10.  11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) excluded from bankruptcy discharge government  loans that became due more than five years prior to the bankruptcy petition, repayment of  which would not cause “undue hardship” on the debtor.     11.  Subsequent amendments, which lengthened and eventually eliminated the  five-year non-dischargeability time frame for loans by the federal government, have made  it has become increasingly difficult for debtors to ever attain discharges of those student  loan debts.     13.  That changed in 2005 following extensive lobbying by private education  lenders and debt collectors.  The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act Pub. L.  No. 109-8, § 220, 119 Stat. 23, 59 (2005) (hereinafter “BAPCPA”) expanded the definition  of non-dischargeable student debt to include “any other educational loan that is a qualified  education loan, as defined in section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”  11  U.S.C. §523(a) (8) (B).     14.  Section 221 (d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S. C.  §221(d)(1)) defines a qualified educational loan as one that is used to pay for “qualified  higher education expenses.”  In turn, a “qualified higher education expense” is one that is  used to pay for the cost of attendance at a qualified educational institution by an eligible  student.  26 U.S.C. §221(d)(2).     15.  Thus, BAPCPA made some private student loans dischargeable, but only  loans that were made for qualified higher education expenses at a qualified educational  institution for eligible students (“Qualified Education Loans”).   17.  To remove those burdens and expand their lending pool, lenders initiated  new programs that bypassed the qualified schools completely and instead lent money  directly to student borrowers.  By circumventing the schools private lenders significantly  increased the total amount of loans that they originated by lending money that exceeded  the scope of 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(8)(B).     18.  However, the increased ease of lending and total scope of originated loans  came at a price.  While the loans were much easier to originate (because they were not  required to meet the certification requirements imposed by 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(8)(B)) and  were potentially larger, they were no longer within the scope of non-dischargeability  under that statue.  Instead, these loans (“Consumer Education Loans”) were simply  unsecured consumer debts (like student credit card debt) and thus were discharged  automatically upon entry of a discharge injunction.    Application Of 523(a)(8) Relies On Creditor Good Faith   19.  Prior to the 2005 amendment, section 523(a)(8) was easy to apply because  essentially all student loans were made by the federal government under the guidelines for  non-dischargeability.  Thus, if a student loan was issued or guaranteed by the federal  government, it was non-dischargeable absent a showing of “undue hardship.”  This fueled  the belief that all student loans are non-dischargeable.     21.  This situation created an opportunity for unscrupulous creditors to exploit  the application of section 523(a)(8) and to deceive debtors into thinking that all private  student loans, like their federal cousins, were excepted from discharge when some were  not.        22.  When a debtor files a bankruptcy petition, the debtor includes all unsecured  debts on a Schedule F form, listing only the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor,  and the consideration received.  After demonstrating compliance with the Bankruptcy  Code, a court then issues an order discharging all pre-petition debts listed on the bankruptcy  petition except for those listed in section 523(a).  Importantly, the discharge order does not  specifically state which loans, if any, are presumptively excepted from discharge.  Rather,  it states only that the order does not discharge some debts, including “debts for most student  loans.”  Lenders Used The Presumption Of Non-Dischargeability To Mislead Student  Borrowers   23.  Not content with the protections won from Congress in 2005, commercial  lenders devised a scheme to manipulate the widespread belief of non-dischargeability and  deceive debtors and the bankruptcy courts into thinking that all private student loans, both  qualified and non-qualified, both accredited and unaccredited, were excepted from  discharge.     25.  Thus, a law that was originally designed to prevent students from taking  advantage of the bankruptcy system by borrowing and then discharging debt that was  incurred in attending an accredited school, instead enabled unscrupulous creditors to  defraud vulnerable and unsophisticated student borrowers.     27.  Thus, lenders were aware of the confusion that could exist even for  sophisticated parties with regard to the dischargeability of private student loans and made  affirmative disclosures in that area, but made no such disclosures to debtors who were  being pursued in an attempt to collect discharged debt.    Plaintiff DiDonato’s Loans Were Unsecured Loans That Were Discharged In  Bankruptcy   28.  From 2001-2008, DiDonato was a medical student at Temple University.   29.  DiDonato received scholarships and federal loans to cover his full  “Cost of  Attendance” at Temple University.     30.  In addition, DiDonato borrowed several Tuition Answer Loans from Sallie  Mae totaling more than $50,000 during the 2006-2007 academic year (“the Debts” or  “Plaintiff’s Consumer Education Loans”).    31.  