IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID SALEWSKE on

behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated,

Case No.

Plaintiff, Hon.

Magistrate Judge:

V. Proposed Class Action

TROTT & TROTT, P. C.,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY

NOW COMES Plaintiff, David Salewske ("Plaintiff) by and through

counsel. The Law Offices ofBrian Parker, PC, and brings this Class Action under

FRCP 15 against the above listed Defendant, Trott & Trott P.C. ("Trott" or

"Defendant") on the grounds set forth herein:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiffbrings this action for damages and injunctive relief based upon the

Defendants' violations ofthe Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15

U.S.C. § 1692 etseq. and The Regulation ofCollection Practices Act (RCPA),

codified at MCL 445.251 et seq..

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 25
II. PARTIES

1.

PlaintiffDavid Salewske is an individual who resides inthe City of

Cheboygan, Cheboygan County, and State ofMichigan.

2.

Defendant Trott &Trott, P.C. is a law firm organized as aMichigan

Corporation with offices at 31440 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 200, Farmington

Hills, MI 48334 ofOakland County, State ofMichigan 48307.

3.

Trott is a foreclosure law firm engaged inthe business ofusing the mails and

telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to others, including residential

mortgage debts. See Glazer v. ChaseHome FinanceLLC, 704F. 3d 453.

4.

Mortgage foreclosure is debt collection under the FDCPA. See

Glazer v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 704 F. 3d 453, Page 11. "In fact, every

mortgage foreclosure, judicial orotherwise, is undertaken for the very purpose of

obtaining payment on the underlying debt, either by persuasion (i.e, forcing a

settlement) or compulsion (i.e., obtaining ajudgment offoreclosure, selling the

home atauction, and applying the proceeds from the sale to pay down the

outstanding debt)." See Glazer v. Chase Home FinanceLLC, 704 F. 3d 453.

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 25
5.

Mortgage Foreclosure is a method of collecting a debt by acquiring and

selling secured property to satisfy a debt. Shapiro &Meinhold v. Zartman, 823

P.2d 120, 124 (Colo. 1992).

6.

Plaintiff, onbehalfofhimselfand all others similarly situated, and demanding

a trial by jury, brings this action for the illegal practices of the Defendant

(collectively referred to hereinafter as"Defendants" or"Defendant") who, interalia,

used false, deceptive, misleading, unconscionable, and other illegal practices, in

connection withtheir attemptsto collectan alleged debtfrom the Plaintiffandothers.

7.

The FDCPA is a strict liability statute, which provides for actual orstatutory

damages upon the showing ofone violation. Whether a debt collector's actions are

false, deceptive, or misleading under § 1692(a)-g is based on whether the "least

sophisticated consumer" would be misled by a defendant's actions. Harvey v. Great

SenecaFin, Corp., 453 F.3d 324, 329 (6thCir. 2006).). Thisstandard ensures "that

the FDCPA protects all consumers, the gullible as well as the shrewd." Kistner v.

Law Offices ofMichael P. Margelefsky, LLC., 518 F.3d 433, 438 (6th Cir).

8.

In applying the "least sophisticated consumer" standard, the Sixth Circuit

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 25
has adopted the "more than one reasonable interpretation standard." Kistner, 518

F.3d at 441, Under that approach, acollection letter can be "deceptive" ifitis open

to "more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one ofwhich is inaccurate." Id.

(quoting Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, 1319 (2d Cir. 1993)). "[T]he 'more

than one reasonable interpretation' standard is applicable to the entirety of§ 1692e

as a useful tool in analyzing the leastsophisticated consumer test." Id.

9.

Whether a debt collector's actions are false, deceptive, ormisleading under

§1692e is based on whether the "least sophisticated consumer" would be misled by

defendant's actions. Wallace v. Washington Mutual Bank, 683 F.3d. 323, 327 (6^

Cir. 2012), Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324, 329 (6th Cir.2006).

10.

Trott holds itselfout as a debt collector in its letters and as defined in the

FDCPA but is failing to provide the required validation and dispute notice under15

U.S.C.§ 1692g.

IIL JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11.

This court hasjurisdiction over this Complaint pursuant to the FDCPA, 15

U.S.C. § 1692k(d), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue in thisjudicial

district is proper because thepertinent events took place here.

