10. As a follow up to the January 13th phone call, on January 14, 2016 FCS sent Mr. Munger a form based letter demanding payment on the Chase account in the total amount of $11,945.93.  11. Any payment Mr, Munger made to Chase Bank for a card other than his current Visa occurred  more than 6 years prior to January 14, 2016.  12. FCS’ collection letter failed to inform Mr. Munger the date of last payment on the account it was attempting to collect, who currently owned the debt, and insinuated that “ARA Inc.” has the ability to report this stale debt to the credit bureau, when in fact debts over 7 years cannot reported on one’s credit report. In so doing, FCS created a sense 3 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 3 of 19    Pg ID 3 of urgency to payment of the debt.  13. The statute of limitations on a contract in Michigan is six years.  14. FCS regularly attempts to collect debts on which the statute of limitations has expired.  15. The collection letter, attached as Exhibit 1, neither informed Mr. Munger of the delinquent date of the debt nor did it report to him that the statute of limitations had run on the alleged debt.  16. Exhibit 1 did not and does not attach any support for the alleged debt so to give Mr. Munger the information regarding the staleness of the debt.  17. The FCS collection letter was seeking to collect a debt that went into default, and the last payment was made more than six years prior to the dates of the letter.  18. It is the policy and practice of FCS to send letters seeking to collect time- barred debts that do not disclose the fact that the debts are time-barred.  19. It is the policy and practice of FCS to send letters seeking to collect time- barred debts that do not disclose the dates of the transactions giving rise to the debts.  20. On February 15, 2016, an attorney for Mr. Munger contacted FCS and 4 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 4 of 19    Pg ID 4 spoke to a person who identified himself as Timothy Johnson.  The attorney provided Mr. Johnson with his Michigan State Bar identifying professional number, putting FCS on notice that Mr. Munger was represented by counsel.  21. On February 26, 2016, a Timothy Johnson from FCS, without permission of Mr. Munger’s attorney, contacted Mr. Munger by telephone.  He admitted receiving the telephone call from Mr. Munger’s attorney, and despite several requests from Mr. Munger to talk to his attorney, Johnson kept speaking.  He asked Mr. Munger if he was going to pay, and when Mr. Munger referred him to his attorney, Johnson told Mr. Munger that he did not need an attorney to tell him to do the right thing, that he would classify Mr. Munger “as a refusal to pay” and that he would see him in court.  22. At the end of the conversation, Mr. Munger was extremely anxious, and sought medical treatment for elevated heart rate and blood pressure.     23. Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated.    5 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 5 of 19    Pg ID 5  24. The class consists of all individuals in Michigan to whom FCS  sent a letter seeking to collect a debt that was a consumer debt on which the last payment had been made more than six years prior to the letter, and the letter was sent on or after a date six years prior to the filing of this action, and on or before a date 20 days after the filing of this action.  25. A subclass consists of all individuals in Michigan to whom FCS  sent a letter seeking to collect a debt that was a consumer debt on which the last payment had been made more than six years prior to the letter, and the letter was sent on or after a date six years prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 20 days after the filing of this action, and with whom FCS personally contacted after learning that the individual was represented by an attorney.  26. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including, inter alia: a. Whether the statute of limitations had run on the alleged debt; and b. Whether the failure to report to the consumer that the statute of limitations had run on the alleged debt was a deceptive collection practice contrary to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and M.C.L.A. 445.252(f) (i), 6 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 6 of 19    Pg ID 6 (ii) ; and c.  Whether defendant attempts to collect time-barred debts without disclosure of that fact and whether such practice violates the FDCPA and the MDCA; and d. Whether FCS is strictly liable.  27. There are questions of law and fact common to the subclass, including, inter alia: a. Whether the statute of limitations had run on the alleged debt; and b. Whether the failure to report to the consumer that the statute of limitations had run on the alleged debt was a deceptive collection practice contrary to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and M.C.L.A. 445.252(f) (i), (ii) ; and c.  Whether defendant attempts to collect time-barred debts without disclosure of that fact and whether such practice violates the FDCPA and the MDCA; and d. Whether defendant contacted the individual after learning that the individual was represented by an attorney; and e. Whether FCS is strictly liable. 7 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 7 of 19    Pg ID 7  28. The claims of the representative party are typical of the claims of the class in that Plaintiff’s claims are aligned with and fairly encompass the claims of the class he seeks to represent, and, in pursuing his own claim, he will advance the interests of the class members.  29. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the class and subclass. Plaintiff has no interests which are contrary to or in conflict with those of the class and subclass he seeks to represent.  Plaintiff has retained competent counsel experienced in class action litigation to further ensure such protection and to prosecute this action vigorously.  30. Prosecuting separate actions by class members would create the risk that incompatible standards of conduct would be imposed upon the Defendants as opposed to a uniform and collective resolution of the Defendants’ liability.  31. Questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy, in that: 8 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 8 of 19    Pg ID 8 a.  Individual actions are not economically feasible. b.  Members of the class are likely to be unaware of their rights, and c.  Congress intended class actions to be the principal enforcement mechanism under the FDCPA.  32. Absent a representative action, the members of the class will continue to be damaged by Defendants’ misrepresentations, thereby allowing these violations of law to proceed without remedy.  33. Defendants receive portfolios of debt in mass and send or cause to be sent letters in mass, and make telephone calls to consumers seeking to collect debts that have been extinguished by the running of the statutes of limitations.  