IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DFVISION

CHRISTOPHER D. FRENTZOS,

On Behalf ofHimself

and All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

V.

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC aka

NAVIENT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

LOAN SERVICING

Defendant.

Case NO.

Hon.

CLASS ACTION

/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER D. FRENTZOS ("Plaintiff) on behalf of

himself and others similarly situated, by and through counsel, The Law Offices ofBrian Parker,

PC, and bring this action against the above listed Defendant, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC

aka NAVIENT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION LOAN SERVICING ("Navient")

on the grounds set forth herein:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

Plaintiff, on behalfof himself and all others similarly situated, and demanding a trial by

jury, brings this action for the illegal practices ofthe Defendants who, inter alia and under the

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 etseq. and The Regulation of

Michigan Collection Practices Act (RCPA), codified at MCL 445.251 et seq. used false.

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 1 of 21 Pg ID 1
deceptive, misleading, unconscionable, and other illegal practices, in connection with their

attempts to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff and others through false names, false

government sponsorship and exposure ofMichigan Consumers' private debt information on the

envelopes.

2.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' collection practices violate the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, etseq. ("FDCPA") and The Regulation ofCollection Practices

Act (RPCA), codified at MCL 445.251 et seq., Such violative collection practices include, inter

alitty sending consumers written communications that:

(a) make false, deceptive, and misleading representations that Defendants are

sponsored by the US Department ofEducation; and

(b) falsely representing or implying that a uses a pseudonym or alias false name

such that the least sophisticated consumer does not know who is contacting

or collecting from them; and

(c) are designed, compiled, and furnished in a form knowing that such form

would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other

than the creditor ofsuch consumer is participating in the collection ofor in

an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor,

when in fact such person is not so participating.; and

(d) Exposing personal information and placing debt collection information and

student loan markings on Michigan Consumers' envelopes when making

writing conmiunications by mail.

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 2 of 21 Pg ID 2
(e) Placing false corporate and trade names on envelope sent to Michigan

Consumers when collecting a debt.

(f) Creating collection communications that falsely representing to be part of

or authorized by a state or agency with words or the official seal.

3.

Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks statutory and actual

damages, attorney fees, costs, and all other relief, equitable or legal in nature, as deemed

appropriate by this Court, pursuant to the FDCPA, RCPA, and all other common law or statutory

regimes.

II. CASELAW AND GOVERNTING STATUTES

4.

The FDCPA regulates the behavior of collection agencies attempting to collect a debt on

behalf of another. The United States Congress has found abundant evidence ofthe use of abusive,

deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors, and has determined that

abusive debt collection practices contribute to a number of personal bankruptcies, marital

instability, loss of jobs, and invasions of individual privacy. Congress enacted the FDCPA to

eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to ensure that those debt collectors

who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and

to promote uniform State action to protect consmners against debt collection abuses. 15 U.S.C. §

1692(a) - (e).

5.

The FDCPA is a strict liability statute, which provides for actual or statutory damages upon

the showing of one violation. The Sixth Circuit has held that whether a debt collector's conduct

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 3 of 21 Pg ID 3
violates the FDCPA should be judged from the standpoint ofthe "least sophisticated consumer."

Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp.,453 F.3d 324,329 (6thCir.2006).This standardensures "that

the FDCPAprotects all consumers,the gullible as well as the shrewd." Kistner v. Law Offices of

Michael P. Margelefsky, LLC., 518 F.3d 433, 438 (6th Cir. 2008).

6.

To prohibit deceptive practices, the FDCPA, at 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, outlaws the use offalse,

deceptive, and misleading collection letters and names a non-exhaustive list of certain per se

violations offalse and deceptive collection conduct. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (1)-(16.

7.

Liability is imposed upon creditors not only where the creditor uses aliases or

pseudonyms but also "where the creditor merely implies that a third party is collecting a debt

when in fact it is the creditor that is attempting to do so." Larson v. Evanston NW. Healthcare

Corp., No. 98 C 0005, 1999 WL 518901, at *2 (N.D. 111. July 19,1999) at *3 (citingMagw/re v.

Citicorp Retail Servs., Inc., 147 F.3d 232,235 (2d Cm 1998)).

8.

Where a creditor, in the process of collecting its own debts, hires a third party for the

express purpose ofrepresenting to its debtors that the third party is collecting the creditor's

debts, and the third party engages in no bonafide efforts to collect those debts, the false name

exception exposes the creditor to FDCPA liability. Vincentv. Money Store, Court ofAppeals,

2nd Circuit 2013 Docket No. 11-4525-cv. (November 13, 2013). Vincentv. The Money Store,

F.3d , No. 11-4525-cv (2d Cir. 2013).

9.

