending Plaintiff a text message that  stated:  This text is from ARS.  Leon Gomez we have documentation in our office that  requires your immediate attention.  We need to speak to you, or your attorney  today regarding your paperwork received.  Any questions or concerns, please call  the office directly at 480-608-9011 and refer to Case# 2316489 while calling  back.   24. On January 12, 2021, Atlantic attempted collections by again sending Plaintiff a text message  that stated:  This text is from ARS.  Leon Gomez we have documentation in our office that  requires your immediate attention.  We need to speak to you, or your attorney  today regarding your paperwork received.  Any questions or concerns, please call  the office directly at 346-396-2752 and refer to Case# 2316489 while calling  back.   25. Atlantic used the language in the text messages transcribed above, specifically the language  “documentation in our office” and “We need to speak to you or your attorney today  regarding your paperwork received” and “case#” for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to  believe that Atlantic would pursue legal action against Plaintiff if the account was not paid.   26. The language used by Atlantic in the voicemails transcribed above would cause the least  sophisticated consumer to believe that Atlantic intended to sue Plaintiff on the account if the  account was not paid.   27. Atlantic did not have the present intention of suing Plaintiff on the Account at the time the  text messages transcribed above were sent for Plaintiff.   28. Further, the use of the word today in the context it was used, was used purposefully by  Atlantic to create a false sense of urgency and to cause Plaintiff to believe that Atlantic  would sue Plaintiff on the account if the account was not paid immediately.   29. The information communicated to Plaintiff by Atlantic was false, deceptive and misleading.   31. Atlantic told Plaintiff the above-described false information in order to trick, deceive and  manipulate Plaintiff into transmitting money to Atlantic.   32. Atlantic did not inform Plaintiff in the text messages transcribed above that Atlantic was a  debt collector or that Atlantic was attempting to collect a debt or that any information  obtained by Atlantic would be used for the purpose of debt collection.   33. In the text messages transcribed above, Atlantic failed to inform Plaintiff of Plaintiff’s right  to dispute the debt and/or request validation of the debt.   34. In all of the text messages transcribed above, Atlantic failed to provide Plaintiff with  meaningful disclosures of its identity.   35. Atlantic’s purpose for the text messages transcribed above was to attempt to collect the  Account.   36. The text messages each individually conveyed information regarding the Account directly or  indirectly to Plaintiff.   37. The text messages each individually constituted a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C §  1692a(2).   38. The only reason that Atlantic and/or representative(s), employee(s) and/or agent(s) of  Atlantic sent text messages to Plaintiff was to attempt to collect the Account.   39. All of the act(s) and omission(s) by Atlantic and/or its employees and/or agents alleged in the  preceding paragraphs were done knowingly and willfully by Atlantic.   41. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on  behalf of a Class of individuals consisting of all persons located in the State of Texas who,  within the one year prior to the filing of this complaint, were contacted by Atlantic in an  attempt to collect any purported debt of the person contacted and where the debt in question  was incurred primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and where the consumer  received a text message from Atlantic that was the same as, or substantially the same as, one  of the three text messages transcribed above, and/or where Atlantic failed to provide  disclosure to any consumer within five days of the first communication with the consumer of  the consumer’s right to dispute or request validation of the debt in question.   42. Excluded from the Class are Atlantic, all other defendants named herein, the officers and  directors of Atlantic, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives,  heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Atlantic has or had a controlling  interest.   43. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  The exact number of  class members of the Class is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained  through appropriate discovery.  The Class is ascertainable in that the names and address of all  members of the Class can be identified in business records maintained by Atlantic.   45. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced and competent in class action litigation.   46. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication  of this controversy, since joinder of all members is impracticable.  Furthermore, as the  damages suffered by individual members of the Class may be relatively small, the expense  and burden of individual litigation make it impossible for the members of the Class to  individually redress the wrongs done to them.  There will be no difficulty in the management  of this action as a class action.   47. Issues of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions  that may affect only individual members, in that Atlantic has acted on grounds generally  applicable to the entire Class.  Among the issues of law and fact common to the Class are:  a.  Atlantic’s violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. as alleged herein;  b.  Atlantic’s conduct particular to the matters at issue was identical or substantially  similar; and  c.  The availability of statutory penalties.  59. The previous paragraphs are incorporated into this Count as if set forth in full.   60. The act(s) and omission(s) of Atlantic and its representative(s), employee(s) and/or agent(s)  violated 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6) and §1692e(2)&(3)&(5)&(8)&(10)&(11)&(14) and §  1692g(a).   61. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k Plaintiff seeks damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs  from Atlantic.  63. The act(s) and omission(s) of Atlantic and its representative(s), employee(s) and/or agent(s)  violated Tex. Fin. Code §392.304(a)(1)&(4)&(5)&(8)&(14)&(16)&(17)&(19).   64. Pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code § 392.403, Plaintiff seeks damages, reasonable attorney’s fees  and costs from Atlantic.   65. Pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code § 392.403, Plaintiff seeks an injunction against Atlantic enjoining  it from future violations of the Texas Finance Code as described herein.  66. In the alternative, without waiving any of the other causes of action herein, without waiving  any procedural, contractual, statutory, or common-law right, and incorporating all other  allegations herein to the extent they are not inconsistent with the cause of action pled here,  Atlantic is liable to Plaintiff for invading Plaintiff’s privacy (intrusion on seclusion).    Atlantic intentionally intruded on Plaintiff’s solitude, seclusion, or private affairs, and such  intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.   67. Plaintiff suffered actual damages from Atlantic as a result of Atlantic’s intrusion.  68. The previous paragraphs are incorporated into this Count as if set forth in full.   69. The act(s) and omission(s) of Atlantic and its representative(s), employee(s) and/or agent(s)  in violation of Tex. Fin. Code §392.304(a)(1)&(4)&(5)&(8)&(14)&(16)&(17)& (19) are  imputed to Travelers pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code § 392.102.   BY ATLANTIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC   BY ATLANTIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC   BY ATLANTIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC   CLASS ONE – FDCPA CLASS   TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA  FOR LIABILITY OF ATLANTIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC  