10.  Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt (“the Debt”).     11.  The Debt was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is  therefore a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).   12.  Sometime after the incurrence of the Debt, Plaintiff fell behind on payments  owed.    13.  Thereafter, at an exact time known only to Defendant, the Debt was assigned or  otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection.    14.  In its efforts to collect the debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter (“the  Letter”) dated January 11, 2018. (“Exhibit 1.”)    15.  The Letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).    16.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or  misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   17.  The question of whether a collection letter is deceptive is determined from the  perspective of the “least sophisticated consumer.”    18.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3) prohibits a debt collector from using the false representation  or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.   19.  The Letter is on the letterhead of “The Law Offices of M.L. Zager, P.C.”   20.  The Letter identifies Defendant as a debt collector.   21.  Defendant was acting as a debt collector, as defined by the FDCPA, concerning  Plaintiff’s alleged debt.   3   22.  No attorney employed by Defendant had any meaningful involvement in the day- to-day collection of Plaintiff’s alleged debt.   23.  Although the letter references it is from Joseph Loughlin, it is unsigned.   24.  Although the letter references it is from Joseph Loughlin, it directs the Plaintiff to  an “Acct. Representative” Vanessa Owens.   25.  The Letter contains no disclaimer concerning the lack of attorney involvement in  the collection of Plaintiff’s alleged debt.   26.  The Letter misleads consumers into believing that there is meaningful attorney  involvement in the collection of the debt.   27.  The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived by Defendant’s  conduct.   28.  The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived in a material way by  Defendant’s conduct.    29.  The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived into believing that an  attorney had meaningful involvement in the collection of the alleged debt.   30.  Defendant has violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3) by falsely implying that its  collection letter is a communication from an attorney.  31.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all  persons similarly situated in the State of New York from whom Defendant attempted to collect a  consumer debt using a collection letter substantially similar to the Letter herein, from one year  before the date of this Complaint to the present.    32.  This action seeks a finding that Defendant’s conduct violates the FDCPA, and  asks that the Court award damages as authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.   33.  Defendant regularly engages in debt collection.   34.  The Class consists of more than 35 persons from whom Defendant attempted to  collect delinquent consumer debts using a collection letter substantially similar to the Letter  herein.   35.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class.  Common questions of law  or fact raised by this class action complaint affect all members of the Class and predominate over  4  any individual issues. Common relief is therefore sought on behalf of all members of the Class.  This class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy.   36.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would  create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of  the Class, and a risk that any adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class  would, as a practical matter, either be dispositive of the interests of other members of the Class  not party to the adjudication, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their  interests. Defendant has acted in a manner applicable to the Class as a whole such that  declaratory relief is warranted.   37.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the Class.  The management of the class action proposed is not extraordinarily difficult, and the factual and  legal issues raised by this class action complaint will not require extended contact with the  members of the Class, because Defendant’s conduct was perpetrated on all members of the Class  and will be established by common proof.  Moreover, Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced  in actions brought under consumer protection laws. 