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 25
IV. STATUTORY STRUCTURE

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA^

12.

The FDCPA was passed to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by

debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive

debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and topromote

consistent State action to protect consumers against debtcollection abuse. 15

U.S.C. § 1692.

13.

Under the FDCPA, a "consumer" is any natural person obligated or

allegedly obligated to pay any debt. 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3).

14.

Under the FDCPA, Trott is collecting a "debt" which means any obligation

or alleged obligation ofa consumer topay money arising out ofa transaction in

which the money, property, insurance, orservices which are the subject ofthe

transaction are primarily for personal, family, orhousehold purposes. 15 U.S.C. §

1692a(5).

15.

Under the FDCPA, a "debt collector" is any person who uses any

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.5 Page 5 of 25
instrumentality ofinterstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal

purpose for which is the collection ofany debts, or who regularly collects or

attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed

or due to another. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

16.

Adebt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading

representation or means in connection with the collection ofany debt. 15 U.S.C. §

1692e.

17.

Section 1692(g)(2) specifically requires debt collectors to identify the

creditor to whom the debt is owed in the initial communication or within five days

ofthe initial communication. There is nothing in the statute requiring the identity

of the creditor to be "material" to the communication. Run Joo Lee v. Forster &

Garbus LLP, 926 F. Supp. 2d 482,487 (E.D. N.Y. 2013). "We are persuaded that,

in the context ofdebt collection, the identity ofa consumer's original creditor is a

critical piece ofinformation, and therefore its false identification in adunning letter

would be likely to mislead some consumers in amaterial way. Tourgeman v

Collins FinancialServices, Inc., Court ofAppeals, 9th Circuit, (June 25, 2014).

18.

The FDCPA among other things, mandates that, as part ofnotice a debt, a

6

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.6 Page 6 of 25
"debt collector" must "send the consumer a written notice containing"-along with

other information-"the name ofthe creditor towhom the debt is owed[.]" 15

U.S.C. §1692g(a)(2). In addition, the Act prohibits a "debt collector" from using

"any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection withthe

collection ofany debt." 15 U.S.C. §692e. The use of"or" in § 1692e means that,

to violate the FDCPA, a representation by a "debt collector" must merely be false,

or deceptive, or misleading. A false representation in connection with the

collection ofa debt issufficient toviolate the FDCPA facially, even where no

misleading or deception is claimed. Bourffv. Rubin Lublin, LLC, 61A F.3d 1283

(ll^Cir. 2012).

MICHIGAN COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (RCPA^

19.

The Michigan Collection Practices Act (RCPA), MCL 445.251 etseq. is an

act to regulate the collection practices ofcertain persons; toprovide for the powers

and duties of certain state agencies; and to provide penalties and civil fines.

20.

"Claim" or"debt" means an obligation oralleged obligation for the payment

ofmoney orthing ofvalue arising out ofan expressed orimplied agreement or

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.7 Page 7 of 25
contract for a purchase made primarily forpersonal, family, or household

purposes.

21.

"Collection agency" means a person directly or indirectly engaged in

soliciting a claim for collection or collecting or attempting to collect a claim owed

or due or asserted to be owed or due another, or repossessing or attempting to

repossess a thing ofvalue owed ordue orasserted to be owed ordue another person,

arising out of an expressed or implied agreement. Collection agency includes a

person representing himself or herself as a collection or repossession agency or a

person performing the activities of a collection agency, on behalfof another, which

activities are regulated by Act No. 299 ofthe Public Acts of1980, as amended, being

sections 339.101 to 339.2601 ofthe Michigan Compiled Laws. Collection agency

includes a person who furnishes or attempts to furnish a form or a written demand

service represented to be a collection orrepossession technique, device, orsystem

to be used to collect orrepossess claims, ifthe form contains the name ofa person

other than the creditor in a manner indicating that a request ordemand for payment

is being made by a person other than the creditor even though the form directs the

debtor tomake payment directly tothe creditor rather than tothe other person whose

name appears on the form. Collection agency includes a personwhousesa fictitious

name orthe name ofanother in the collection orrepossession ofclaims to convey to

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.8 Page 8 of 25
the debtor that a third person is collecting orrepossessing or has been employed to

collect or repossess the claim.

