Page 1 of 11

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 

Case No. 

SHANNA BYNES,

individually and on behalf of all 

those similarly situated, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

RGS FINANCIAL INC,

 

Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Shanna Bynes (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all those similarly 

situated, sues RGS Financial Inc (“Defendant”) for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act. 

NATURE OF ACTION 

1. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) is the administrative agency 

authorized to exercise its authorities under Federal consumer financial law to administer, enforce, 

and otherwise implement the provisions of Federal consumer financial law. See 12 U.S.C. § 5512; 

15 U.S.C. § 1692l(d); see also 12 C.F.R. § 1006.1(a). 

2. On November 30, 2020, the CFPB issued their final rule to revise Regulation F 

(“Reg F”) of which contains, among other things, the CFPB’s most recent interpretation of the Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). 

3. Reg F addresses, among other things, communications in connection with debt 

collection and prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair 

practices in debt collection. See generally 85 FR 76734.

Filing # 154347206 E-Filed 07/29/2022 02:56:21 PM Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 1 of 13
Page 2 of 11

4. With respect to the purpose of Reg F, it is stated “[Reg F] carries out the purposes 

of the FDCPA, which include eliminating abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, 

ensuring that debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not 

competitively disadvantaged, and promoting consistent State action to protect consumers against 

debt collection abuses. 12 C.F.R. § 1006.1(b). Moreover, Reg F, “prescribes requirements to 

ensure that certain features of debt collection are disclosed fully, accurately, and effectively 

to consumers in a manner that permits consumers to understand the costs, benefits, and risks 

associated with debt collection, in light of the facts and circumstances.” Id. (emphasis added).

5. This is a punitive class action under the FDCPA arising from Defendant’s 

violations of the FDCPA pursuant to Reg F. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Defendant 

(collectively, the “Parties”), because the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court 

and, thus, venue and jurisdiction are proper. 

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is 

operating, present, and/or doing business within this jurisdiction and because the complained of 

conduct of Defendant occurred within Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil 

Procedure 1.220 and Fla. Stat. § 26.012(2). The amount in controversy is greater than $30,000 

exclusive of costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees, and is otherwise within this Court’s jurisdiction. 

9. Venue of this action is proper in this Court because, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 47.011, 

et seq., the cause of action alleged below arose in Miami-Dade County Florida. 

PARTIES 

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 2 of 13
Page 3 of 11

10. Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in MiamiDade County, Florida.

11. Defendant is a Texas corporation, with its principal place of business located in 

Richardson, Texas.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

12. Plaintiff, respectfully, demands a trial by jury on all counts and issues so triable.

ALLEGATIONS 

13. On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to collect a debt 

(the “Consumer Debt”) from Plaintiff. 

14. The Consumer Debt is a “consumer financial product or service” within the 

meaning of 12 U.S.C. § 5481(5).

15. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising 

from an unsecured line of credit between the original creditor of the Consumer Debt, TD Bank 

USA, and Plaintiff (the “Subject Service”).

16. The Subject Service was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

17. The Consumer Debt is a debt related to a consumer financial product and/or service 

because the Consumer Debt arises from the unsecured line of credit the original creditor extended 

to Plaintiff, whereby said unsecured line of creditor was for the personal benefit of Plaintiff, 

Plaintiff’s family, and/or members of Plaintiff’s household. 

18. The Consumer Debt is a consumer financial product pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 

5481(15)(A)(i). 

19. Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of soliciting consumer debts 

for collection.

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 3 of 13
Page 4 of 11

20. Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts.

21. Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts 

owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

22. Defendant is registered with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation as a 

“Consumer Collection Agency.” 

23. Defendant’s “Consumer Collection Agency” license number is CCA0900157. 

24. Defendant maintains all the records specified in Rule 69V-180.080, Florida 

Administrative Code.

25. The records specified by Rule 69V-180.080, Florida Administrative Code, of which 

Defendant does maintain, are current to within one week of the current date. 

26. Defendant maintains and keeps updated within seven (7) days the records required 

by Florida Administrative Code Rule 180.080(1), (3), (6), (7), (9), (10), and (11). 

27. Defendant has written policies and procedures for the secure handling of all 

consumer documents and information received in the course of collecting a debt from a consumer 

as required by Rule 69V-180.090(2). 

28. Defendant is a “debt collector” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

29. Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 559.72. 

30. On or after June 8, 2022, Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff (the 

“Collection Letter”) in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. A copy of the Collection Letter 

is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 

31. The Collection Letter represents Defendant’s initial communication with Plaintiff 

in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. 

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 4 of 13
Page 5 of 11

32. Defendant did not send the Collection Letter via certified mail, registered mail, or 

any other means which would provide Defendant with conformation that the Collection Letter was 

delivered. 

