1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 

MARITZA HALES, an individual, on behalf 

of herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. COMPLAINT- CLASS ACTION 

CONCORD SERVICING CORPORATION,

an Arizona corporation, 

Defendant.

 /

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INCIDENTAL RELIEF

Plaintiff, Maritza Hales, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated 

sues Defendant, Concord Servicing Corporation, an Arizona corporation, and alleges:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692, et sequi, known more

commonly as the “Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” (“FDCPA”), which prohibits debt 

collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices. 

II. JURISDICTION

2. The jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. §1692k and 28 U.S.C.

§1337. 

 III. ALLEGATIONS AS TO PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Maritza Hales (“Ms. Hales”), is sui juris and a resident of Broward 

Case 0:20-cv-61000-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

County, Florida.

4. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Concord Servicing Corporation (“Debt 

Collector”), was an Arizona corporation doing business in Broward County, Florida.

5. Defendant is or was engaged in the collection of debts from consumers using the 

mail and telephone. Defendant regularly attempted to collect consumer debts alleged to be due to 

another in Broward County, Florida.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On January 23, 2018, Ms. Hales entered into a Home Improvement Contract with 

Green NRG Inc. d/b/a “Solar World” (“Solar World”) for the installation of roof solar panels on 

her home located at 110 Marion Road, West Park, Florida 33003 (“Hales Residence”).

7. To finance the solar panels, Solar World created a purported loan (“Solar Panel 

Loan”) in the name of Ms. Hales with a third-party lender, Mosaic Solar, Inc. (“Mosaic Solar”).

8. As a result of fraudulent sales practices of Solar World with respect to the solar 

panel sales, financing and installation at the Hales Residence, Ms. Hales has refused to pay any 

money claimed by Mosaic Solar. 

9. On or about May 22, 2019, Defendant sent or caused to be sent to Ms. Hales written 

correspondence, known more commonly in the collection industry as a “dunning letter” for the 

purpose of collecting monies owed by Ms. Hales under the Solar Panel Loan (“Collection 

Communication”).

10. A true and correct copy of the Collection Communication is attached hereto and 

incorporated by reference as Exhibit “A.”

11. Defendant through the Collection Communication stated, inter alia, as follows:

Case 0:20-cv-61000-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

Please note that Concord Servicing Corporation (“Concord”) is acting as the loan 

servicer and debt collector for Mosaic concerning the above referenced loan. Unless 

you notify this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice that you 

dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this 

debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days of receiving this 

notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office 

will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment against you and 

mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you send a written request to 

this office within 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will provide you

with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current 

creditor.

(emphasis added by Plaintiff)

V. PRACTICES OF DEFENDANTS

12. It is or was the policy and practice of Defendant to send collection letters in the 

form of Exhibit “A” to consumers in a manner which was reasonably calculated to confuse or 

frustrate consumers with respect to advising consumers as to the right of consumers with respect 

to the validation of consumer debts under 15 U.S.C. §1692g and in a manner which is false and 

misleading in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e and e (10). 

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

13. This action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of: (i) all persons with

addresses in the Southern District of Florida (ii) to whom letters in the same or substantially similar 

form as Exhibit “A” were sent (iii) which stated that disputes by consumers must be in writing (iv) 

in an attempt to collect a debt which, according to the nature of the creditor or the debt, or the 

records of the creditor or defendants, was incurred for personal, family, or household purposes (v) 

which were not returned undelivered by the U.S. Post Office (vi) during the one year period prior 

to the filing of the complaint in this action.

Case 0:20-cv-61000-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

14. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief based on the Defendant’s use of letters 

in the form of Exhibit “A” that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 

Based on Defendant’s use of letters in the form of Exhibit “A,” Plaintiff estimates that the class 

includes hundreds or thousands of class members. 

15. There are questions of law or fact common to the class, which common issues 

predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The common factual issue 

common to each class member is that each was sent a letter in the form of Exhibit “A.” The 

principal legal issues are whether Defendant’sletters in the form of Exhibit “A” violate the FDCPA 

by failing to properly inform the consumer with respect to the consumer’s rights for debt 

verification under 15 U.S.C. §1692g.

16. Ms. Hales’s claim is typical of those of the class members. All are based on the 

same facts and legal theories.

17. Ms. Hales will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. She has 

retained counsel experienced in handling actions involving unlawful practices under the FDCPA 

and class actions. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interests which might cause them to 

not vigorously pursue this action.

18. Certification of the class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure is also appropriate in that:

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

predominate over any questions affecting an individual member.

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

efficient adjudication of the controversy.

Case 0:20-cv-61000-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

19. Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2), 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.

20. Ms. Hales requests certification of a hybrid class under Rule 23(b)(3), Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, for monetary damages and under Rule 23(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, for equitable relief.

VII. ALLEGATIONS OF LAW

21. At all times material hereto, Ms. Hales was a “consumer” as said term is defined 

under 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3).

22. At all times material hereto, Solar Mosaic, Inc. was a “creditor” as said term is 

defined under 15 U.S.C. §1692a(4).

23. At all times material hereto, the Solar Panel Loan was a “debt” as said term is 

defined under 15 U.S.C. §1692a(5).

24. At all times material hereto, Defendant was a “debt collector” as said term is 

defined under 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).

25. 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a) provides, in pertinent part, the following:

Notice of Debts; Contents

Within five days after the initial communication from the consumer 

in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, 

unless the following information is contained in the initial

communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the 

consumer written notice containing:

(1) The amount of the debt;

(2) The name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

Case 0:20-cv-61000-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

(3) A statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after 

receiving the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion 

thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) A statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in 

writing within the thirty day period, the debt, or any portion thereof, 

is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or 

a copy of the judgment against the consumer and a copy of such 

verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt 

collector; and

(5) A statement that upon the consumer=s written request within 

the thirty day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer 

with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from 

the current creditor. 

 26. The Collection Communication falsely and misleading states that disputes of the 

validity of debts had to be in writing when no such requirement is contained in the FDCPA.

27. The conduct of Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692g by the failure of Defendant 

to properly inform the consumer as to the consumer’s rights for debt verification in a manner which 

was not reasonably calculated to confuse or frustrate the least sophisticated consumer. See, Ricco 

v. Sentry Credit, Inc., 954 F.3rd 582 (3rd Cir. 2020); Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, 430 F. 3rd

1078 (9th Cir. 2005); Baez v. Warner & Hunt, P.A., 442 F. Supp. 2nd 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006). 

28. As the Collection Communication falsely communicated the rights of consumers 

to dispute debts, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e and e(10). 

29. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the class have suffered a concrete 

and legally cognizable injury by not receiving the disclosures mandated by Congress under the 

FDCPA. Plaintiff and the class are entitled to an award of statutory damages pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. §1692k.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Maritza Hales, an individual, requests judgment be entered in her

Case 0:20-cv-61000-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

favor and in favor of the class against Defendant, Concord Servicing Corporation, an Arizona 

corporation, for:

A. Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k;

B. An award of costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k; and

C. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Maritza Hales, pursuant to Rule 38(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, demands 

a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

/s/ Robert W. Murphy

ROBERT W. MURPHY

Florida Bar No. 717223

1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

(954) 763-8660 Telephone

(954) 763-8607 Fax

Email:

rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 0:20-cv-61000-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 7 of 7