10. In the year prior to the filing of this Complaint, on or about June 20, 2016, Defendant  called Plaintiffs and used a pre-recorded message which stated:  If the individual that has answered this phone call is (blank) our law office needs  to speak with you with regards to a rather concerning legal matter.  Please press  one to be connected to a staff member for assistance.  Thank you.   11. Plaintiff John Waldrop had answered the phone call and pressed one as directed in the  message.   13. Plaintiff John Waldrop declined to accept the deal immediately but said he needed to  speak with his wife, Plaintiff Shannon Waldrop, about the account before agreeing to any  repayment.   14. The call described above was the first communication between Defendant and Plaintiff  John Waldrop.   15. The call described above ended without Defendant ever informing Plaintiff John Waldrop  that Defendant was a debt collector or that the call was an attempt to collect a debt or that  any information obtained from Plaintiff John Waldrop would be used for the purpose of  debt collection.   16. Plaintiff John Waldrop called back to Defendant later in the day on June 20, 2016.   17. In the second June 20, 2016 call, Defendant offered to email Plaintiffs a letter regarding  the account.   18. In the second June 20, 2016 call, Defendant again failed to inform Plaintiff John Waldrop  that Defendant was a debt collector or that the call was an attempt to collect a debt or that  any information obtained from Plaintiff John Waldrop would be used for the purpose of  debt collection.   19. Shortly after the second June 20, 2016 call, Defendant provided Plaintiffs with the letter  discussed in the second call.  This letter was an effort to collect from Plaintiffs an alleged  obligation asserted to be owed or due a creditor other than Defendant.   20. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.   22. The June 20, 2016 letter falsely referred to the account as a “judgment” twice in the first  paragraph, although Plaintiff Shannon Waldrop’s account had not been reduced to a  judgment.   23. The June 20, 2016 letter memorialized the previous oral offer to settle the account if  payment was received “no later than 6/30/2016.”   24. Defendant communicated with both Plaintiffs on the phone over the remainder of the day  and over the next couple of days.  There were four or more communications total    25. Defendant failed to inform Plaintiffs that Defendant was a debt collector in all of its  communications with Plaintiffs.   27. By offering to setting a deadline to settle the account less than 30 days from the first  communication with Plaintiff, Defendant overshadowed Plaintiffs’ right to dispute the  debt as described in paragraph 26 above.   28. Upon information and belief, Defendant attempts to collect defaulted debts from many  consumers residing in Arizona and, as a matter of pattern and practice, does not provide  the disclosures described in paragraph 23 above in any communication with any  consumer residing in Arizona.   29. Upon information and belief, Defendant attempts to collect defaulted debts from many  consumers residing in Arizona and, as a matter of pattern and practice, overshadows one  or more of the consumers’ rights outlined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692g by creating deadlines for  the consumers to settle the accounts for less than the full amount owed on the accounts  within the time allowed for Plaintiff’s to exercise their 1692g rights.   30. Upon information and belief, Defendant attempts to collect defaulted debts from many  consumers residing in Arizona and, as a matter of pattern and practice, does not inform  them in the first communication that the communication is from a debt collector, that the  communication is an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be  used for the purpose of debt collection.   31. Upon information and belief, Defendant attempts to collect defaulted debts from many  consumers residing in Arizona and, as a matter of pattern and practice, does not inform  them in communications subsequent to the first communication that it is a debt collector.   34. Excluded from the Class are Defendant, the officers and directors of the Defendant,  members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or  assigns, and any entity in which Defendant has or had a controlling interest.   35. The proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  The  exact number of class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time and can only be  ascertained through appropriate discovery.  The proposed Class is ascertainable in that  the names address of all members of the Class can be identified in business records  maintained by Defendant.   37. Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced and competent in class action litigation.   38. 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.   39. Issues of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any  questions that may affect only individual members, in that Defendant has acted on  grounds generally applicable to the entire Class.  Among the issues of law and fact  common to the Class are:  a. Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA as alleged herein;  b. Defendant’s conduct particular to the matters at issue was identical;  c. The availability of statutory penalties; and   d. The availability of attorneys’ fees and costs.  40. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained above.   42. In its initial communication with Plaintiffs, Defendant failed to inform Plaintiffs that  Defendant was attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be  used for that purpose.   43. In other communications with Plaintiffs subsequent to the first communication,  Defendant failed to disclose that the communication was from a debt collector.   44. As such, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(11).  45. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained above.   47. Defendant communicated with Plaintiffs multiple times, by phone and by letter, yet never  provided the notices required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g as described above.   48. Further, on June 20, 2016, Defendant communicated with Plaintiffs for the first time and  communicated to Plaintiffs a deadline of June 30, 2016 to settle the account for less that  the full balance of the account, thereby overshadowing Plaintiffs’ 15 U.S.C. § 1692g  rights.   50. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained above.   51. 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2) provides:  A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading  representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without  limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a  violation of this section:  ***  (2) The false representation of—  (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt;   52. Defendant’s June 20, 2016 letter communicated to Plaintiff multiple times that the  Account had been reduced to a “judgment.”  This was a false statement and amounts to a  false representation of the legal status of the debt.   53. As such, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e.  VIOLATION OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT,  15 U.S.C. 1692g   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT,  15 U.S.C. 1692e(11)   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT,  15 U.S.C. 1692g  