10. At all times relevant, BERKS regularly collected or attempted to collect debts owed  or due or asserted to be owed or due another, which debts were incurred primarily for personal,  family or household purposes.   11. At all times relevant, BERKS used the mail, telephone or other instruments of  interstate commerce in its attempts to collect debts due or alleged to be due another.   12. At all times relevant, BERKS used the mail, telephone or other instruments of  interstate commerce in its attempts to collect consumer debts owed or due or asserted to be owed  or due another.   13. At all times relevant, the principal business engaged in by BERKS was the  collection of debts, which debts were incurred primarily for personal, family or household  purposes.   14. BERKS is a “debt collector” within the scope of the definition contained in 15  U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and interpretations thereof.   15. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) of the FDCPA.   16. Plaintiff and others similarly situated are consumers as they are natural persons  allegedly obligated to pay a debt, in which the money, property, insurance, or services, which  was the subject of the transaction, was primarily for personal, family and/or household purposes.   17. BERKS sent Plaintiff a letter dated October 24, 2016, a copy of which is attached as  Exhibit A, except that the undersigned attorney has, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2  redacted the financial account numbers and/or personal identifiers in an effort to protect  Plaintiff’s privacy.   18. Upon receipt, Plaintiff read the October 24, 2016 letter.   19. BERKS' October 24, 2016 letter was an attempt to collect an amount allegedly due  as set forth in the letter.    20. Plaintiff brings this action as a state wide class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “FRCP”), on behalf of herself and all New York   City consumers and their successors in interest (the “Class”), who were sent debt collection  letters and/or notices from the Defendants which are in violation of the FDCPA, as described in  this Complaint.   21. This Action is properly maintained as a class action.  The Class is initially defined as  follows:  All New York City consumers who were sent letters and/or notices from BERKS,  concerning a debt owed to another, which contained at least one of the alleged violations  of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. herein.  The Class period begins one year to the filing of this  Action.   The class may be subsequently refined.    Specifically excluded from this class is any Judge presiding over this Action and  members of their immediate families.   22. Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of  all class members under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.    23. The Class for whose benefit this action is brought is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.      24. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class that  predominate over questions affecting only individuals.  These common questions include, but are  not limited to:  Whether BERKS has violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not   limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e et seq., and 1692g et seq.   25. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable.  While the  economic damages suffered by the individual class members are significant, the amount may be  modest compared to the expense and burden of individual litigation. Additionally, the FDCPA  statutory scheme provides for statutory damages payable to each class member. A class action  will cause an orderly and expeditious administration of the claims of the Class and will foster  economies of time, effort and expense.   26. The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the members of the Class.    27. The questions of law and/or fact common to the members of the Class predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members.    28. Plaintiff does not have interests antagonistic to those of the Class.   29. The Class, of which Plaintiff is a member, is readily identifiable.   30. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class, and has  retained competent counsel experienced in the prosecution of consumer litigation. Proposed  Class Counsel has investigated and identified potential claims in the action; has a great deal of  experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and claims of the type asserted in  this action.   31. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would run  the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, which would establish incompatible standards  of conduct for BERKS in this action or the prosecution of separate actions by individual  members of the class would create the risk that adjudications with respect to individual members  of the class would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not  parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their  interests.  Prosecution as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation.   32. BERKS has acted or refuse to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,  thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with  respect to the class as a whole.   33. Plaintiff does not anticipate any difficulty in the management of this litigation.  34. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, repeats and realleges all  prior allegations as if set forth at length herein.   35. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g provides that within five days after the initial communication  with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the  information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the  consumer a written notice containing certain enumerated information.   36. One such requirement is that the debt collector provide “the name of the creditor  to whom the debt is owed.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2).   37. A debt collector has the obligation not just to convey the name of the creditor to  whom the debt is owed, but also to convey such clearly.   38. A debt collector has the obligation not just to convey the name of the creditor to  whom the debt is owed, but also to state such explicitly.   39. Merely  naming  the  creditor  without  specifically  identifying  the  entity  as  the  current  creditor  to  whom  the  debt  is  owed  is  not  sufficient  to  comply  with  15  U.S.C.   §1692g(a)(2).   40. Even if a debt collector conveys the required information, the debt collector  nonetheless violates the FDCPA if it conveys that information in a confusing or contradictory  fashion so as to cloud the required message with uncertainty.   41. When determining whether the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed has  been conveyed clearly, an objective standard, measured by how the “least sophisticated  consumer” would interpret the notice, is applied.   42. BERKS' letter of October 24, 2016, fails to explicitly identify the name of the  creditor to whom the debt is owed.   43. BERKS' letter of October 24, 2016, letter to Plaintiff fails to identify any creditor  to whom the debt is owed.   44. BERKS' letter of October 24, 2016 fails to identify any entity or individual as a  “creditor.”   45. BERKS' letter of October 24, 2016, merely  states:   7.  At all times relevant, the principal purpose of BERKS was the collection of debts  using the mails and telephone.    8.  At all times relevant, BERKS regularly attempted to collect debts alleged to be due  to another.    9.  At all times relevant, BERKS regularly collected or attempted to collect debts due  or alleged to be due another.   Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Violations  