15 U.S.C. § 1692j addresses the use by a creditor of a third party's letterhead in order to

'give the delinquency letters added intimidation value, as it suggests that a collection agency or

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 4 of 21 Pg ID 4
some other party is now on the debtor's back.'" Passa v. City ofColumbus, 748 F. Supp. 2d 804,

813 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (alteration omitted) (quoting Gutierrez v. AT&TBroadband, LLC, 382

F.3d 725, 734-35 (7th Cir. 2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also S. Rep. No. 95-

382 at 5 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699."

10.

The FDCPA, creates a "false name" exception when a creditor like Navient "who, in the

process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a

third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (6).

11.

A creditor uses a name other than its own when it uses a name that implies that a third

party is involved in collecting its debts, 'pretends to be someone else' or 'uses a pseudonym or

alias.' This false name exception aims to prevent deceit as to who is actually collecting the

debt. See Maguire v. Citicorp Retail Setrices, Inc.,_147 F.3d 232, 236 (2d Cir. 1998).

12.

A debt collector may not make use of or distribute any written communication which

simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court,

official, or agency ofthe United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its

source, authorization, or approval. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (9).

13.

A debt collector may not make use of any business, company, or organization name other

than the tnie name ofthe debt collector's business, company, or organization. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e

(14).

14.

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 5 of 21 Pg ID 5
Whether a debt collector's actions are false, deceptive, or misleading 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).

15.

In applying the "least sophisticatedconsumer" standard,the Sixth Circuit has adopted the

"more than one reasonable interpretation standard."Kistner, 518 F.3d at 441. Under that

approach, a collection letter can be "deceptive" ifit is 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 § 1692eas a useful tool in analyzing the leastsophisticated

consumer test." Id.

16.

The RCPA, like the FDCPA, prohibits debt collectors from using deceptive, coercive,

threatening, abusive, and other repugnant practices for the purpose of collecting a consumer debt.

"TheRPCA mirrors the requirements andremedies of the FDCPA with the same6^^ Circuit use

ofthe "least sophisticated consumer" standard oiKistner, 518 F.3d at 441. McKeown v. Mary

JaneM. Elliott P.C., No. 07-12016-BC, 2007 WL 4326825, at *5 (E.D.Mich. Dec. 10, 2007)

{QiXmg Hubbard V. Nat'lBond and Collection Assocs., Inc., 126 B.R. 422,426 (D.Dei. 1991)).

III. PARTIES

17.

The plaintiff, Christopher D. Frentzos is a natural person and consumer, a resident ofAnn

Arbor, Washtenaw County, State ofMichigan, and a "consumer" as defined by the FDCPA and

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 6 of 21 Pg ID 6
RCPA.

18.

The defendant Navient Solutions, Inc. aka Navient-Department ofEducation Services is a

creditor that is a debt collector under the false name exception of 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6) with a

resident agent and office located in East Lansing, County ofIngham, State ofMichigan.

19.

The defendant is defined as a person under 15 U.S.C. §1692j(b)

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20.

This court has jurisdiction 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 this judicial district is proper

because the pertinent events took place here.

rV. STATUTORY STRUCTURE

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA)

21.

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 to promote consistent State action to protect consumers

against debt collection abuse. 15 U.S.C. § 1692.

22.

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

pay any debt. 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3).

23.

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 7 of 21 Pg ID 7
Under the FDCPA, "debt" means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to

pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services

which are the subject ofthe transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household

purposes. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

24.

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

interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose for which is the collection

of any 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).

25.

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means

in connection with the collection of any debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

REGULATON OF COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (RCPA)

26.

The Regulation of Collection Practices Act (RCPA), MCL 445.251 et seq. is an act to

regulate the collection practices of certain persons; to provide for the powers and duties of certain

state agencies; and to provide penalties and civil fines.

27.

"Claim" or "debt" means an obligation or alleged obligation for the payment ofmoney or

thing of value arising out of an expressed or implied agreement or contract for a purchase made

primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

28.

"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

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 8 of 21 Pg ID 8
or due another, or repossessing or attempting to repossess a thing of value owed or due or

asserted to be owed or due another person, arising out of an expressed or implied agreement.

Collection agency includes a person representing himselfor 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 of 1980, 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 or repossession technique, device, or system to be used to collect

or repossess claims, ifthe form contains the name of a person other than the creditor in a

manner indicating that a request or demand for payment is being made by a person other than

the creditor even though the form directs the debtor to make payment directly to the creditor

rather than to the other person whose name appears on the form. Collection agency includes a

person who uses a fictitious name or the name of another in the collection or repossession of

claims to convey to the debtor that a third person is collecting or repossessing or has been

employed to collect or repossess the claim.

29.

"Communicate" means the conveying ofinformation regarding a debt directly or

indirectly to a person through any medium.

30.

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

debt.

31.