The class is so numerous to make class relief the best method of resolving this claim. 34. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.  35. At all relevant times, FCS, in the ordinary course of its business, regularly engaged in the practice of collecting debts on behalf of itself or other individuals or entities. 9 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 9 of 19    Pg ID 9  36. Mr. Munger is a “consumer” for purposes of the FDCPA and the account at issue in this case is a consumer debt.  37. FCS claims Mr. Munger incurred a personal debt to Chase Bank on a Mastercard many years ago for which he was financially obligated to pay and failed to pay.    38. FCS is a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).  39. FCS is a debt collector which receives debts from creditors or other debt collectors, and tries to collect them.  The statute of limitations has run on some or many of those debts.  40. FCS is a debt collector which receives debts from debt purchaser(s) (also known as the “Owner”.  FCS either collects the debts for a purchaser/owner  or hires others to collect debts.  The statute of limitations has run on some or many of those debts.  41. FCS knows or should know that the statute of limitations has run on the extinguished debts it is trying to collect yet proceeds to try to collect out of statute/out of stat debts.  42. FCS sends notices of extinguished debts to consumers  en masse in an attempt to collect a discounted price for those debts.  Mr. Munger received 10 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 10 of 19    Pg ID 10 such a notice for an extinguished debt on a Mastercard issued by Chasebank N.A.  43. FCS engages in and continues to engage in a pattern of deceptive collection practices contrary to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by sending the letter to debtors, including the Plaintiff, and failing to inform them that the debt had been extinguished by the statutes of limitation and/or informing them the date of delinquency, and  stating that it, has the ability to “report any derogatory information to the credit bureaus.”     44. FCS’ foregoing acts in attempting to collect this alleged debt violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f, by dunning consumers on time-barred debts without disclosures of that fact.  45. The nondisclosure is exacerbated by the terms also used in FCS’ letter stating “settlement” and “settled” and placing a 14-day expiration date on defendant’s settlement offer, and demanding that “If for any reason this settlement is not met, this offer becomes NULL and VOID and full balance of $11,945.93 will become due.” - this falsely represents that (a) the full balance is enforceable, (b) the settlement represents an improvement on the position that the consumer is in (when in fact he is not required to pay 11 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 11 of 19    Pg ID 11 anything on time-barred debt), and (c)failure to accept the settlement will lead to the enforcement of the full balance, and creates a sense of urgency to payment of the debt.    48. Mr. Munger has suffered damages as a result of these violations of the 49. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.  5. Personal jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Eastern District of Michigan.  50. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692c (a)(2) a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt if the debt 12 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 12 of 19    Pg ID 12 collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address, unless the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication with the consumer.   51. FCS was placed on notice that Mr. Munger was represented by an attorney, and had the attorney’s number from which all contact information was available.  52. FCS never communicated with Mr. Munger’s attorney, except during the initial conversation.  53. FCS never obtained permission from Mr. Munger’s attorney to contact Mr. Munger.  54. 11 days elapsed between the initial conversation with Mr. Munger’s attorney and FCS’ telephone call to Mr. Munger, and it was not reasonable for Defendant to contact him.  55. FCS’ telephone call to Plaintiff on February 26, 2016 violated 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a)(3).  56. Mr. Munger has suffered damages as a result of these violations of the 13 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 13 of 19    Pg ID 13 57. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.  58. FCS is a “Regulated Person” as that term is defined in the Michigan Collection Practices Act (“MCPA”), at M.C.L.A § 445.251.  59. Mr. Munger is a “Consumer” as that term is defined in M.C.L.A. § 445.251.  6. FCS purchases portfolios of old debts from other debt purchasers for less than face value. It then attempts to collect the old debts by sending consumers a form “fill-in the blank” letter offering to take a discount on the debt under a proposed payment plan or lump sum arrangement. Omitted from these form letters is the date a debt was incurred or the date of the consumer’s last payment on the alleged debt.  2 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 2 of 19    Pg ID 2  60. FCS’ foregoing acts in attempting to collect the alleged debt violated M.C.L.A. § 445.252(f)(i), (ii). a) FCS continually and intentionally misrepresented its right to collect 14 2:16-cv-11008-LJM-RSW   Doc # 1   Filed 03/18/16   Pg 14 of 19    Pg ID 14 the debt by causing to be sent or by sending a letter to a consumer who no longer owed the debt sought to be collected. b) FCS continually and intentionally misrepresented its right to collect the debts by offering a lump sum payment or plan to a consumer who no longer owed the debt sought to be collected. c) FCS represented that if you ‘settle’ this account, “ARA Inc. will not report any derogatory information to the credit bureaus.”  61. Mr. Munger has suffered damages as a result of these violations of the 7. FCS contacted Mr. Munger via telephone on January 13, 2016. FCS demanded payment on a Mastercard account Mr. Munger was alleged to have with Chase Bank.  8. The only credit card that Mr. Munger has is a Visa card issued by Chase Bank to him in 2008.  That card is current and in good standing.  9. Mr. Munger has had no other credit cards, since 2002, and has made no payments on any credit cards, other than his current Chase Bank Visa, since that time.  VIOLATION OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (COMMUNICATIONS BY LETTER)  VIOLATION OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (COMMUNICATIONS BY TELEPHONE AFTER INDIVIDUAL’S   RETENTION OF COUNSEL)  VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT M.C.L.A. § 445.252(f)(i), (ii) (COMMUNICATIONS BY LETTER)  VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT M.C.L.A. § 445.252(h) (COMMUNICATIONS BY TELEPHONE AFTER INDIVIDUAL’S 