- FDCPA  23. On information and belief, Rushmore acquired servicing of plaintiff s loan in June 2013, after it was in default.  24. The loan was accelerated substantially prior to June 2013.  25. GMAT 2013 claims to have acquired ownership of the loan on or about February 15, 2014, after the loan was in default.  26. On July 21, 2016, Rushmore caused a foreclosure lawsuit to be filed against plaintiff Matthew D. Williams. The lawsuit was filed in the name of GMAT 2013, as alleged owner of the loan. Hunt Leibert Jacobson, P.C., now McCalla, was counsel for GMAT 2013. A copy of the complaint and accompanying documents is attached as Appendix D.  27. On August 2, 2016, Rushmore sent the letter attached as Appendix E, seeking payment of late charges. 28. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-27.  30. It is the policy and practice of defendants to seek late fees for periods after the loan had been accelerated.  31. A mortgagee or servicer is not entitled to late fees after acceleration. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota N.A. v. Guarnieri, 308 B.R. 122, 127 (D.Conn. 2004); FDICv. M.F.P. Realty Associates, 870 F.Supp. 451, 455 (D.Conn. 1994); SKWReal Estate LP v. Gallicchio, 49 Conn. App. 563, 580, 716 A.2d 903, 918 (1998); Berkeley Federal v. Ogalin, 48 Conn.App. 305, 213, 708 A.2d 620, 625 (1998); FDIC v. Napert-Boyer P'ship, 40 Conn. App. 434, 443, 671 A.2d 1303, 1308-09(1996).  32. Defendants thereby violated 15 U.S.C. §§1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(10), 1692f and 1692f(l).  33. Section 1692e provides: § 1692e. False or misleading representations A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:... (2) The false representation of-- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt;... (10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer  44. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 -27.  45. The seventh page of Appendix D consisted of a purported 15 U.S.C. §1692g notice.  46. The inclusion of such a notice with a complaint is not required.  47. The inclusion of such a notice with a complaint is confusing to the least sophisticated consumer, in that it suggests a means of responding to the complaint other than as specified in the summons. Marquez v. Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., 836 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2016).  48. Defendants' notice did not warn that the consumer should comply with the instructions in the summons notwithstanding the notice.  50. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of three classes, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).  51. Class A consists of (a) all individuals (b) against whom Rushmore caused to be filed a foreclosure complaint (c) which included a page describing validation or dispute rights similar to those in § 1692g (d) at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action.'  52. Class B consists of (a) all individuals (b) against whom McCalla filed a foreclosure complaint (c) which included a page describing validation or dispute rights similar to those in §1692g (d) at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action.  53. Class C consists of (a) all individuals (b) against whom GMAT 2013 filed a foreclosure complaint (c) which included a page describing validation or dispute rights similar to those in §1692g (d) at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action.  54. On information and belief, each class is so numerous that joinder of all members is not practicable.  55. There are questions of law and fact common to the class members, which common questions predominate over any questions relating to individual class members. The predominant common questions are (a) whether each defendant included a page describing validation or dispute rights similar to those in §1692g with a foreclosure complaint and (b) whether such practice violates the FDCPA.  56. Plaintiffs claim is typical of the claims of the class members. All are based on the same factual and legal theories.  58. A class action is superior for the fair and efficient adjudication of this matter, in that: a. Individual actions are not economically feasible. . b. Members of the class are likely to be unaware of their rights; c. Congress intended class actions to be the principal enforcement mechanism under the FDCPA. WHEREFORE, the Court should enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class and against defendants for: i. Statutory damages; ii. Attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; iii. Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.