"Creditor" or "principal" means a person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or a

person to whom a debt is owed or due or asserted to be owed or due. Creditor or principal does

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 9 of 21 Pg ID 9
not include a person who receives an assignment or transfer or a debt solely for the purpose of

facilitating collection ofthe debt for the assignor or transferor. In those instances, the assignor or

transferor ofthe debt shall continue to be considered the creditor or the principal for purposes of

this act.

32.

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

corporation.

33.

A Creditor or Regulated Person may not use seals or printed forms or a government

agency or that induce beliefin the consumer that the collection forms have official sanction.

MCL 445.252© and (d).

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

34.

Defendant is communicating with Plaintiff and class members in the State of Michigan

through a series collection letters announcing they are sponsored by the Department ofEducation

and stating on the outside ofthe envelopes that they are from Navient, Department of Education

Loan Servicing and with "Important Information About Your Student Loan." Please see Exhibit

1 and 2.

35.

The letters and envelopes are designed to give the impression that they are from and

sponsored by the Department of Education with a false name of NAVIENT Department of

Education Loan Servicing when there is no reason to place this on the correspondence to people

that owe a student debt.

36.

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 10 of 21 Pg ID 10
The name **Navient" is not a trade name registered in Michigan as the trade name of

Navient or Navient Solutions, Inc.

37.

Defendant Navient is advising the student debtor in the letter that, "Note: This is an attempt,

by a debt collector, to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose"

in its correspondence to Plaintiff and Michigan consumers.

38.

On the "Navient" website, each page states,

"© 2015 Navient Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. Navient and the Navient logo are the

service marks of Navient Solutions, Inc. Navient Corporation and its subsidiaries, including

Navient Solutions, Inc. are not sponsored by or agencies ofthe United States ofAmerica." Exhibit

No. 3.

39.

Yet, the letter and envelopes Michigan Consumers receive give the least sophisticated

consumer the false impression that a Department ofEducation sponsored party is collecting the

debt. Please see Exhibit 1 and 2.

40.

In fact, while the Navient website states that the entity is not sponsored or agencies ofthe

Department ofEducation, the Seal ofthe Department ofEducation is on the letters and envelopes

sent to Michigan Consumers as though it is provided by and sponsored by the Department when

that is false impression. Please see Exhibit 1 and 2.

41.

Defendant is sending the correspondence to Michigan Consumers generally and the

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 11 of 21 Pg ID 11
Plaintiffspecifically while giving the false impression that the Department ofEducation is

collecting the debt on the envelope and letter. Exhibit No, 1 and 2.

42.

The letters and envelopes appear to come from either Navient-Department ofEducation

Loan Servicing, Navient-Department of Loan Services or The Department of Education itself as

stated in the letter and envelope along with the Seal of the DepartmentofEducation.

43.

These three possible names are not accurate and fiirther, Navient's name appearsto be

false and not a real department within NavientSolutions as there does not appear to be a

Department ofEducation Loan Services or "Servicing" on the website Navient.com that the

consumer is told to contact in each letter at Exhibit 1.

44.

By using a name on the letter and envelopes other than its own, Defendant gives the least

sophisticated consumer the false impression that a third party, Navient Department of Education

Loan Services or Servicing or the Department of Education itself was collecting the debt.

15U.S.C.§ 1692a(6).

45.

DefendantNavient has sent letters to Michiganresidents in violation of 15USC § 1692j.

The FDCPA prohibits a practice known as "flat-rating," providing that:

(a) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that

such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a

person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the

collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly

owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating.

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 12 of 21 Pg ID 12
(b) Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the same extent

and in the same maimer as a debt collector is liable under section 1692k of

this title for failure to comply with a provision ofthis subchapter. 15 U.S.C. § 1692j.

46.

That Defendant Navient is a person creating the forms and envelope that create a false

beliefthat the Department ofEducation is collecting the debt or is sponsoring the collection of

the debt by Navient at 15 U.S.C. § 1692j.

47.

That the letters and envelopes at Exhibit 1 and 2 violate 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 as mentioned above.

48.

That the letters and envelopes at Exhibit 1 and 2 violate 15 U.S.C. 1692e (14) with the

use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name ofthe debt

collector's business, company, or organization when claiming to be a debt collector but using

Memorial in the letter.

49,

That the letters and envelopes at Exhibit 1 and 2 violate 15 U.S.C. 1692e (9) by making

use of a document or government seal authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or

agency ofthe United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source,

authorization, or approval by placing the Seal ofthe US Dept. ofEducation on its letters and

envelopes when it clearly provides on its website that it is not sponsored or an agency ofthe

United States ofAmerica,

50.

