UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Pablo Roger, individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Civil Action No: 1:22-cv-23192

Plaintiff(s)

-v.-

GC Services Limited Partnership,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendant(s). 

Plaintiff Pablo Roger (“Plaintiff”) brings this Class Action Complaint by and through his 

attorneys, Stein Saks, PLLC, against Defendant GC Services Limited Partnership (“Defendant 

GCSLP” or “Defendant”), 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/PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA” or “Act”) was enacted 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). The Act was promulgated because of the 

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

to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy." Id. It 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).

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 15
2. The purpose of the Act was not only to eliminate abusive debt collection practices, but 

also to ensure “that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices 

are not competitively disadvantaged.” Id. § 1692(e). After determining that the existing consumer 

protection laws were inadequate, Id. § 1692(b), the Act gave consumers a private cause of action 

against debt collectors who fail to comply with the Act. 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 state law claims, if any, 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 a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred here, Plaintiff resides here, and 

Defendant transacts business here.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

5. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a class of consumers in the State of Florida 

under Section 1692 et seq. of Title 15 of the United States Code, also known as the Fair Debt 

Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and

6. Plaintiff is seeking damages and declaratory relief.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida, County of Miami-Dade.

8. Defendant GCSLP is a “debt collector” as the phrase is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6) 

and used in the FDCPA with a principal place of business located at 6330 Gulfton Street, Houston 

Texas 77081, and is registered to accept service of process with its registered agent c/o C T 

Corporation System, 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, Florida 33324. 

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 15
9. Upon information and belief, Defendant GCSLP 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 to itself or another.

10. Defendant GCSLP was acting as a debt collector with respect to the collection of the 

Plaintiff’s alleged debt. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the following class, 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 GCSLP sent a letter;

c. attempting to collect a consumer debt;

d. on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.;

e. providing an amount owed; 

f. based on a particular date range between a date certain and “today”;

g. without dating the collection letter; 

h. 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.

13. The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of 

Defendant and those companies and entities on whose behalf it attempts to collect and/or have 

purchased debts.

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 3 of 15
14. Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are the Defendant and all officers, members, partners, 

managers, directors and employees of the Defendant 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 Defendant’s written communication to consumers, in the forms attached 

as Exhibit A, violate 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g et seq.

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 believes, and on that basis alleges, 

that the Plaintiff Class defined above is 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 Class and those questions predominance over 

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

issue is whether the Defendant’s written communication to consumers, in the 

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 4 of 15
forms attached as Exhibit A, violate 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and/or 

1692g et seq.

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 Defendant’s 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. 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 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 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.

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 5 of 15
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 incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint 

numbered 1 through 19 as though fully stated herein with the same force and effect as if the same 

were set forth at length herein. 

21. Some time prior to December 31, 2021, Plaintiff allegedly incurred an obligation to Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”).

22. The obligation arose out of a transaction in which money, property, insurance, or 

services, of which the subject transactions, were incurred for personal, family, or household 

purposes. 

23. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

24. The alleged Wells Fargo obligation is consumer related and therefore a “debt” as defined 

by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

25. Wells Fargo is a “creditor” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(4). 

26. Upon information and belief, Wells Fargo contracted with Defendant GCSLP to collect 

the alleged debt.

27. Defendant GCSLP 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.

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 6 of 15
Violation – Undated Collection Letter

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

numbered 1 through 27 above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set 

forth at length herein. 

29. On a date better known by Defendant GCSLP, Defendant GCSLP sent Plaintiff a 

collection letter regarding the debt owed to Wells Fargo. See “Letter” attached hereto as 

Exhibit A.

30. The Letter is not dated.

31. Despite the fact that the Letter lacks a date, Defendant GCSLP states, in relevant part: 

You had a Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. account with a client account number ending in 

1410.

As of December 31, 2021, you owed: $4,111.78

Between December 31, 2021, and today:

You were charged this amount in interest: + $0.00

You were charged this amount in fees: + $0.00

You paid or were credited with this amount toward the debt: - $0.00

Total amount of the debt now: $4,111.78

32. There is no way to determine from the Letter which date “today” and “now” refer to, 

as the Letter is not dated. 