33. Defendant was required to provide “validation information” in the Collection 

Letter. See 12 C.F.R. § 1006.34(c).

34. The “validation information” that Defendant was required to provide in the 

Collection Letter includes, but is not limited to “[i]nformation about consumer protection.” See 12 

C.F.R. § 1006.34(c)(3). 

35. The “[i]nformation about consumer protection” that Defendant was required to 

provide in the Collection Letter includes, but is not limited to: 

(i) The date that the debt collector will consider the end date of 

the validation period and a statement that, if the consumer 

notifies the debt collector in writing on or before that date 

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

collector must cease collection of the debt, or the disputed 

portion of the debt, until the debt collector sends the 

consumer either verification of the debt or a copy of a 

judgment. 

(ii) The date that the debt collector will consider the end date of 

the validation period and a statement that, if the consumer 

requests in writing on or before that date the name and 

address of the original creditor, the debt collector must cease 

collection of the debt until the debt collector sends the 

consumer the name and address of the original creditor, if 

different from the current creditor. 

(iii) The date that the debt collector will consider the end date of 

the validation period and a statement that, unless the 

consumer contacts the debt collector to dispute the validity 

of the debt, or any portion of the debt, on or before that date, 

the debt collector will assume that the debt is valid. 

See 12 C.F.R. § 1006.34(c)(3)(i)-(iii). 

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 5 of 13
Page 6 of 11

36. The “validation period,” for purposes of Reg F, “means the period starting on the 

date that a debt collector provides the validation information required by paragraph (c) of this 

section and ending 30 days after the consumer receives or is assumed to receive the validation 

information.” 12 C.F.R. § 1006(b)(5). 

37. With respect to calculating the “end of the validation period,” § 1006(b)(5) of Reg 

F further provides that, “[f]or purposes of determining the end of the validation period, the debt 

collector may assume that a consumer receives the validation information on any date that is at

least five days (excluding legal public holidays identified in 5 U.S.C. 6103(a), Saturdays, and 

Sundays) after the debt collector provides it.” 12 C.F.R. § 1006(b)(5). 

38. June 8, 2022, is the date Defendant attempted to provide the “validation 

information,” for purposes of compliance with Reg F, to Plaintiff. See Collection Letter (wherein 

the Collection Letter is dated June 8, 2022). 

39. Five days (excluding legal public holidays identified in 5 U.S.C. § 6103(a), 

Saturdays, and Sundays) after June 8, 2022, is June 15, 2022. 

40. Thirty (30) days after June 15, 2022, is July 15, 2022. 

41. In the Collection Letter, Defendant represented “July 13, 2022” as the “date that 

the debt collector will consider the end date of the validation period” pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 

1006.34(c)(3)(i). See Collection Letter (stating, “If you write us by July 13, 2022, we must stop 

collection on any amount you dispute until we send you information that shows you owe the 

debt.”). 

42. In the Collection Letter, Defendant represented “July 13, 2022” as the “date that 

the debt collector will consider the end date of the validation period” pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 

1006.34(c)(3)(ii). See Collection Letter (stating, “Write to ask for the name and address of the 

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 6 of 13
Page 7 of 11

original creditor, if different from the current creditor. If you write by July 13, 2022, we must stop 

collection until we send you that information.”). 

43. In the Collection Letter, Defendant represented “July 13, 2022” as the “date that 

the debt collector will consider the end date of the validation period” pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 

1006.34(c)(3)(iii). See Collection Letter (stating, “Call or write us by July 13, 2022, to dispute all 

or part of this debt”).

44. The end of the validation period represented in the Collection Letter, i.e., July 13, 

2022, is shorter than the minimum validation period required by § 1006.34(b)(5) of Reg F, i.e., 

July 15, 2022. 

45. Defendant incorrectly calculated the end of the validation period, shortening the 

length of the validation period, in violation of 12 C.F.R. §§ 1006.34(b)(5) and (c)(3). 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

PROPOSED CLASS

46. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff, individually and 

on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action. Plaintiff seeks to represent the 

below defined “Validation Date Class.” 

47. The “Validation Date Class” consists of [1] all persons with Florida addresses [2]

that were sent a letter [3] from and/or by Defendant, or someone on Defendant’s behalf [4] in an 

attempt to collect a debt [5] during the twelve (12) months preceding the filing of this Class Action 

Complaint [6] whereby said letter was required to provide the date Defendant would consider the 

end of the validation period in compliance with 12 C.F.R. § 1006.34(c)(3)(i)-(iii) [7] and the date 

provided was unlawfully shortened the length of the validation period in violation of 12 C.F.R. §§ 

1006.34(b)(5) and (c)(3). 

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 7 of 13
Page 8 of 11

48. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Validation Date Class. 

49. Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Validation Date Class but 

believes the members of the Validation Date Class to be in the several thousands, if not more. 

