Amended Class Action Complaint Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SUELAN WAN, on behalf of herself 

and all other similarly situated 

consumers,

)

) 

)

)

Plaintiff(s), )

)

-vs- ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-21677-KMW

)

RAUSCH STURM LLP and

DISCOVER BANK

)

)

)

Defendants. )

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, SUELAN WAN, on her own behalf and on behalf of those 

similarly situated (collectively, “Consumers” or “Class Members”), by and through Undersigned 

Counsel, sues Defendants, RAUSCH STURM LLP (“Rausch”) and DISCOVER BANK

(“Discovery”), and alleges the following based on her personal knowledge as to the allegations 

regarding herself, and upon information and belief as to the other allegations: 

1. Plaintiff seeks redress for the illegal practices of Defendants, RAUSCH STURM LLP and

DISCOVER BANK, concerning the collection of debts, in violation of the Florida Consumer 

Collection Protection Act, Florida Stat. § 559.55 et seq. (“FCCPA”) and the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”).

JURISDICTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES

2. This is a class action at law seeking monetary damages in an amount that exceeds 

$30,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. 

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and by virtue of 

the removal to federal court on or about June 1, 2022 (Doc. 1). 

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Florida’s long-arm 

Case 1:22-cv-21677-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2022 Page 1 of 11
Amended Class Action Complaint Page 2 of 11

statute. See Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1). 

5. Florida’s long-arm statute recognizes two kinds of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident 

defendant: specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction and when a Plaintiff satisfies the long-arm 

statute’s requirements for specific jurisdiction over a Defendant, there is no need to engage in the 

general jurisdiction analysis. 

6. Under Florida’s long-arm statute, a court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over 

a nonresident defendant who engaged in one of the enumerated acts listed under Fla. Stat. § 

48.193(1)(a). 

7. Section 48.193(1)(a)(1) states a nonresident defendant may be subjected to the jurisdiction 

of a court in Florida for either “[o]perating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or 

business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state.” Fla. Stat. § 

48.193(1)(a)(1). 

8. Defendants’ conduct in this Action triggers the necessary prong of Florida’s long-arm 

jurisdiction because Defendants are engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this 

State by targeting Florida consumers. 

9. Defendants are debt collectors under the FCCPA and regularly conduct business in the 

State of Florida, where they specifically target Florida citizens, such as Plaintiff. 

A. The Parties

10. That all material hereto, Plaintiff, Suelan Wan, was a resident and citizen of Broward 

County, Florida, and of this district, is over the age of eighteen (18) years, and otherwise sui 

juris. 

11. Defendant, RAUSCH STURM LLP (“RAUSCH”), is a foreign for-profit corporation, 

incorporated in the State of Wisconsin, with its principal place of business located at 250 North 

Sunnyslope Road, Suite 300, Brookfield, WI 53005, and by and through its officers, 

Case 1:22-cv-21677-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2022 Page 2 of 11
Amended Class Action Complaint Page 3 of 11

representatives, and agents, conducted and conducts business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

12. Defendant, DISCOVER BANK (“DISCOVER”), is a foreign for-profit corporation, 

incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 502 East 

Market Street, Greenwood, DE 19950 and by and through its officers, representatives, and agents, 

conducted and conducts business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

13. All conditions precedent to bringing this lawsuit have been met and/or waived. 

II. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

14. Plaintiff is a consumer as that term is defined by Fla. Stat. § 559.95(8) and as defined by 

Section 1692(a)(3) of the FDCPA, in that the alleged debt that Defendant sought to collect from 

Plaintiff is a consumer debt.

15. Defendant is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by Fla. Stat. §559.55(7) and by 15 

U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 

16. The alleged debt that Defendant sought to collect from Plaintiff is a consumer debt as 

defined by Fla. Stat. §559.55(6) and 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

17. Defendants regularly engage, for profit, in the collection of alleged consumer debts. 

Discover is also the creditor concerning the underlying debt. 

A. Allegations Particular to Suelan Wan 

18. Upon information and belief, on a date better known by Defendants, Defendants began to 

attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt from Plaintiff.

19. On or about December 1, 2021, Defendant RAUSCH sent Plaintiff a collection letter 

(hereinafter, “Letter”) seeking to collect a balance allegedly incurred for personal purposes. The 

Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein. 

20. The Letter concerns an alleged debt that Plaintiff purportedly owes to Defendant 

Case 1:22-cv-21677-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2022 Page 3 of 11
Amended Class Action Complaint Page 4 of 11

DISCOVER.

21. Defendant RAUSCH sent the Plaintiff a prior letter dated December 28, 2020.

22. The said December 28, 2020 letter did not identify the Defendant as a law firm.

23. Even though the Letter now identifies Defendant as a law firm, an attorney did not sign the 

said Letter.

24. When a consumer receives a collection letter from a law firm, the consumer is more 

intimidated than the receipt of a letter from a collection agency.

