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.-

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC 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 Cavalry Portfolio 

Services, LLC (hereinafter Cavalry Portfolio) and Cavalry SPV I, LLC (hereinafter “Defendant 

Cavalry SPV”),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 

Case 0:20-cv-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 1 of 13
material instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy." Id. Congress 

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-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 2 of 13
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 Cavalry Portfolio 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 500 Summit Lake Drive, Valhalla, NY 

10595.

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cavalry Portfolio 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. Defendant Cavalry SPV 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 500 Summit Lake Drive, Valhalla, NY 

10595.

11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cavalry SPV 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.

12. 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

13. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of the following case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

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

14. The Class consists of: 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 3 of 13
b. to whom Defendant Cavalry Portfolio sent an initial collection letter attempting 

to collect a consumer debt;

c. on behalf of Defendant Cavalry SPV;

d. which letter makes it unclear as to whom the consumer should direct their 

disputes of the alleged debt;

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 (2l) days after the filing of this action.

15. 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.

16. Excluded from the Plaintiff Classes 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. 

17. There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Classes, 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 

Exhibit A, violate 15 U.S.C. §§ l692e and 1692g.

18. The Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same 

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

Plaintiff Classes defined in this complaint. The Plaintiffs have retained counsel with experience 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 4 of 13
nor their attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this 

action.

19. 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 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 

that the Plaintiff Classes defined above are so numerous that joinder of all 

members would be impractical.

b. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist as 

to all members of the Plaintiff Classes 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 USC §§ l692e and 1692g.

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

The Plaintiffs and all members of the Plaintiff Classes have claims arising out of 

the Defendants' common uniform course of conduct complained of herein.

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

class members insofar as Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to the absent 

class members. The Plaintiffs are committed to vigorously litigating this matter.

Plaintiffs have also retained counsel experienced in handling consumer lawsuits,

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

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

action lawsuit.

Case 0:20-cv-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 5 of 13
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.

20. 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 

Classes 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.

21. Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiffs 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

22. 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.

23. Some time prior to May 18, 2019, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Citibank, 

N.A./AA Advantage by the Plaintiff.

24. The Citibank, N.A./AA Advantage obligation arose out of credit card transactions in 

which money, property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, were 

primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

Case 0:20-cv-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 6 of 13
25. The alleged Citibank, N.A./AA Advantage obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 

U.S.C.§ 1692a(5).

26. Sometime thereafter, Defendant Cavalry SPV purportedly purchased the alleged 

debt.

27. Defendant Cavalry SPV contracted the Defendant Cavalry Portfolio to collect the 

alleged debt.

28. Defendants Cavalry Portfolio and Cavalry SPV collect and attempt 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 – October 26, 2019 Collection Letter

29. On or about October 26, 2019, Defendant Cavalry Portfolio sent the Plaintiff a 

collection letter (the “Letter”) regarding the alleged debt owed to Cavalry SPV I, LLC. See 

Exhibit A.

30. The Letter advises, inter alia, that Defendant Cavalry SPV I, LLC has purchased the 

alleged debt and that Defendant Cavalry Portfolio would be servicing same. 

31. When a debt collector solicits payment from a consumer, it must, within five days of 

an initial communication, provide the consumer with a written validation notice which must 

include the following information: 

(1) the amount of the debt;

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

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the

Case 0:20-cv-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 7 of 13
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 that 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. 15 U.S.C. §

1692g(a).

The letter containing this information is known as the “G-Notice.”

32. The FDCPA further provides 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 shall cease collection . . . until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt . 

. . and a copy of such verification is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. 15 U.S.C. § 

1692g(b).

33. The Letter contained all of the requirements of the “G-Notice.”

34. However, although a collection letter may track the statutory language, as is the case 

here, ''the collector nevertheless violates the Act if it conveys that information in a confusing or

contradictory fashion so as to cloud the required message with uncertainty.'' Russell v. 

EQUIFAX A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 1996) (''It is not enough for a debt collection agency 

to simply include the proper debt validation notice in a mailing to a consumer-- Congress 

Case 0:20-cv-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 8 of 13
intended that such notice be clearly conveyed.''). Put differently, a notice containing ''language 

that 'overshadows or contradicts' other language informing a consumer of her rights . . . violates 

the Act.'' Russell, 74 F.3d at 34.

35. The Letter states in pertinent part:

Unless you notify Cavalry within thirty days after receiving this letter 

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

will assume this debt is valid. If you notify Cavalry in writing within 

thirty days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of 

this debt or any portion thereof, Cavalry will obtain verification of

the debt or a copy of a judgment, if applicable, and mail you a copy of 

such verification or judgment. If you request it from Cavalry in writing 

within thirty days after receiving this notice, Cavalry will provide you 

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

current creditor. (Emphasis added)

36. The use of “Cavalry,” is deceptive and misleading as the Plaintiff would not know 

whether or not she should contact Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, or Cavalry SPV I, LLC to 

exercise his rights under the G-Notice. 

37. If Plaintiff contacts the incorrect entity to exercise his rights under the G-Notice, he 

effectively waives these rights.

38. This is a failure by Defendant to effectively convey the Plaintiff’s rights and to whom 

he should direct his dispute triggering those very same rights. 

39. Moreover, the instructions to simply contact “Cavalry” without any specification is 

deceptive because there is more than one reasonable interpretation to the term “Cavalry,” one of 

which is inaccurate. 

40. Defendant has made deceptive and misleading representations when they 

communicated the federally mandated G-Notice rights to Plaintiff in violation of 15 USC §§ 

l692e and 1692g.

Case 0:20-cv-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 9 of 13
41. As a result of Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, 

Plaintiff has been damaged.

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 

15 U.S.C. §1692e et seq.

42. 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.

43. Defendant’s 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.

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

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

45. Defendants made deceptive and misleading representations when they failed to 

effectively communicate to whom Plaintiff should direct his disputes under the G-Notice in 

violation of 1692e(10).

46. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant's 

conduct violated Section 1692e(10) 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. §1692g et seq.

47. 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.

48. Defendant’s 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. § 1692g. 

Case 0:20-cv-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 10 of 13
49. Pursuant to 15 USC §1692g, a debt collector:

Within five days after the initial communication with a 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 

a written notice containing –

(1) the amount of the debt;

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

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of 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 that 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. 15 U.S.C. §

1692g(a).

50. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692g by failing to effectively identify the 

entity upon which Plaintiff would have to direct his disputes under the federally mandated GNotice, which could effectively fail to allow for the triggering of these rights. 

Case 0:20-cv-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 11 of 13
51. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant's 

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

and attorneys’ fees.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

52. 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 Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, and Defendant 

Cavalry SPV I, LLC 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,

ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC

/s/ Justin Zeig

Justin Zeig, Esq.

FL Bar No. 112306

Case 0:20-cv-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 12 of 13
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-61048-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 13 of 13