These Tuition Answer Loans were not made solely for the “cost of  attendance” and accordingly were not “qualified education loans” as that term is defined  in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B).    32.  In December 2018, DiDonato sought relief under Title 11 in this Court.   34.  In April 2019, this Court ordered discharge of all Plaintiff’s properly  scheduled pre-petition debt.     35.  Navient was duly notified of the discharge of all of Plaintiff’s pre-petition  debts.   36.  However, instead of treating the Debts as discharged Navient thereafter  engaged the services of Defendants to attempt to collect on these discharged Debts in  violation of federal law     37.  On June 13, 2019 Defendant GS Services Limited Partnership sought to  collect on the discharged debts by sending a dunning letter offering to settle the outstanding  balance of $197,514 for $13,718.   38.  On January 6, 2020, Defendant Financial Asset Management Systems. Inc.  sought to collect on the discharge debts by sending a dunning letter offering to settle the  outstanding balance of $197,514 for $12,804.    39.  These letters were in violation of the FDCPA because they were a  misrepresentation of the legal status and character of the debt and were attempts to collect  debts that were legally prohibited from being collected.      40.  These letters were false and misleading in that they stated that the debt was  due and owing when in fact it was discharged in bankruptcy.   All Class Members Share A Similar Narrative.   41.  All Class Members share a similar factual narrative.     43.  All Class Members filed for bankruptcy protection in various district courts  of the United States.     44.  At the conclusion of these bankruptcy cases, all Class Members were issued  discharge orders.     45.  These Discharge Orders extinguished all education-related debt that was not  excepted from discharge by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).     46.  Notwithstanding the discharge of these debts, Defendants employed  processes, practices and acts designed to mislead Class Members into believing that their  debts were not discharged and inducing them to make payments on the extinguished debts.   47.  Defendants have misled Class Members and sought to collect on discharged  debts through various means, including but not restricted to, the use of dunning letters,  emails and phone calls demanding repayment.    V.  48.  Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, as  a representative of the following class:     50.  Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definition of the class and/or add  subclasses to include or exclude members.      51.  As described below, this action satisfies the numerosity, commonality,  typicality, superiority, predominance, and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule  23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  A. Numerosity   52.  The persons in the class of plaintiffs are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.  In the interest of judicial economy, this dispute should be  resolved through class action.   54.  Upon information and belief, the individual members of the class of  plaintiffs, or at least a large portion thereof, lack the means to pursue these claims  individually and severally.    B. Commonality   55.  There are common questions of law/fact affecting the entirety of the class.   Specifically, predominant common questions include without limitation:  (i) whether the  Class Members’ loans were discharged at the conclusion of their bankruptcy cases; and (ii)  whether Defendants violated the FDCPA by seeking to collect on discharged private  education debt.    56.  Answers to these common questions will drive the resolution of the injuries  shared by each member of the class.  C. Typicality   57.  Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are representative of those of all Class  Members.  Specifically, DiDonato’s Loans are identical in nature to the Class Members’  discharged loans on which Defendants attempted collection.    D. Predominance and Superiority   59.  This action should be maintained as a class action because the prosecution  of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent  or varying adjudications for individual members which would establish conflicting  standards of conduct for the parties opposing the Class.  Such identical actions would also,  as well as a practical matter, be dispositive of interests of other members not parties to the  adjudications and would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their  interests.   60.  Defendants have acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to  the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunction relief or corresponding declaratory  relief with respect to the Class as a whole.   61.  A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy. Management of the Class claims is likely to present significantly fewer  difficulties than those presented in many individual claims. The identities of the Class  members may be obtained from Defendants’ records.  E. Adequacy of Representation   9.  In 1978, Congress enacted section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code to  prohibit the discharge of federal student loans during the first five years of repayment  (unless payment would constitute an undue hardship) to address a growing concern that  students were taking advantage of the Bankruptcy Code by incurring extensive student loan  debt and then declaring bankruptcy soon after graduation.     Section 523(a)(8) Of The Bankruptcy Code.  