25. A letter from an attorney or law firm must be sent in a meaningful fashion.

26. An attorney at the firm must personally review the file.

27. The absence of an attorney’s personal signature on the Letter suggests that the collection 

operation is without personal attention and knowledge by an attorney of each debtor’s file. 

28. The Letter’s language violates 15 USC 1692e, 1692e(3) and 1692e(10).

29. By changing the Letter and adding that it is from an attorney or from a law firm, it changes 

the entity from which the Letter is sent.

30. Because the Letter represents that it is from a law firm and not from a collection agency, it 

is considered a new and different entity.

31. Upon information and belief, Defendant Discover failed to properly review the collection 

process of Defendant RAUSCH.

32. The Letter did not contain the required validation notice to dispute the debt.

33. The Letter further violates 15 USC 1692e, 1692e(10) and 1692g which specifically 

addresses the consumer’s dispute rights contained in an initial letter.

34. Defendant RAUSCH used materially false, deceptive, misleading representations and 

means in its attempted collection of Plaintiff’s alleged debt.

Case 1:22-cv-21677-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2022 Page 4 of 11
Amended Class Action Complaint Page 5 of 11

35. Defendant RAUSCH’s communication was designed to cause the debtor to suffer a 

harmful disadvantage in charting a course of action in response to Defendant’s collection efforts.

36. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s right to not be the target of deceptive debt collection 

communications.

37. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s right to a truthful and fair debt collection process. 

38. For purposes of the FCCPA, Defendant Discover, as the creditor, can be liable under the 

FCCPA, as the creditor.

39. Defendant RAUSCH, being a law firm, acts as the mouthpiece of the client, here being 

Defendant DISCOVER.

40. Defendant DISCOVER, as the creditor, is liable for the actions of Defendant RAUSCH.

41. Plaintiff suffered injury in fact by being subjected to Defendants’ unfair and abusive 

practices.

42. Plaintiff suffered actual harm by being the target of Defendants’ deceptive debt collection 

communications.

43. The FDCPA ensures that consumers are fully and truthfully apprised of the facts and of 

their rights, the act enables them to understand, make informed decisions about, and participate 

fully and meaningfully in the debt collection process. The FDCPA functions to ensure that debt 

collectors provide all the necessary information to consumers so that consumers can make 

intelligent decisions. Defendant RAUSCH engaged in false representations and misled Plaintiff

in a manner that deprived her of her right to enjoy these benefits. These materially deceptive 

statements trigger liability under sections 1692e, 1692e(10) and 1692g of the Act.

44. These deceptive communications additionally violated the FDCPA since they frustrate the 

consumer’s ability to intelligently choose his or her response. 

Case 1:22-cv-21677-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2022 Page 5 of 11
Amended Class Action Complaint Page 6 of 11

45. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered 

damages, including but not limited to, fear, stress, mental anguish, emotional stress, and acute 

embarrassment for which she should be compensated in an amount to be proven by a jury at trial. 

III. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

46. Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated 

pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, 

adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of the Rule. 

47. The proposed Class is defined as:

All consumers that were dunned by Defendant in the similar letter 

series as Plaintiff where Defendant modified its letter and later 

disclosed it is a law firm and where it did not review the file prior to 

the sending of the letter, and where the letter did not provide 

necessary dispute disclosures. 

48. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed Class before 

the Court determines whether certification is appropriate.

49. There are questions of law and fact common to the class and these questions predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual class members. The principal question presented by

this claim is whether Defendants violated the FCCPA and/or the FDCPA. 

50. The members of the class are unsophisticated consumers, whose rights will not be 

vindicated in the absence of a class action. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members 

of the classes would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications resulting in the 

establishment of inconsistent or varying standards for the parties and would not be in the interest 

of judicial economy. 

51. Courts apply the Least Sophisticated Consumer standard when evaluating collection 

attempts, such as those Defendants made.

Case 1:22-cv-21677-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2022 Page 6 of 11
Amended Class Action Complaint Page 7 of 11

52. Plaintiff does not currently know the exact number of Class Members or their identities

because such information is in Defendants’ exclusive control and can only be ascertained by 

review of its records. However, Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds and perhaps thousands 

of Class Members. The Class Members are sufficiently numerous and geographically dispersed; 

therefore, joinder of all Class Members is impracticable.

53. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class.

54. The factual basis of Defendants’ misconduct is common to all Class Members and resulted 

in injury to all Class Members.

55. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class and those common 

questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members.

56. A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this

controversy. Treatment as a class action will permit many similarly situated persons to adjudicate 

their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, effectively, and without the duplication of 

effort and expense, and risk of inconsistent rulings that numerous individual actions would cause. 

Class treatment will also permit the adjudication of small claims by Class Members who otherwise 

might not be able to afford to litigate their claims individually. This class action presents no 

difficulties in management that would preclude maintenance as a class action.

57. This forum is particularly desirable for the prosecution of this class action because 

Defendants specifically targets Florida consumers, and the lead Plaintiff is domiciled in Florida. 

