1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION

 

Amir Preisler, individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, C.A. No: 

Plaintiff,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-v.-

FMA Alliance, Ltd. and

JOHN DOES 1-25,

Defendants. 

Plaintiff Amir Preisler (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), a Florida resident, brings this Class Action 

Complaint by and through his attorneys, Zeig Law Firm LLC against Defendant FMA Alliance, Ltd.

(hereinafter “Defendant FMA”) individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, 

pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based upon information and belief of 

Plaintiff’s counsel, except for allegations specifically pertaining to Plaintiff, which are based upon 

Plaintiff's personal knowledge.

INTRODUCTION

1. Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) in 1977 in 

response to the "abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection 

practices by many debt collectors." 15 U.S.C. §1692(a). At that time, Congress was concerned 

that "abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to 

material instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy." Id. Congress 

Case 0:20-cv-61046-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 1 of 10
concluded that "existing laws...[we]re inadequate to protect consumers," and that "the effective 

collection of debts" does not require "misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection 

practices." 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692(b) & (c).

2. Congress explained that the purpose of the FDCPA was not only to eliminate abusive 

debt collection practices, but also to "insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using 

abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged." ld. § 1692(e). After 

determining that the existing consumer protection laws were inadequate, Congress created a 

private cause of action to provide consumers with a remedy against debt collectors who fail to 

comply with the FDCPA. Id. § 1692k.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. The Court has jurisdiction over this class action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq. The Court has pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims in this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as this is 

where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

5. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a class of Florida consumers under

§1692 et seq. of Title 15 of the United States Code, commonly referred to as the Fair Debt 

Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and

6. Plaintiff is seeking damages and declaratory relief.

Case 0:20-cv-61046-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 2 of 10
PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida, County of Broward, residing at 401 E 

Las Olas Blvd, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-2210.

8. Defendant FMA is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692(a)(6) and used in the FDCPA with an address at 12339 Cutten Road, Houston, TX 77066.

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant FMA is a company that uses the mail, 

telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to 

attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.

10. John Does l-25, are fictitious names of individuals and businesses alleged for the 

purpose of substituting names of Defendants whose identities will be disclosed in discovery and 

should be made parties to this action.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the following case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

12. The Class consists of: 

a. all individuals with addresses in the State of Florida;

b. to whom Defendant FMA sent a collection letter attempting to collect a consumer 

debt;

c. regarding collection of a debt;

d. that deceptively included a statement that the IRS may be notified for settlement 

of the debt, when the requirements for this event to occur will not be met; 

e. which letter was sent on or after a date one (1) year prior to the filing of this 

action and on or before a date twenty-one (21) days after the filing of this action.

Case 0:20-cv-61046-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 3 of 10
13. The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of 

Defendants and those companies and entities on whose behalf they attempt to collect and/or

have purchased debts.

14. Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are the Defendants and all officer, members, 

partners, managers, directors and employees of the Defendants and their respective immediate 

families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their immediate

families. 

15. There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class, which common 

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

is whether the Defendants' written communications to consumers, in the forms attached as 

Exhibits A, violate 15 U.S.C. §§ l692e and 1692f.

16. The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same 

facts and legal theories. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

Plaintiff Class defined in this complaint. The Plaintiff has retained counsel with experience in 

handling consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiff 

nor his attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.

17. This action has been brought, and may properly be maintained, as a class action 

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because there is a 

well-defined community interest in the litigation:

a. Numerosity: The Plaintiff is informed and believe, and on that basis alleged, that 

the Plaintiff Class defined above are so numerous that joinder of all members 

would be impractical.

Case 0:20-cv-61046-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 4 of 10
b. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist as 

to all members of the Plaintiff Class and those questions predominance over any 

questions or issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue 

is whether the Defendants' written communications to consumers, in the forms 

attached as Exhibit A violate 15 § l692e and §1692f.

c. Typicality: The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members. 

The Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff Class have claims arising out of the 

Defendants' common uniform course of conduct complained of herein.

d. Adequacy: The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

class members insofar as Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to the absent 

class members. The Plaintiff is committed to vigorously litigating this matter.

Plaintiff has also retained counsel experienced in handling consumer lawsuits,

complex legal issues, and class actions. Neither the Plaintiff nor his counsel have

any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue the instant class

action lawsuit.

e. Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available means for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual joinder of all 

members would be impracticable. Class action treatment will permit a large 

number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single 

forum efficiently and without unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that

individual actions would engender.

