28. Defendants have been attempting to collect from plaintiff an alleged credit card debt incurred, if at all, for personal, family or household purposes and not for business purposes.  29. On or about January 7, 2015, FNCB, acting on behalf of LVNV, and at the direction of Resurgent, sent plaintiff the letter attached as Exhibit A.  30. Exhibit A is the first letter plaintiff received from defendants regarding the debt described therein.  31. On information and belief, based on its contents, Exhibit A was the first letter defendants sent to plaintiff regarding the debt described therein.  32. On January 7, 2015, more than four years had elapsed since the last payment or activity on the account which is the subject of Exhibit A. 33. FNCB and LVNV regularly seek to collect credit card bills.  34. The statute of limitations on a credit card debt in Texas is four years.  36. FNCB regularly sends letters in the form of Exhibit A on debts on which the statute of limitations has expired.  37. Exhibit A offers to settle the debt.  38. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-37.  39. Exhibit A implies that the alleged debt is legally enforceable by offering a settlement.  40. Nothing in Exhibit A disclosed that the debt was barred by the statute of limitations or not legally enforceable.  41. It is the policy and practice of FNCB and LVNV  to send and cause the sending of letters seeking to collect time-barred debts that do not disclose that the debt is time-barred.  42. The Federal Trade Commission has determined that “Most consumers do not know their legal rights with respect to collection of old debts past the statute of limitations . . . . When a collector tells a consumer that she owes money and demands payment, it may create the misleading impression that the collector can sue the consumer in court to collect that debt.” (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/01/asset.shtm)   43. In early 2012, the FTC entered into a consent decree with Asset Acceptance, one of the largest debt buyers in the United States, requiring that it disclose to consumers when it is attempting to collect debts that are barred by the statute of limitations. United States of America (For the Federal Trade Commission)  v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, Case No. 8:12-cv-182-T-27EAJ (M.D.Fla.).  45. The October 1, 2012 orders further require disclosure of “all material conditions, benefits and restrictions concerning any offer of settlement. . . .” (2012-CFPB-0002, p. 7 of 35, 2012-CFPB-0003,  p. 6 of 28). Thus, they recognize that “settlement offers” that fail to disclose material information may be misleading.  46. On January 30, 2013, the FTC issued its report, The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry, available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2013/01/ debtbuyingreport.pdf.  The report reaffirms its position in the United States of America v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182-T-27EAJ (M.D. Fla. 2012), American Express Centurion Bank (FDIC-12-315b, FDIC-12-316k, 2012-CFPB-0002), American Express Bank, FSB (2012-CFPB-0003) and American Express Travel Company, Inc. (2012-CFPB-0004) cases, that a defendant may violate the FDCPA by sending a collection letter demanding payment of a time barred debt without disclosing that the debt was time barred.  47. The report cites to a study (Timothy E. Goldsmith & Natalie Martin, Testing Materiality Under the Unfair Practices Acts: What Information Matters When Collecting Time- Barred Debts?, 64 Consumer Fin. L.Q. Rep. 372 (2010)) that establishes the disclosure that a debt is time barred in a debt collection letter is material to the consumer.   48. Courts have also held that the offer of a settlement on a time-barred debt is misleading. Buchanan v. Northland Group, Inc., 776 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2015) (pet. for rehearing en banc denied on March 13, 2015); McMahon v. LVNV, LLC, 744 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. 2014).  50. Section 1692e provides: § 1692e. False or misleading representations [Section 807 of 52. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of two classes, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).    53. Class A consists of (a) all individuals with Texas addresses (b) to whom First National Collection Bureau, Inc. (c) sent a letter offering a settlement of a debt (d) which debt was a credit card debt on which the last payment or activity had occurred more than four years prior to the letter, (e) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action.  55. On information and belief, each class is so numerous that joinder of all members is not practicable.  56. There are questions of law and fact common to the class members, which common questions predominate over any questions relating to individual class members.  The predominant common question is whether a letter offering a settlement violates the FDCPA when sent to collect a time-barred debt.  57. Plaintiff’s claim is typical of the claims of the class members.  All are based on the same factual and legal theories.  58. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the class members.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in class actions and FDCPA litigation.  § BUREAU, INC., a Nevada Corporation;  § LVNV FUNDING, LLC, a Delaware § Limited Liability Company;  §