22.

"Communicate" means the conveying ofinformation regarding a debt

directly or indirectly to a person through anymedium.

23.

"Consumer" or "debtor" means a natural person obligated or allegedly

obligated to pay a debt.

24.

"Person" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association,

or corporation.

25.

"The RCPA mirrors the requirements and remedies ofthe FDCPAwith the

same 6^ Circuit use ofthe "least sophisticated consumer" standard ofKistner, 518

F.3dat 441. McKeown v. Mary Jane M. ElliottP.C, No. 07-12016-BC, 2007 WL

4326825, at *5 (E.D.Mich. Dec. 10, 2007) (citingHiibbard v. Nat'IBondand

Collection Assocs., Inc., 126 B.R. 422,426 (D.Del. 1991)).

V. LEGAL BACKGROUND

26.

The FDCPA offers a mandatory guide for debt collectors to provide the

9

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.9 Page 9 of 25
dispute notice to consumers:

(a) Notice of debt; contents

Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in

connection withthe collection of anydebt, 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 ofthe debt;

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

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

receipt ofthe notice, disputes the validity ofthe debt, or any

portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid bythe

debt collector;

(4) a statement that ifthe 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 suchverification orjudgmentwill

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 ofthe original creditor,

if different from the current creditor. 15 USC § 1692g -

Validation ofdebts

27.

Congress' intent in enacting § 1692g was to provide analleged debtor with

proper notice of the amount of the debtandwho is pursuing the debtor to allow

consumers to respond to inthe initial communication of a collection agency. The

Letter at Exhibit1 is crafted to avoid providing Michigan consumers the name of

the creditor and amount of debt especially ifthe debtor isseeking reinstatement.

28.

10

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.10 Page 10 of 25
The correct identification ofthe creditor isimportant because consumers

have different rights withrespect to the creditor and servicer and a debt collector.

Defendant clearly violates the purpose of§1692g(a)(2), which is to identify the

current owner ofthe debt, so that the consumer can ascertain that the collection

agents seeking to collectmoney from him are in fact authorized to do so. There

have longbeenwidespread problems with scammers who claimto be authorized to

collect money onbehalfofcreditors, but aren't. See FTC statement, "Fake Debt

Collectors," http;//wfww.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/02580-fake-debt-collectors.

29.

The Seventh Circuit has held that at Defendant must list the "amount ofthe

debt" because "[t]he unpaid principal balance is not the debt; itis only a part ofthe

debt." See Millerv. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobh, Nichols, &Clark, LLC., 214

F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir.2000).

30.

"The unpaid principal balance is not the debt; itis only a part ofthe debt; the

Actrequires statement ofthe debt. The requirement is not satisfied by listing aphone

number. What they certainly could do was to state the total amount due—^interest

and other charges as well as principal—on the date the dunning letter was sent. We

think the statute required iKis." See Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb,

Nichols, &Clark, LLC, 214 F.3d 872, 875, 876 (7th Cir.2000).

11

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.11 Page 11 of 25
31.

If the debt collector is attempting to collect the past due portion of an

unaccelerated debt, the "amount ofthe debt" is the past due portion, not the whole

debt. Barnes v. Advanced Call Ctr. Techs., LLC, 493 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2007);

Castro V. Green Tree Servicing, 10cv7211,2013 WL 4105196 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14,

2013); Adlam v. FMS, Inc., 09 Civ. 9129, 2010,WL 1328958 (S.D.N.Y., April 5,

2010). However, the nature ofthe number hasto be "clearly" described. Obfuscatory

statements about the amount due have been found to violate §1692g(a)(l). Chttway

V. National Action Financial Services, 362 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2004).

32.

The FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a)(l) requires disclosure ofthe "amount of

the debt that is owed." What is missing from that language is any mention ofcourt

costs, attorney's fees, orother penalties which may be imposed by statute. That is

because the "amount ofthe debt" provision is designed to inform the debtor (who,

remember, has a low level ofsophistication) ofwhat the obligation is, not what the

final, worst-case scenario couldbe. Veach v. Sheeks, 316 F. 3d 690 - Court of

Appeals, 7th Circuit 2003.

VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.12 Page 12 of 25
33.

Defendant Trott is attempting to collect an alleged residential mortgage debt

from Plaintiffwhile representing Nationstar Mortgagee LLC.

34.

On or about September 30, 2014, Trott sent Plaintiff a collection letter

advising Plaintiffand the Class members that it was collecting a debt and the client

they were collecting it for was Nationstar Mortgage, LLC at Exhibit 1.

35.

In the letter at Exhibit 1. Defendant states in partthat:

THIS FIRM IS A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT.

ANY INFORMATION WE OBTAIN WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

September 30,2014

David Salewske RE: David Salewske

817 E. State St. 4498 S. River Rd

Cheboygan, MI, 49721-9577 Cheboygan, MI, 49721-9577

T&T #398748F06

Loan #0618587661

Dear David Salewske:

Your mortgage loan has been referred to ourfirm forforeclosure, (in bold)

Ourclient, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, hasreferred your loan to usfor foreclosure.

While the foreclosure process has begun, you still may have alternatives available

to you to avoid the foreclosure sale.

Trott & Trott, P.C.

Foreclosure Department

13

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.13 Page 13 of 25
Please contact this office atthe aforementioned number if you are on active

military duty. To the extent your original obligation has been discharged, oris

subject to an automatic stay ofbankruptcy underTitle 11 ofthe UnitedStates

Code, this notice isfor compliance and/or informational purposes only and/or is

notice ofthe creditor's intent to enforce a lien against the property and does not

constitute a demand for payment oran attempt to impose personal liability for such

obligation.

36.

Plaintiffwas not in bankruptcy or in themilitary at the time he received this

notice at Exhibit 1. The name ofthe creditor that is enforcing the lien through

Trott isnot named inthe letter in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, validation and

dispute notice section.

37.

Congress' intent in enacting § 1692g was to provide an alleged debtor with

proper notice ofthe amount ofthe debt and the creditor who ispursuing the debtor

to allow consumers to respond to the initial communication ofa collection agency.

The Letter at Exhibit 1 is crafted to avoid providing the name ofthe creditor and

amount ofdebt especially ifthe debtor is seeking reinstatement in not naming the

creditor.

38.

The collection letter sent to Plaintiffand Michigan consumers at Exhibit 1

fails to state the name ofthe creditor in violation of§ 15 USC 1692g(a)(2).

39.

14

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.14 Page 14 of 25
As a debt collector, Defendant Trott has notified Plaintiff and all other class

members receiving the letter at Exhibit 1 that it has been hired to foreclose on their

home andthe process offoreclosure has already begun.

40.

Further, the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a) requires disclosure of the name of

the creditor, amount of debt, and the validation and dispute rights to the Michigan

Class Member that receives this type ofletter. This is not listed in the letter at

Exhibit 1.

41.

The Plaintiffisinformed and believes, and onthatbasis alleges, thattheLetter

at Exhibit 1 is actually a computer-generated, mass-produced, letter that is sent to

the class ofMichigan consumers as aninitial collection letter under 15 U.S.C. §1692.

42.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the

Defendants have a policy and practice ofsending consumers such as the members

oftheMichigan Class, computer-generated, mass-produced, letters ~ in the form of

theTrott Letter at Exhibit 1 —in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g and 1692e.

a. Violation ofthe FDCPA

43.

15

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.15 Page 15 of 25
In Plaintiffs case, in violation ofthe FDCPA, the creditor is not named in

the letter or identified. Please see Exhibit 1.

44.

Under the definitions ofthe FDCPA, a debt collector must clearly identify

the creditor it is collecting for in the initial letter to a debtor under 15 U.S.C.

§1692g(a)(lH5).

45.

The letter at Exhibit 1 does not provide the amount owed on the datethe

letter issent in violation oftheFDCPA. What they certainly could do was to state

the total amount due—interest and other charges aswell as principal—on the date

the dunning letter wassent. We think the statute required this." SeeMiller v.

McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, &Clark, LLC, 214 F.3d 872, 875,

876 (7th Cir.2000)

46.

