10.  Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-9.   11.  Section 1692g of the FDCPA requires that, within 5 days of Defendant’s  first communication to a consumer, it had to provide the consumer with an effective  validation notice, containing, among other disclosures, “(4) a statement that if the  consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt,  or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt”,  as well as “(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty- 4  4   day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of  the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.” see, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4)  and (5).   12.  Nowhere in Defendant Mercer’s June 9, 2016 initial collection letter to  Plaintiff (Exhibit B) does it state that Plaintiff’s dispute to Defendant Mercer had to be in  writing to protect his right to obtain validation of the debt, or that a request for the name  of the original creditor had to be in writing.  Thus, Defendant Mercer has violated §  1692g of the FDCPA, see, McCabe v. Crawford & Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 736, 742-743  (N.D. Ill. 2003); Matmanivong v. NCC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15054 at [*26]-[*27](N.D.  Ill. 2015); and Bishop v. Ross Earle & Bonan, 817 F.3d 1268, 1274 (11th Cir. 2016).   13.  Defendant Mercer’s violation of § 1692g of the FDCPA renders it liable for  statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.  14.  Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-9.   15.  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.     16.  Defendant Mercer, by failing to advise Plaintiff that his dispute must be in  writing for it to be effective, and that any request for the name of the original creditor  had to be in writing, used unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt, in violation  of § 1692f of the FDCPA.    17.  Defendant Mercer’s violation of § 1692f of the FDCPA renders it liable   5  5   for statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.   18.  Plaintiff, Joseph Huffer, brings this action individually and as a class  action on behalf of all persons similarly situated in the State of Indiana from whom  Defendant Mercer attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt, allegedly owed for  a home loan, via the same form collection letter (Exhibit B), that Defendant Mercer sent  to Plaintiff, from one year before the date of this Complaint to the present.  This action  seeks a finding that Defendant Mercer’s form letter violates the FDCPA, and asks that  the Court award damages as authorized by § 1692k(a)(2) of the FDCPA.   19.  Defendant Mercer regularly engages in debt collection, using the same  form collection letter it sent Plaintiff Huffer, in its attempts to collect delinquent consumer  debts from other persons.   20.  The Class consists of more than 35 persons from whom Defendant  Mercer attempted to collect delinquent consumer debts, by sending other consumers  the same form collection letter it sent Plaintiff Huffer.   21.  Plaintiff Huffer’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.   22.  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  6  6   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 Mercer has acted in a manner  applicable to the Class as a whole such that declaratory relief is warranted.   23.  Plaintiff Huffer 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 Mercer’s  conduct was perpetrated on all members of the Class and will be established by  common proof.  Moreover, Plaintiff Huffer has retained counsel experienced in class  action litigation, including class actions brought under the FDCPA.  6.  Defendant Mercer sent Mr. Huffer an initial form collection letter, dated  June 9, 2016, demanding payment of a delinquent consumer debt owed for a home  loan.  This letter stated, in pertinent part:  *  *  *  Federal law gives you thirty (30) days after you receive this letter to  dispute the validity of the debt or any part of it.  If you don’t dispute the  debt within that period, I’ll assume that it’s valid.  If you do dispute it – by  notifying me to that effect – I will, as required by the law, obtain and mail  to you proof of the debt.  And if, within the same period, you request the  name and address of your original creditor, if the original creditor is  different from the current creditor, I will furnish you with that information  too.  If you request proof of the debt or the name and address of the original  creditor within the thirty (30) day period that begins with your receipt of this  letter, the law requires me to suspend my efforts (through litigation or  otherwise) to collect the debt until I mail the requested information to you.  *  *  *  Nowhere in Defendant’s letter did it advise Mr. Huffer that disputes had to be in writing,  to be effective, and so that he could require Defendant Mercer to provide validation of  the debt.  A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit B.  3  3    7.  Violations of the FDCPA which could lead a consumer to alter his or her   course of action as to whether to pay or whether to dispute a debt, or which would be a  factor in the consumer's decision-making process, are material, see, Lox v. CDA, 689  F.3d 818, 827 (7th Cir. 2012).  Whether disputing a debt could be done orally, by simply  picking up the phone, or whether a consumer needs to make a written dispute, is  material information that would play a role in a consumer’s decision of whether to  dispute a debt.  Moreover, disclosure of the information is mandatorily required by the  plain language of the FDCPA and is therefore material, see, Janetos v. Fulton,  Friedman & Gullace, 825 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 2016).   8.  Defendant’s collection actions complained of herein occurred within one  year of the date of this Complaint.     9.  Defendant’s collection communications are to be interpreted under the  “unsophisticated consumer” standard.  See, Gammon v. GC Services, Ltd. Partnership,  27 F.3d 1254, 1257 (7th Cir. 1994).  Violation Of § 1692f Of The FDCPA --  Unfair Or Unconscionable Collection Actions   Violation Of § 1692g  Ineffective Validation Notice  