10.  Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of the following case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.  P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).   11.  The Class consists of:   a. all individuals with addresses in the State of New York;  b. to whom Defendant MCM sent a collection letter attempting to collect a  consumer debt;  c. that offered options designed to save the consumer money;  d. one of options was unclear if it was a discount or payment in full;  e. which letter was sent on or after a date one (1) year prior to the filing of this  action and on or before a date twenty-one (2l) days after the filing of this action.   13.  Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are the Defendants and all officer, members,  partners, managers, directors and employees of the Defendants and their respective immediate  families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their immediate  families.    14.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class, which common  issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue  is whether the Defendant’s written communications to consumers, in the forms attached as  Exhibit A, violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692e et seq.   15.  The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same  facts and legal theories. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  Plaintiff Class defined in this complaint. The Plaintiff has retained counsel with experience in  handling consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiff  nor his attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.   18.  Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff may, at  the time of class certification motion, seek to certify a class(es) only as to particular issues  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).  19.  Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length  herein.   20.  Some time prior to January 20, 2021, an obligation was allegedly incurred to creditor  Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (hereinafter “Capital One”).   21.  The Capital One obligation arose out of transactions incurred primarily for personal,  family or household purposes, specifically a personal credit card.   22.  The alleged Capital One obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a(5).   23.  Capital One is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a(4).   24.  Capital One purportedly sold the defaulted debt to Defendant MCM, who is the  current owner of the alleged debt, for the purpose of debt collection.  Violation – January 20, 2021 Collection Letter   25.  On or about January 20, 2021, Defendant MCM sent the Plaintiff a collection letter  (the “Letter”) regarding the alleged debt originally owed to Capital One. (See a true and correct  copy of the Letter attached as Exhibit A.)   26.  The Letter states a current balance of $4,399.93.   27.  The Letter goes on to state “You have been pre-approved for options designed to  save you money. Act now to maximize your savings…”    29.  The third option provided by Defendant is not adequately explained and results in  two different possible interpretations.   30.  First, Option 3 might be construed as an option by which a discounted total amount  is paid by monthly installments of $50 per month.   31.  Alternatively, Option 3 might be construed as an option by which monthly  installments of $50 are made until the total debt amount is paid in full.   32.  By failing to explain whether Option 3 is a settlement option or an option to pay in  full, the Letter is false, deceptive and misleading.   33.  Furthermore, the Letter references “savings” and proclaims that it is “designed to  save [the consumer] money”.   34.  If in fact Option 3 is an offer for payment in full on the entire balance, the promises  made by Defendant in the Letter to the Plaintiff consumer are completely false.   35.  These violations by Defendant were knowing, willful, negligent and/or intentional,  and Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violations.   36.  Defendant’s collection efforts with respect to this alleged debt from Plaintiff caused  Plaintiff to suffer concrete and particularized harm, inter alia, because the FDCPA provides  Plaintiff with the legally protected right not to be misled or treated unfairly with respect to any  action regarding the collection of any consumer debt.   38.  The Plaintiff has no ability to consider all three offers in the proper context, since the  final offer was unclear and could not be considered in light of the other two.   39.  Defendant’s actions created an appreciable risk to Plaintiff of being unable to  properly respond or handle Defendant’s debt collection.   40.  As a result of Defendant’s deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices,  Plaintiff has been damaged.  41.  Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.   42.  Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff  violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.   43.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e, a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or  misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   45.  By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment in that Defendant's  conduct violated Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs  and attorneys’ fees.   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. §1692e  et seq.  