The correct identification ofthe creditor is mandated byFederal law in the

first letter to consumers and important because consumers have different rights

with respect to the creditor and servicer and a debt collector. 15 U.S.C. §

1692g(a)(2). Numerous courts have recognized that theFDCPA's purpose - to

eliminate abusive debt collection practices - would be undermined ifsubsequent

debt collectors were excused from complying with the requirements contained in

16

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.16 Page 16 of 25
section 1692g. Wright v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 12-14762, 2013 WL

5532687, at4-5 (E.D.Mich. Oct.7, 2013), See, also Lewis v. Nationstar Mortgage,

F.Supp.2d 13-11693, 2014 WL 1089557, at7-10 (E.D.Mich. March 18, 2014).

47.

Further, the letter violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e (10) by using false, deceptive

and misleading representations and means in connection with the collection or

attempted collection of a debt.

a, RCPA

48.

Defendants have violated the Regulation ofCollection Protection Act (RCPA)

445.251 etseq., butare notnecessarily limited to the following:

a. Defendants have violated MCLA 445.252(e) by making an

inaccurate, misleading, untrue or deceptive statement or claim in a

communication to collect a debt.

b. Defendants have violated MCLA 445.252(f) Misrepresenting ma

communication with a debtor any of the following:

(ii)The legal rights ofthe creditor of debtor

c. Defendants have violated MCLA 445.252(q) by failing to

implement a procedure designed to prevent a violation byan

employee.

17

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.17 Page 17 of 25
d. Defendant Trott has violated MCLA 445.252(h) by communicating

with a consumer even though they are represented by anattorney.

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

49.

Plaintiffrealleges the above pleadings.

50.

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action. Plaintifftentatively defines two

classes as all persons in the State ofMichigan who, during the one year (FDCPA)

and six years (RCPA) prior to the filing ofthis complaint, were sent letters similar

to Exhibit 1. Plaintiff may subsequently redefine the class definition in light of

discovery.

51.

The FDCPA Class consists of (i) all persons with a Michigan address that

have received the Trott collection letterthat is in violation of15 U.S.C. §1692e(10),

15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(l), 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(A)(2) and 15

U.S.C. § 1692e, (ii) in which Trott is collecting a debt through a letter from

Defendant similar toExhibit 1.(iii) the debt collector does not list the true creditor,

(iv) without the true amount owed on the debt, (iv) which letter was sent during the

one year period immediately preceding the filing ofthis complaint and the date of

18

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.18 Page 18 of 25
class certification.

52.

The RCPA Class consists of(i) all persons with aMichigan address that have

received the collection letter that is in violation of MCLA 445.252(e), MCLA

445.252(f) and (q), (ii) in a collection letter from Defendant similar to Exhibit 1.

and (iii) which letter was sent during the six year period immediately preceding the

filing ofthis complaint and the date of class certification.

53.

There are questions of law and fact common to each class, which common

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

principal and common issue is whether Defendants' conduct in connection with the

mailing of Exhibit 1 and similar letters to consumers violates the FDCPA and/or

RCPA with Trott sending a collection letter without stating who the creditor is orthe

true amount ofthe debt underthe FDCPA notice involved in the collection ofa debt.

54.

There are no individual questions, other than whether the class member

received one of the offending letters, which can be determined by a ministerial

inspection ofthe records and collection notes ofDefendants.

55.

Plaintiffwill fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plamtiff

19

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.19 Page 19 of 25
is committedto vigorously litigating this matter. He is greatly annoyed at being the

victimofDefendants' illegal practices and wishes to see that the wrong isremedied.

To that end, he has retained counsel experienced in litigating the FDCPA, RCPA,

consumer advocacy and class claims. Neither Plaintiff nor their counsel has any

interests which might cause them to not vigorously pursue this claim.

56.

Plaintiff claims are typical of the claims ofthe classes, which all arise from

the same operative facts and are based on the same legal theories.

57.

A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of

this controversy. Most of the consumers who receive Exhibit 1 undoubtedly have

no knowledge that their rights are being violated by illegal collection practices.

The interest of classmembers in individually controlling the prosecution of

separate claims againstDefendants is small because the maximum damages in an

individual actionare $1,000. Management ofthis class claim is likelyto present

significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many class claims, e.g, for

securities fraud.

58.