33. The Plaintiff was thereby misled as to the status of the subject debt, for it was not 

associated with a particular date.

34. It is common practice to date official letters.

35. Letters that lack a date make them seem illegitimate.

36. A consumer, such as Plaintiff, cannot pay an alleged debt, trusting the debt collector, 

such as Defendant, and the statements made within the debt collector’s correspondence, when 

it appears that the information stated in the debt collector’s letter is incorrect, inaccurate, or 

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 7 of 15
otherwise misleading, making the consumer question the legitimacy of the debt collector’s 

attempts to collect the alleged debt. 

37. The fact that Defendant did not date the letter and yet attempted to define the subject 

debt based on a nebulous date was suspicious, misleading, and out of character for a legitimate 

debt collection. 

38. Therefore, Defendant’s omissions cast a negative shadow over its debt collection 

practice in general.

39. By withholding the date of the letter, Defendant withheld a material term from Plaintiff 

which made it confusing for him to understand the nature of the subject debt.

40. When they go astray, debt collectors often introduce a tacit element of confusion into 

their dunning letter to leave the consumer somewhat uninformed.

41. This strategy helps debt collectors to achieve leverage over consumers by keeping key 

pieces of information away from them.

42. When a consumer is faced with something less than the total story behind owing a debt, 

they often give up and choose to pay an unwarranted debt to avoid further trouble.

43. Knowing the state of affairs and the swift tricks that debt collectors attempt against 

consumers, Congress passed laws to protect consumers.

44. One important element of consumer protection revolves around keeping the consumer 

informed.

45. When a consumer has as much information as the debt collector, they are most capable 

of handling repayment in full or part, disputing the debt, or otherwise communicating with the 

debt collector on a more equal playing field with the debt collector.

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 8 of 15
46. However, when a debt collector withholds key information about a debt from the 

consumer, they encourage rash decision-making and consumers are left without any power to 

face the debt collector in a meaningful way. 

47. These violations by Defendant were unconscionable, knowing, willful, negligent 

and/or intentional, and Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any 

such violations.

48. As dating a letter is so basic in the business world, the fact that Defendant left the Letter 

dateless arouses suspicion as to their underlying motivations for doing so.

49. The non-dated letter coupled with the references to “today” and “now” make it appear 

that the entire letter is just an attempt to improperly extort money from Plaintiff and coerce 

Plaintiff to pay.

50. Defendants actions created an appreciable risk of harm to Plaintiff of being unable to 

properly respond to or handle Defendant’s debt collection efforts. 

51. Plaintiff’s failure to pay the debt arose from the collection Letter itself because Plaintiff 

believed it was an attempt to collect inaccurate or improper monies. 

52. That harm would further materialize because Defendant’s actions caused Plaintiff to 

expend time, in reliance on the improper content of the letter and lack of consistent sensible 

information, to ascertain what his options and possible responses could or should be. 

53. Defendant’s collection efforts with respect to the alleged debt caused Plaintiff to suffer 

concrete and particularized harm, inter alia, because the FDCPA provides Plaintiff with the 

legally protected right not to be misled or treated unfairly with respect to any action for the 

collection of any consumer debt. 

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 9 of 15
54. Defendant’s deceptive, misleading, and unfair representations and/or omissions with 

respect to its collection efforts were material misrepresentations that affected and frustrated 

Plaintiff’s ability to intelligently respond to Defendant’s collection efforts because Plaintiff 

could not adequately or informatively respond to Defendant’s demand for payment of this 

alleged debt.

55. Plaintiff was uncertain about the legitimacy of the Letter and misled to his detriment 

by the statements and/or omissions in the dunning Letter, and relied on the contents of the 

Letter to his detriment. 

56. Plaintiff would have pursued a different course of action were it not for Defendant’s 

violations.

57. Because of Defendant’s actions, the funds Plaintiff could have used to pay all or part 

of the alleged debt were spent elsewhere. 

