10.  The Mortgage secured the purchase of Plaintiff’s personal residence located at 2227  Harbor Drive, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46804.  USDC IN/ND case 1:19-cv-00129-HAB-SLC   document 1   filed 03/29/19   page 2 of 11 3   11.  The Mortgage secured the repayment of the indebtedness evidenced by a  promissory note in the amount of $176,000.00 (the “mortgage loan”).   12.  This indebtedness is a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5) as it arises out of  a transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.   13.  On May 1, 2009, Plaintiff defaulted on the mortgage loan by failing to make  monthly payments.   14.  On March 11, 2010, Plaintiff filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13  of the Bankruptcy Code.   15.  Simultaneously with the voluntary petition, Plaintiff filed his Chapter 13 plan.   Plaintiff’s plan provided:   16.  Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 Plan was confirmed on December 28, 2010 (the “Confirmed  Plan”).     17.  On November 19, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order of Discharge for  the benefit of Plaintiff under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a).   18.  Plaintiff’s discharge by operation released Plaintiff’s personal liability on  indebtedness owed on Plaintiff’s mortgage loan.   19.  On February 16, 2019, Defendant became the new servicer of Plaintiff’s mortgage  loan.   20.  On February 21, 2019, Defendant mailed Plaintiff a “Payment Reminder Notice.”   See Exhibit A.    USDC IN/ND case 1:19-cv-00129-HAB-SLC   document 1   filed 03/29/19   page 3 of 11 4   21.  The Payment Reminder Notice stated:  Your mortgage payments are past due, which puts you in default of your loan  agreement.  If you have recently mailed your payments, please disregard this letter.   As of the date of this letter, you owe the following:   Number of months past due: 117   Total monthly payments due: $180,895.59   Accumulated late charges: $1,500.75   Total amount due: $182,396.34  (emphasis added).   22.  Defendant’s post-discharge collection practice(s) have caused Plaintiff emotional  distress consistent with believing he remained liable to Defendant on this mortgage loan.  28.  All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as  though fully set forth herein.   29.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3)  individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Putative Class”).    A.  Numerosity.     30.  On information and belief, Defendant mailed letters in an identical format as the  Payment Reminder Notice to Indiana consumers on no less than 40 occasions.    31.  The exact number of members of the Putative Class are unknown and not available  to Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable.    B.  Typicality.     32.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Putative  Class.   33.  On information and belief, Defendant’s business records will show that they mailed  mailed letters in an identical format as the Payment Reminder Notice to Indiana consumers.   34.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the members of the Putative Class because Plaintiff  and the members of the Putative Class are entitled to damages as result of Defendant’s conduct.  C.  Commonality and Predominance.     35.  There are common questions of fact and law with the claims of Plaintiff and the  Putative Class.  USDC IN/ND case 1:19-cv-00129-HAB-SLC   document 1   filed 03/29/19   page 6 of 11 7   36.  These common questions of fact and law are whether Defendant sought to collect  discharged mortgage debt.   37.  These common questions of fact and law are subject to common proof through  review of Defendant’s business records.   38.  These common questions of fact and law are answerable for the entirety of the  Putative Class.    39.  These common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions that may  affect individual members of the Putative Class.  D.  Superiority and Manageability.     40.  This case is also appropriate for class certification as class proceedings are superior  to all other available methods for the efficient and fair adjudication of this controversy.     41.  Joinder of all parties is impracticable.     42.  The damages suffered by the individual members of the Putative Class will likely  be relatively small, especially given the burden and expense required for individual prosecution of  Defendant’s post-discharge collection practices.     43.  Even if individual members of the Putative Class could sustain such individual  litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action because individual litigation would  increase the delay and expense to all parties and courts.    44.  By contrast, a class action provides the benefits of single adjudication, economies  of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court.     45.  Economies of effort, expense, and time will be fostered and uniformity of decisions  ensured.  E.  Adequate Representation.    USDC IN/ND case 1:19-cv-00129-HAB-SLC   document 1   filed 03/29/19   page 7 of 11 8   46.  Plaintiff will adequately and fairly represent and protect the interests of the Putative  Class.   47.  Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced counsel in consumer class action  litigation.   48.  Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Putative Class, and Defendant  has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.  9.  On December 14, 2006, Plaintiff executed a mortgage in favor of American Brokers  Conduit.   9.  Property to Be Surrendered to Secured Creditor  Name  Description of Property  BAC Home Loans Servic  Real estate located at 2227 Blue Harbor  Dr., Fort Wayne, IN  