11.  More than six years ago, Ms. Prince fell behind on paying her bills,  including a debt she allegedly owed for a Credit One Bank credit card. On July 24,  2018, Defendant Global sent Ms. Prince an initial collection letter demanding payment  of this debt.  This collection letter stated that the “Original Creditor” was “Credit One  Bank, N.A.”, then stated that the “Current Creditor” was “LVNV Funding, LLC”. The  letter then went on to state “Your delinquent Credit One Bank, N.A. account has been  4  4   placed with our company for collections”, and later warned that the “current account  owner” was going to credit report the debt,  A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit B   12.   Moreover, Defendants’ collection letter included a second page entitled  “PRIVACY NOTICE”, which in addition to LVNV, listed another ten entities as somehow  involved with the debt. An example of this Privacy Notice is attached Exhibit C.   13.  Defendants’ letter failed to explain what, if any, the difference was  between the “current” and “original” creditor, the account ”owner” or what the role was of  the other ten entities. Plaintiff is informed through counsel that Defendant LVNV likely  bought the debt at issue after default, and that Defendant Global was representing only  23.  Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-22.   24.  Section 1692g of the FDCPA requires that, within 5 days of Defendants’  first communication to a consumer, they had to provide Ms. Prince with an effective  validation notice, containing, among other disclosures, “(2) the name of the creditor to  whom the debt is owed;” see, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2).     25.  Defendants’ form collection letter -- by identifying Credit One Bank, N.A.  as the “original creditor” and LVNV as the “current creditor”, then referring to the debt as  a “Credit One Bank, N.A. account”, referring to an unidentified “account owner” and  listing ten other entities as somehow involved with the debt -- failed to identify effectively  the current creditor to whom the debt was owed, in violation of § 1692g(a)(2) of the  FDCPA, see, Janetos, 825 F.3rd at 321-23; see also, Taylor v. Alltran Financial, 2018  U.S.Dist.LEXIS 159862 at [*6]-[*10](S.D.Ind. 2018); Long v. Fenton & McGarvey Law  Firm, 223 F. Supp. 3d 773, 778-79 (S.D. Ind. 2016); Pardo v. Allied Interstate, 2015  U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125526 at [*7]-[*9](S.D. Ind. 2015); Deschaine v. National Enterprise  Systems, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31349 at [*3](N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2013); Walls v. United  Collection Bureau, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68079 at [*4]-[*6](N.D. Ill. 2012); and Braatz v.  Leading Edge Recovery Solutions,  2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123118 at [*3]-[*4](N.D. Ill.  2011).     26.  Defendants’ violation of § 1692g of the FDCPA renders them liable for   7  7   statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, see, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.  27.  Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-22.   28.      Section 1692e of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any  false and/or any deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the  collection of a debt, including, but not limited to, the false representation of the  character, amount or legal status of any debt, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). Moreover,  debt collectors are barred from threatening to take any action that the collector cannot  legally take, see, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5).     29.  Attempts by debt collectors to collect time-barred debts via deceptive and  misleading collection letters violate § 1692e of the FDCPA, see, Pantoja v. Portfolio  Recovery Assocs., 852 F.3d 679, 687 (7th Cir. 2017), cert denied, 138 S.Ct 736 (U.S.  2018); and McMahon v. LVNV Funding, 744 F.3d 1010, 1020 (7th Cir. 2014); see also,  Holzman v. Malcolm S. Gerald, 920 F.3d 1264, 1270-1273 (11th Cir. 2019); Tatis v.  Allied Interstate, 882 F.3d 422, 428-430 (3rd Cir. 2018); Daugherty v. Convergent  Outsourcing, 836 F.3d 507, 513 (5th Cir. 2016); and Buchanan v. Northland Group, 776  F.3d 393, 397 (6th Cir. 2015).     30.  Although Defendants attempted to provide a disclaimer that the debt was  time-barred, that disclaimer was ineffective because: a) they failed to foreclose the  possibility that Global or one of the other entities would not sue on the debt; b) they did  not foreclose the possibility that Global or one of the other entities would not credit  report the debt; c) they failed to foreclose that LVNV could not legally sue or credit  8  8   report the debt, rather than that LVNV had simply chosen not to do so; and, d) failed to  warn that a payment could restart the statute of limitations.    31.  Defendants’ violation of § 1692e of the FDCPA renders them liable for   actual and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, see, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.  32.  Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-22.   33.  Section 1692f of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any  unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt, see, 15 U.S.C. §  1692f.     34.  Although Defendants attempted to provide a disclaimer that the debt was  time-barred, that disclaimer was ineffective because: a) they failed to foreclose the  possibility that Global or one of the other entities would not sue on the debt; b) they did  not foreclose the possibility that Global or one of the other entities could credit report the  debt; c) they failed to foreclose that LVNV could not legally sue or credit report the debt,  rather than that LVNV had simply chosen not to do so; and, d) failed to warn that a  payment could restart the statute of limitations.    35.  Defendants’ violation of § 1692f of the FDCPA renders them liable for   actual and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, see, 15 U.S.C. §   1692k.  36.  Plaintiff, Robin Prince, brings this action individually and as a class action  on behalf of all persons similarly situated in the State of Alabama from whom  9  9   Defendants attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt allegedly owed for a Credit  One credit card account, via the same form collection letter (Exhibits B and C), that  Defendants sent to Plaintiff, from one year before the date of this Complaint to the  present.  This action seeks a finding that Defendants’ form letter violates the FDCPA  and asks that the Court award damages as authorized by § 1692k(a)(2) of the FDCPA.   37.  Defendants regularly engage in debt collection, using the same form  collection letter they sent Plaintiff Prince, in their attempts to collect defaulted consumer  debts from other consumers.   38.  The Class consists of more than 35 persons from whom Defendants  attempted to collect defaulted consumer debts by sending other consumers the same  form collection letter they sent Plaintiff Prince.   39.  Plaintiff Prince’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 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.   40.  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. Defendants have acted in a manner  applicable to the Class as a whole such that declaratory relief is warranted.  10  10    41.  Plaintiff Prince 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  Defendants’ conduct was perpetrated on all members of the Class and will be  established by common proof. Moreover, Plaintiff Prince has retained counsel  experienced in class action litigation, including class actions brought under the FDCPA.  Violation Of § 1692g(a)(2)  Failure To Identify Effectively The Current Creditor   Violation Of § 1692f Of The FDCPA --  Unfair Or Unconscionable Collection Actions   Violation Of § 1692e Of The FDCPA –  False, Deceptive Or Misleading Collection Actions  