58. In reliance on the Letter, Plaintiff expended time and money in an effort to mitigate the 

risk of future financial and reputational harm in the form of the debt collection informational 

furnishment, and ultimate dissemination, to third parties. 

59. Plaintiff’s reliance on the Letter, and the resulting inaction/non-payment, caused 

Defendant’s furnishment, and ultimate dissemination, of negative credit reporting to the 

Plaintiff’s financial and reputational detriment. 

60. In reliance on the Letter, Plaintiff expended time and money in an effort to mitigate the 

risk of future financial harm in the form of dominion and control over his funds. 

61. Plaintiff was misled and made uncertain to his detriment by the statements and/or 

omissions in the Letter and relied on the contents of the Letter to his detriment. 

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 10 of 15
62. When a debt collector fails to effectively inform the consumer of their rights and legal 

status of their debts, in violation of statutory law, the debt collector has harmed the consumer. 

63. As a result of Defendant’s deceptive, misleading, unfair, unconscionable, and false debt 

collection practices, Plaintiff has been damaged. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 

15 U.S.C. §1692d et seq.

64. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the above paragraphs numbered 1 through 

54 as if set forth herein.

65. 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. § 1692d.

66. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692d, a debt collector may not engage in any conduct the 

natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the 

collection of a debt.

67. Defendant violated §1692d: 

a. By omitting a date from their dunning letter and defining Plaintiff’s debt based 

on the omitted date.

68. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment in that Defendant’s 

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

costs and attorneys’ fees.

/

/

/

/

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 11 of 15
COUNT II

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. §1692e et seq.

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

numbered 1 through 54 above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set 

forth at length herein.

70. 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.

71. 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.

72. Defendant violated §1692e: 

a. As the letter falsely represents the true character and/or legal status of the debt 

in violation of §1692e(2)(A); and

b. By making a false and misleading representation/omissions in violation of 

§1692e(10).

73. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment in that Defendant’s

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

costs and attorneys’ fees.

COUNT III 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 

15 U.S.C. §1692f et seq.

74. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the above paragraphs numbered 1 through 

54 as if set forth herein.

75. 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. § 1692f.

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 12 of 15
76. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692f, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable 

means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.

77. Defendant violated §1692f: 

a. By omitting a material term from the dunning letter to disadvantage the Plaintiff 

from making an educated decision regarding the subject debt;

78. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment in that Defendant’s 

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

and attorneys’ fees.

COUNT IV

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 

15 U.S.C. §1692g et seq.

79. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the above paragraphs numbered 1 through 

54 as if set forth herein.

80. 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.

81. Pursuant to 15 USC §1692g(a):

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;

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 13 of 15
4. A statement that 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 a 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.

82. Defendant violated Section 1692g(a):

a. Failing to properly provide the amount of the debt, by pegging it to an unknown 

date.

83. Pursuant to 15 USC §1692g(b):

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the 

thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any 

portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name 

and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease 

collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt 

collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or 

the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such 

verification or judgment, or name and address of the original 

creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection 

activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this 

subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in 

subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in 

writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that 

the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. 

Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day 

period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of 

the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and 

address of the original creditor.

84. Defendant violated Section 1692g(b) by engaging in collection activities and 

communication during the 30-day period that overshadowed and/or was inconsistent with the 

disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt.

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 14 of 15
85. 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

86. 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 Pablo Roger, demands judgment from Defendant GCSLP as follows:

1. For actual damages provided and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1);

2. For statutory damages provided and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A);

3. For attorney fees and costs provided pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3); 

4. For declaratory relief stating that Defendant violated the FDCPA pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2201; and 

5. For such other and further relief, as well as further costs, expenses, and 

disbursements of this action as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: September 30, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,

ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC

/s/ Justin Zeig

Justin Zeig, Esq.

3475 Sheridan St. Ste 310 

Hollywood, FL 33021 

Telephone: (754) 217-3084

Facsimile: (954) 272-7807

justin@zeiglawfirm.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23192-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 15 of 15