PAGE | 1 of 9

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 9:20-cv-80703

GRIFFIN LEE, 

individually and on behalf of 

all those similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v. COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

SKO BRENNER AMERICAN, INC., 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT SEEKING

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND STATUTORY DAMAGES

Plaintiff GRIFFIN LEE (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all those similarly 

situated, sues Defendant SKO BRENNER AMERICAN, INC. (“Defendant”) for violations of 15 

U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), and Fla. Stat. § 559.55 

et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”). 

1. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), 28 U.S.C § 1331, and 

28 U.S.C § 1337. Further, and with respect to all counts, jurisdiction of this Court also arises under 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), as the total amount in controversy exceeds five million dollars 

($5,000,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.

2. Venue in this District is proper because Plaintiff resides here, Defendant transacts 

business here, and the complained conduct of Defendant occurred here

Case 9:20-cv-80703-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 1 of 9
PAGE | 2 of 9

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

2. PARTIES

3. Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Palm 

Beach County, Florida.

4. Defendant is a New York, with its principal place of business located in Nassau, 

New York. 

5. Defendant engages in interstate commerce by regularly using telephone and mail 

in a business whose principal purpose is the collection of debts.

6. At all times material, Defendant was acting as a debt collector in respect to the 

collection of Plaintiff’s debts. 

3. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7. Plaintiff is entitled to, and hereby respectfully demands, a trial by jury on all alleged 

counts and any issues so triable. 

4. ALLEGATIONS

8. On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to collect a debt 

(the “Consumer Debt”) from Plaintiff. 

9. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising 

from a transaction between Plaintiff and the original creditor of the consumer debt (the “Creditor”), 

for medical services (the “Subject Service”).

10. The Subject Service was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

11. Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of soliciting consumer debts 

for collection.

12. Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts.

Case 9:20-cv-80703-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 2 of 9
PAGE | 3 of 9

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

13. Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts 

owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

14. On a date better known to Defendant, Defendant sent a collection letter, internally 

dated April 9, 2020, to Plaintiff (the “Collection Letter”) in an attempt to collect the Consumer 

Debt. A copy of the Collection Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

15. The Collection Letter is a communication from Defendant to Plaintiff in connection 

with the collection of a debt. 

16. The Collection Letter is an action to collect a debt by Defendant.

17. Defendant is an entity required to register as a consumer collection agency with the 

Florida Department of State, as per Fla. Stat. § 559.553(1), to lawfully collect consumer debts 

from Florida consumers.

18. Defendant does not maintain all the records specified in Rule 69V-180.080, Florida 

Administrative Code.

19. The records specified by Rule 69V-180.080, Florida Administrative Code, of which 

Defendant does maintain, are not current to within one week of the current date. 

20. Defendant must maintain a valid Consumer Collection Agency license with the 

Florida Department of State to lawfully collect consumer debts from Florida consumers in 

accordance with Fla. Stat. § 559.553.

21. Defendant’s does not possess or otherwise maintain a valid Consumer Collection 

Agency license with the Florida Department of State.

22. Defendant does not fall within any of the exemptions contained within Fla. Stat. § 

559.553(3).

Case 9:20-cv-80703-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 3 of 9
PAGE | 4 of 9

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

23. Defendant cannot legally collect, or attempt to collect, the Consumer Debt from 

Plaintiff without first registering, and thereafter maintaining, a valid consumer collection agency 

license in accordance with Fla. Stat. §§ 559.553(1) & (2). 

24. Defendant’s collection activities against Plaintiff constitute a criminal 

misdemeanor under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. § 559.785.

5. CLASS ALLEGATIONS

25. This action is brought on behalf of the following two classes: the “FDCPA Class” 

and the “FCCPA Class.”

26. The “FDCPA Class” consists of: [1] all persons with Florida addresses [2] that 

Defendant mailed a letter to [3] in an attempt to collect a consumer debt [4] while Defendant was 

not registered or otherwise in possession of a valid consumer collection agency license from and/or 

with the Florida Department of State [5] during the twelve (12) months preceding the filing of this 

Complaint. 

27. The “FCCPA Class” consists of: [1] all persons with Florida addresses [2] that 

Defendant mailed a letter to [3] in an attempt to collect a consumer debt [4] while Defendant was 

not registered or otherwise in possession of a valid consumer collection agency license from and/or 

with the Florida Department of State [5] during the twenty-four (24) months preceding the filing 

of this Complaint. 

28. Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, each class is so numerous that joinder 

of all members is impracticable because Defendant has dispatched thousands of identical letters to 

addresses in Florida in an attempt to collect a consumer debt while Defendant was without a valid 

consumer collection agency license from and/or with the Florida Department of State.

5.1 EXISTENCE AND PREDOMINANCE OF COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW & FACT

Case 9:20-cv-80703-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 4 of 9
PAGE | 5 of 9

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

29. Common questions of law and fact exist as each of the proposed classes and 

otherwise predominate over any issues involving only individual class members.

30. The factual issues common to the FDCPA and FCCPA Class are whether members 

received a letter from Defendant, whether said letter attempts to collect a consumer debt, whether 

Defendant was required to register as a consumer collection agency with the Florida Department 

of State, and whether Defendant failed to register as such.

31. The principal legal issue for the FDCPA and FCCPA Class is whether Defendant, 

by mailing a collection letter to a Florida consumer in an attempt to collect a consumer debt while 

Defendant was not validly registered as a consumer collection with the Florida Department of 

State, violated § 1692e, § 1692e(2)(A), § 1692e(5), and § 1692e(10) of the FDCPA. 