Certification of each class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) ofthe Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure is appropriate because:

20

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.20 Page 20 of 25
(a) The questions of law and fact common to the members of each class

predominate over any questions affecting an individual member: and

(b) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

efficient adjudication ofthe controversy.

59.

There are questions oflaw and fact common to the class members, which

common questions predominate over any questions that affect only individual class

members. The predominant questions are:

a. Whether defendant had a practice of sending a debt

collection letter while not offering the creditor or debt.

b. Whether doing so violated the FDCPA and RCPA.

60.

Certification of each class under Rule 23(b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil

Procedure also is appropriate because Defendants have acted on grounds generally

applicable to each class, thereby making declaratory andinjunctive reliefappropriate

with respect to each class as a whole.

61.

Plaintiffsrequest certification ofa hybrid class action, combining theelements

of FRCP 23(b)(3) formonetary damages and FRCP 23(b)(2) for equitable relief.

21

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.21 Page 21 of 25
VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count 1-Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

62.

Plaintiffrealleges the above pleadings.

63.

Defendant has violated the FDCPA. Defendants' violations of the FDCPA

include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

a. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e by using false, deceptive and

misleading representations and means in connection with the collection

or attempted collection of a debt as mentioned above; and

b. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(10) with the use ofany false

representation or deceptive means to collect orattempt to collect any

debtor to obtain information concerning a consumer as mentioned

above.

c. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(l) byfailing to specify the

amount owed by the debtor in the initial communication as mentioned

above including costs, charges, attorney fees and payments owed; and

d. Defendant Trott violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(2) by failing to state the

name ofthe creditor who the debt is owed to as mentioned above in

the initial communication at Exhibit 1: and

22

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.22 Page 22 of 25
e. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2)(a) by falsely representing the

amount and characterofthe debt in Exhibit 1 as mentionedabove.

f Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g by not contacting Plaintiffwith

the validation and dispute rights required within five days ofthe initial

contact ofPlaintiffor class members with the letter form or type at

Exhibit 1.

Wherefore, Plaintiffseeksjudgment against Defendant for:

a. Statutory and Actual damages for Plaintiffin the amount of$1,000.00

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(2)(A) and (B);

b. Statutory damages for the members ofthe FDCPA Class, pro rata, in

the amount ofthe lesser of$500,000.00 or one percent centum ofthe

net worth ofDefendants pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(2)(B);

c. Costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3);

and;

d. Such further relief as the court deemsjust and proper.

Count 2-Michigan Collection Practices Act

64.

Defendants have violated the RCPA. Defendant's violations of the RCPA

include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

23

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.23 Page 23 of 25
a. Defendant violated MCLA 445.252(e) bymaking an inaccurate,

misleading, untrue or deceptive statement or claim in a

communication to collecta debt as mentioned above;

b. Defendant violated MCLA 445.252(f) bymisrepresenting in a

communication with a debtor any of the following:

(ii) The legal rights of the creditor of debtor using Exhibit 1 as

mentioned above.

c. Defendant has violated MCLA 445.252(q) by failing to implement a

procedure designed to prevent a violation by an employee.

Wherefore, PlaintiffseeksjudgmentagainstDefendant for:

a. Statutory damages for Plaintiff in the amount of $50.00, trebled to

$150.00 for awillful violation, pursuant to M.C.L. 445.257(2);

b. Statutory damages for each member ofthe MOC Class in the amount

of$50.00, trebled to $150.00 for a willful violation, pursuant to

M.C.L. 445.257(2), andwithout regards to defendant's networth;

c. Equitable, declaratory and injunctive reliefpursuant to M.C.L.

445.257(1), including but not limited to, a declaration that defendant's

debt collection practices violated the RCPA, as well asan injunction,

enjoining Defendants from using Exhibit 1 letters which violates

Michigan law; and

24

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.24 Page 24 of 25
d. Reasonable attorney's fees and court cost pursuant to M.C.L.

445.257(2).

VI. JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiffdemands a Trial by Jury on all issues.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Brian P. Parker

Dated: October 14,2014 BRIAN P. PARKER (P48617)

Attorney for Plaintiff

25

Case 1:14-cv-13980-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1 filed 10/15/14 PageID.25 Page 25 of 25