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

is also appropriate in that the questions of law and fact common to members of the Plaintiff 

Case 0:20-cv-61046-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 5 of 10
Class predominate over any questions affecting an individual member, and a class action is 

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

19. Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff may, at 

the time of class certification motion, seek to certify a class(es) only as to particular issues 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

20. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 

numbered above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length 

herein.

21. Some time prior to January 23, 2020, an obligation was allegedly incurred by 

Plaintiff to Regions Bank.

22. The alleged obligation arose out of a transaction involving a Regions Bank debt

incurred by Plaintiff in which money, property, insurance or services were the subject of the 

transaction. Specifically, Plaintiff used the funds of the Regions Bank debt to purchase goods 

that were primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

23. Defendant FMA contracted with Regions Bank to collect the alleged debt.

24. The alleged obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a(5).

25. Defendant FMA collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have 

been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United 

States Postal Services, telephone and internet.

Violation I – January 23, 2020 Collection Letter

Case 0:20-cv-61046-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 6 of 10
26. On or about January 23, 2020, Defendant FMA sent Plaintiff a collection letter (the

“Letter”) seeking to collect an alleged debt owed to Defendant LVNV. See Collection Letter 

– Attached hereto as Exhibit A.

27. The Letter offered Plaintiff an option for settling the alleged debt.

28. The letter stated “Our client may be required by law to report this settlement to one 

or more taxing authorities. Our client makes no representation about tax consequences this

settlement may have or reporting requirements which may be imposed on the client. You should 

consult independent tax counsel of your own choosing if you desire advice about tax 

consequences which may result from this settlement.

29. The total balance due on the debt being collected was $257.95

30. In the Letter, Defendants offered a discount settlement option of $116.08 to settle the 

debt.

31. Under any of these settlement terms, the maximum amount of debt forgiveness in 

this settlement offer would be $141.87.

32. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code §6050P, discharges of indebtedness of $600 or 

more during any calendar year, must be reported to the IRS on Form 1099C.

33. The Notice in the Letter stating that a discharge of debt may be reported to the IRS

is deceptive and misleading to the Plaintiff as there is no way that the amount of debt forgiveness 

here could reach $600.00. 

34. The invocation of the Internal Revenue Service in the Letter only served to scare 

Plaintiff for fear of tax repercussions and served to overshadow the settlement offer.

35. A statement that serves to confuse a consumer, and can never apply during this 

collection is clearly deceptive and harmful.

Case 0:20-cv-61046-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 7 of 10
36. Plaintiff incurred a financial risk of harm as he was afraid to take advantage of the 

settlement amount for fear of tax consequences which were falsely threatened to her.

37. As a result of Defendant’s deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices, 

Plaintiff has been damaged.

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. §1692e 

et seq.

38. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 

above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.

39. Defendants’ debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff 

violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

40. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e, a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or 

misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.

41. Defendants violated said section by making a false and misleading representation in 

violation of §§ 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5) and 1692e(10).

42. By reason thereof, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendants’

conduct violated Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs 

and attorneys’ fees.

COUNT II

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. 

§1692f et seq.

43. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 

above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.

44. Defendants’ debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff 

violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.

Case 0:20-cv-61046-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 8 of 10
45. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692f, a debt collector may not use any unfair or 

unconscionable means in connection with the collection of any debt.

46. Defendants violated this section by unfairly and falsely scaring Plaintiff into 

believing he would suffer tax penalties if he accepted the settlement offer.

47. By reason thereof, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendants’

conduct violated Section 1692f et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs 

and attorneys’ fees.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

48. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby requests 

a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Amir Preisler, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated demands judgment from Defendant FMA as follows:

1. Declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a Class Action and certifying 

Plaintiff as Class representative, and Justin Zeig, Esq. as Class Counsel;

2. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class statutory damages;

3. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class actual damages;

4. Awarding Plaintiff costs of this Action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

expenses;

5. Awarding pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest; and

6. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class such other and further relief as this Court may deem

just and proper.

Dated: May 28, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

Case 0:20-cv-61046-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 9 of 10
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC

/s/ Justin Zeig

Justin Zeig, Esq.

FL Bar No. 112306

3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310

Hollywood, FL 33021

Telephone: 754-217-3084

Fax: 954-272-7807

justin@zeiglawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 0:20-cv-61046-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 10 of 10