32. The principal legal issue for the FCCPA Class is whether Defendant, by violating 

the FDCPA as proscribed above, Defendant violated § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA. 

33. Excluded from the class is Defendant’s agents and employees, Plaintiff’s 

attorney(s) and their employees, the Judge to whom this action is assigned, and any member of the 

Judge’s staff and immediate family.

5.2 TYPICALITY

34. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of each class member and are based on 

the same facts and legal theories.

5.3 ADEQUACY

35. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of each of the classes.

36. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the classes. 

37. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling actions involving unlawful 

practices under the FDCPA, FCCPA, TCPA, and consumer-based class actions. Neither Plaintiff 

Case 9:20-cv-80703-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 5 of 9
PAGE | 6 of 9

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

nor Plaintiff’s counsel have any interests which might cause them (Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel) 

to not vigorously pursue this action.

5.4 PREDOMINANCE AND SUPERIORITY

38. Certification of the classes under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure is also appropriate in that:

(a) The questions of law or fact common to the members of the class 

predominate over any questions affecting an individual member.

(b) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy.

39. Certification of a classes under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure is also appropriate, in that, Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the 

class thereby making appropriate declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Plaintiff 

request certification of a hybrid class under Rule 23(b)(3) for monetary damages and to Rule 

23(b)(2) for injunctive and equitable relief.

COUNT I.

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, e(2)(A), e(5), & § 1692e(10)

40. On behalf of the FDCPA Class, Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-39

as though fully set forth herein. 

41. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and the FDCPA Class for attempting to collect 

consumer debts from Florida consumers without first registering and, thereafter, maintaining a 

valid consumer collection agency license in accordance with Florida law. Fla. Stat. § 559.553.

42. Here, Defendant mailed the Collection Letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect 

the Consumer Debt, and in so doing, Defendant engaged in activity which Florida requires 

licensure to be valid and otherwise lawful; however, at all times relevant, Defendant was not 

Case 9:20-cv-80703-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 6 of 9
PAGE | 7 of 9

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

registered as a consumer collection agency with the Florida Department of State, as required by 

Fla. Stat. § 559.553. 

43. Defendant’s failure to obtain a consumer debt collection license, as mandated by 

Florida Statutes § 559.553, while actively engaging in debt collection in the State of Florida 

violates 15 U.S.C § 1692e & e(10) because attempting to collect a debt while not licensed as 

required by Florida law is a false, deceptive, and misleading practice.

44. Defendant’s failure to obtain a consumer debt collection license as mandated by 

Florida Statutes § 559.553, while actively engaging in debt collection in the State of Florida, 

violates 15 U.S.C § 1692e(2)(A) because attempting to collect a debt and/or actually collecting a 

debt while not licensed as required by Florida law constitutes a false representation of the character 

and legal status of the underlying debt. 

45. Defendant’s failure to obtain a consumer collection agency license, as mandated by 

Florida Statutes § 559.553, while attempting to collect consumer debts from Florida consumers is 

a violation of 15 U.S.C § 1692e(5) because the Collection Letter is a threat to take action that 

cannot legally be taken. For example, the Collection Letter causes the least sophisticated consumer 

to believe that Defendant may lawfully collect or even attempt to collect the Consumer Debt when, 

in reality, Defendant had no such authority or lawful ability.

46. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the FDCPA Class, requests 

the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the FDCPA Class and against Defendant for: 

(a) Statutory damages, as provided under 15 U.S.C. §1692k;

(b) Costs and attorneys’ fees, as provided by 15 U.S.C. §1692k; and

(c) Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT II.

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(9)

Case 9:20-cv-80703-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 7 of 9
PAGE | 8 of 9

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

47. On behalf of the FCCPA Class, Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-39

as though fully set forth herein. 

48. Pursuant to § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person 

shall: “[c]laim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not 

legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right 

does not exist.” Fla Stat. § 559.72(9) (emphasis added).

49. Here, as stated above, by mailing the Collection Letter to Plaintiff, Defendant 

engaged in collection activity that Florida law requires licensure. Fla. Stat. §§ 559.553(1) & (2), 

and at all times material hereto, Defendant was not validly registered as a consumer collection 

agency with the Florida Department of State. Defendant knew it was required to register as a 

consumer collection agency to lawfully collect or attempt to collect consumer debts from Florida 

consumers, and Defendant knew did not possess or otherwise maintain a valid consumer collection

agency license with the Florida Department of State when it (Defendant) mailed collection letters 

to Florida consumers. As such, by and through the collection letters it (Defendant) mailed to 

Florida consumers in an attempt to collect a debt, Defendant violated Fla. Stat. § 559.72(9) because

Defendant was asserting the existence of a legal right, namely, the ability to lawfully collect or 

attempt to collect the underlying debt, when Defendant knew it (Defendant) had no such right.

50. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the FCCPA Class, requests 

the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the FCCPA Class and against Defendant for:

(a) Statutory damages, as provided under Fla. Stat. § 559.7(2);

(b) Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of the instant suit, as provided under 

Fla. Stat. §559.77(2);

(c) An injunction prohibiting Defendant from engaging in further collection activities 

directed at Plaintiff that are in violation of the FCCPA; and

Case 9:20-cv-80703-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 8 of 9
PAGE | 9 of 9

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

(d) Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

DATED: April 27, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

 /s/ Jibrael S. Hindi .

JIBRAEL S. HINDI, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 118259

E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

THOMAS J. PATTI, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 118377

E-mail: tom@jibraellaw.com

The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi

110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Phone: 954-907-1136

Fax: 855-529-9540

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 9:20-cv-80703-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 9 of 9