NUMEROSITY

50. Upon information and belief, Defendant has sent thousands of debt collection 

letters to consumers throughout the United States that are required to provide a date that Defendant 

considers the end of the validation period for purposes of Reg F compliance, but which unlawfully 

shortened the length of the validation period below the minimum threshold in violation of 12 

C.F.R. §§ 1006.34(b)(5) and (c)(3). The members of the Validation Date Class, therefore, are 

believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 

51. The exact number and identities of members of the Validation Date Class are 

unknown at this time and can be ascertained only through discovery. Identification of each member 

of the Validation Date Class is a matter capable of ministerial determination from Defendant’s 

records. 

COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

52. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Validation Date Class 

which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Validation Date 

Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Validation Date Class are: [1] whether 

Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff and members of the Validation Date Class in an attempt to 

collect a debt; [2] whether said letter was Defendant’s initial communication with Plaintiff and 

members of the Validation Date Class; [3] whether Defendant is a debt collector; and [4] Whether 

said letter unlawfully shortens the length of the validation period in violation of §§ 1006.34(b)(5) 

and (c)(3) of Reg F. 

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 8 of 13
Page 9 of 11

53. The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If 

Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely sends debt collection letters to consumers that violate 12 

C.F.R. §§ 1006.34(b)(5) and (c)(3) is accurate, Plaintiff and members the Validation Date Class 

will have identical claims capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case. 

TYPICALITY

54. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Validation Date 

Class, as they are all based on the same factual and legal theories. 

PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS MEMBERS

55. Plaintiff is a representative who will fully and adequately assert and protect the 

interests of the Validation Date Class and has retained competent counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff 

is an adequate representative and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Validation 

Date Class. 

SUPERIORITY

56. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this lawsuit because individual litigation of the claims of all members of the 

Validation Date Class is economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. While the 

aggregate damages sustained by members of the Validation Date Class are in the millions of 

dollars, the individual damages incurred by each member of the Validation Date Class resulting 

from Defendant’s wrongful conduct are too small to warrant the expense of individual lawsuits. 

The likelihood of individual members of the Validation Date Class prosecuting their own separate 

claims is remote, and, even if every member of the Validation Date Class could afford individual 

litigation, the court system would be unduly burdened by individual litigation. 

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 9 of 13
Page 10 of 11

57. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Validation Date Class would 

create a risk of establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for 

Defendant. For example, one court might enjoin Defendant from performing the challenged acts, 

whereas another may not. Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of 

the Validation Date Class, although certain class members are not parties to such actions. 

COUNT 1 

VIOLATION OF 16 U.S.C. § 1692g(b)

(Validation Date Class) 

58. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Validation Date Class, incorporates by 

reference ¶¶ 13 through 57 of this Class Action Complaint.

59. Pursuant to § 1692g(b) of the FDCPA, “[a]ny 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.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). 

60. As stated above, the Collection Letter was Defendant’s initial communication with 

Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. Because of this, Defendant was 

required to provide certain “validation information” within the Collection Letter. The “validation 

information” that Defendant was required to provide in the Collection Letter included, among 

other things, the “end date” of the validation period. 

61. Pursuant to Reg F, the “end date” of the validation period is required to be a 

specific, minimum length of time – i.e., thirty (30) days after the “validation information” is 

assumed to have been received by consumer, whereby the consumer is assumed to have received 

the “validation information” at least five days (excluding legal public holidays identified in 5 

U.S.C. 6103(a), Saturdays, and Sundays) after the debt collector allegedly provided it. Thus, the 

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 10 of 13
Page 11 of 11

shortest “end date” of the validation period available to Defendant was July 15, 2022. In the 

Collection Letter, however, Defendant unlawfully shorted the minimum validation period by 

identifying July 13, 2022, as the “end date” of the validation period. 

62. Thus, by unlawfully shorting the length of the validation period in the Collection 

Letter, Defendant violated 12 C.F.R. §§ 1006.34(b)(5) and (c)(3) and, as such, violated 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692g(b) of the FDCPA because the unlawful shorting of the minimum validation period 

unlawfully overshadowed, and was otherwise inconsistent with, the consumer’s right to dispute 

the underlying debt. 

63. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Validation Date Class, 

requests this Court to enter a judgment against Defendant, awarding the following relief: 

(a) Statutory damages as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; 

(b) Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; and

(c) Any other relief that this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.

DATED: July 29, 2022 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Thomas Patti .

THOMAS PATTI, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 118377 

E-mail: Tom@pzlg.legal 

VICTOR ZABALETA, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No. 118517 

E-mail: Victor@pzlg.legal 

PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP 

3323 Northwest 55th Street 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 

Phone: 561-542-8550 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 11 of 13
(;+,%,73$ ́

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 13 of 13