58. Litigating on a class action basis in this forum will decrease the cost of discovery and 

prosecution.

59. Plaintiff has suffered the harm alleged on behalf of the Class and has no interests 

antagonistic to the interests of any other Class Members. She is committed to the prosecution of 

Case 1:22-cv-21677-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2022 Page 7 of 11
Amended Class Action Complaint Page 8 of 11

this action and has retained counsel experienced in the prosecution of class actions and complex 

commercial actions. Accordingly, Plaintiff is an adequate representative and will fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the Class Members. Plaintiff is not aware of any other pending 

litigation concerning this controversy that involves Class Members.

60. Finally, the Class is readily definable, and Defendant RAUSCH’s records exist in its files 

as to the class members.

COUNT I – Violations of the FCCPA (Brought by Plaintiff on Behalf of herself and the 

Members of a Class, Against Defendants)

61. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1-57. 

62. This cause of action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the class members. 

63. The class consists of all persons whom Defendants’ records reflect resided in the State of 

Florida and who were sent a collection letter in substantially the same form letter as the Letter sent 

to Plaintiff on or about December 1, 2021 (Exhibit “A”); and (a) the collection letter was sent to a 

consumer seeking payment of an alleged personal debt owed to Defendant DISCOVER; (b) the 

collection letter was not returned by the postal service as undelivered; (c) and Plaintiff asserts that 

the Letter contained violations of Fla. Stat. § 559.72(7) and (11) inter alia for abusing and 

harassing Plaintiff and for sending a letter not properly sent from a law firm with the file having 

been reviewed by an attorney. 

64. Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to damages in accordance with the FCCPA 

because Defendant violated the FCCPA.

65. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 559.77(2), Plaintiff is entitled to recover her reasonable attorneys’ 

fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands the entry of preliminary and permanent 

Case 1:22-cv-21677-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2022 Page 8 of 11
Amended Class Action Complaint Page 9 of 11

injunctive relief and entry of judgment against Defendants, awarding Plaintiff and the class 

members damages as follows:

a. Statutory damages provided under the Fla. Stat. § 559.77. 

b. Attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing this action as provided by statute; and 

c. Any other relief that this Court deems appropriate and just under the circumstances. 

COUNT II – Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Brought by Plaintiff on 

Behalf of Herself and the Members of a Class, Against Defendant RAUSCH) 

66. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1-57. 

67. This cause of action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the class members. 

68. The class consists of all persons whom Defendant’s records reflect resided in the State of 

Florida and who were sent a collection letter in substantially the same form as the Letter (Exhibit 

“A”) sent Plaintiff.

a. the collection letter was sent to a consumer seeking payment of a personal debt 

owed to Discover Card; and (b) the collection letter was not returned by the postal 

service as undelivered; 

b. Plaintiff asserts that the Letter contained violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 

1692e(3), 1692e(10) and 1692g. 

69. Defendant’s actions as set forth above in the within complaint violates the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act.

70. Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to damages in accordance with the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act because Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands the entry of preliminary and permanent 

Case 1:22-cv-21677-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2022 Page 9 of 11
Amended Class Action Complaint Page 10 of 11

injunctive relief and entry of judgment against Defendant RAUSCH, awarding Plaintiff and the 

class members damages as follows:

d. Statutory damages provided under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(k); 

e. Attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing this action as provided by statute; and 

f. Any other relief that this Court deems appropriate and just under the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

DATED: June 24, 2022 

LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class 

Members

3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1 

Hollywood, Florida 33021 

(954) 727-8570 – Telephone 

(954) 241-6857 – Facsimile

Primary – omar@lawlp.com

Secondary – claudia@lawlp.com

Secondary – maritza@lawlp.com

By: /s/ Omar M. Salazar II____________

OMAR M. SALAZAR II, ESQ.

Fla. Bar No.: 0106175 

ELY R. LEVY, ESQ.

Fla. Bar No.: 15452 

[CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]

Case 1:22-cv-21677-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2022 Page 10 of 11
Amended Class Action Complaint Page 11 of 11

SERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 24, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM / ECF. I also hereby certify that a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing has been sent to the parties listed below either via transmission of Notices of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM / ECF or other authorized manner if not authorized to receive 

Notices of Electronic Filing. 

By: /s/ Omar M. Salazar II______

Omar M. Salazar II, Esq.

SERVICE LIST

LAUREN M. BURNETTE, ESQ.,

JOHN M. MAREES II, ESQ., and 

JOSEPHE ENDICOTT, ESQ.

MESSER STRICKLER BURNETTE, LTD.

12276 San Jose Blvd. 

Suite 718 

Jacksonville, Florida 32223 

lburnette@messerstrickler.com

jmarees@messerstrickler.com

mwalsh@messerstrickler.com

jendicott@messerstrickler.com

Counsel for Defendant

Case 1:22-cv-21677-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2022 Page 11 of 11