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 13 of 21 Pg ID 13
Defendants have violated the Regulation ofCollection Protection Act (RCPA) 445.251 et

seq., but are not necessarily limited to the following:

a. Defendant has violated MCLA 445.252(e) by making an inaccurate,

misleading, untrue or deceptive statement or claim in a communication to

collect a debt with the use of false statements in the envelopes and letters at

Exhibit 1 and 2.

b. Defendant has violated MCLA 445.252(c) by using seals or forms of a

government agency or instrumentality at Exhibit 1 and 2 with the Seal ofthe

US Dept. ofEducation

c. Defendant has violated MCLA 445.252(d) by using letters and envelopes that

induce the beliefthat they have judicial or official sanction at Exhibit 1 and

2.

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

procedure designed to prevent a violation by an employee.

51.

Further, Defendants are sending these type ofletters and envelopes in the State of

Michigan to residents and debtors who owe student loan debts with the announcement on the

envelopes that the enclosed letter is about a Student Loan debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §

1692fr8Ut Exhibit 2.

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

52.

Plaintiffrealleges the above pleadings.

53.

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

persons in the State of Michigan who, during the one year prior to the filing of this complaint.

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 14 of 21 Pg ID 14
were sent letters and envelopes similar to Exhibit 1 and 2. Plaintiffmay subsequently refine the

class definition in light of discovery.

54.

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

the collection letter and envelopes that is in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) and 15 U.S.C. §

1692j and 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(14), 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) and 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(9) (ii) in which a

demand for payment of an outstanding balance is made through a letter and envelope from

Defendants similar to Exhibit 1 and 2. and (iii) which letter was sent during the one year period

immediately preceding the filing ofthis complaint and the date of class certification; and

55.

The MCPA Class consists of(i) all persons with a Michigan address that have received the

collection letter that is in violation of MCLA 445.252(e), MCLA 445.252(c), MCLA 445.252(d)

and (q), (ii) in which a demand for payment of an outstanding balance is made through a letter and

envelope from Defendants similar to Exhibit 1 and 2. and (iii) which letter was sent during the

six year period immediately preceding the filing of this complaint and the date of class

certification.

56.

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 ofExhibit 1 and 2 and similar

letters to consumers violates the FDCPA and RCPA with Navient sending a collection letter while

misrepresenting a statement of collection on the letter and envelopes Michigan Consumers are

receiving.

57.

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 15 of 21 Pg ID 15
There are no individual questions, other than whether the class member received one ofthe

offending letters, which can be determined by a ministerial inspection ofthe records and collection

notes of Defendants.

58.

Plaintiffwill fairly and adequately protect the interests ofthe class. Plaintiffis committed

to vigorously litigating this matter. He is greatly annoyed at being the victim ofDefendants*illegal

practices and wishes to see that the wrong is remedied. To that end, he has retained counsel

experienced in litigating the FDCPA and RCPA consumer advocacy and class claims. Neither

Plaintiffnor their counsel has any interests which might cause them to not vigorously pursue this

claim.

59.

Plaintiffs claim is typical ofthe claims ofthe class, which all arise from the same operative

facts and are based on the same legal theories.

60.

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

controversy. Most ofthe consumers who receive Exhibit 1 and 2 undoubtedly have no

knowledge that their rights are being violated by illegal collection practices. The interest of class

members in individually controlling the prosecution ofseparate claims against Defendants is

small because the maximum damages in an individual action are $1,000. Management ofthis

class claim is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many class

claims, e.g, for securities fraud.

61.

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

Procedure is appropriate because:

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 16 of 21 Pg ID 16
(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.

62.

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 Navient Solutions, Inc. had a practice of sendmg a collection

letters and envelopes while misrepresenting to debtors that Navient Department of

Education Loan Servicing or The US Department of Education is collecting or

sponsoring the collection ofthe debt when it is not.

b. Whether doing so violated the FDCPA and RCPA.

63.

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 and injunctive relief appropriate with respect to each class as a whole.

64.

Plaintiffs request certification of a hybrid class action, combining the elements of FRCP

23(b)(3) for monetary damages and FRCP 23(b)(2) for equitable relief

VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count 1-Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

65.

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 17 of 21 Pg ID 17
Plaintiffrealleges the above pleadings.

66.

Defendants have violated the FDCPA. Defendants' violations ofthe 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 using Exhibit 1 and 2 as mentioned above; and

b. Defendants collected on the debt and violated 15 U.S.C. 1692j by designing and

furnishing the subject letter and envelope at Exhibit 1 and 2 knowing that such format

would be used to create the false beliefin a consumer that a person other than the creditor

ofsuch consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt

such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so

participating as stated above by using the name, Navient or Navient Department of

Education Loan Servicing; and

c. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(10) with the use of any false representation or

deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information

concerning a consumer with the use ofExhibit 1 and 2 as mentioned above.

d. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(14) with the use of any business, company, or

organization name other than the true name ofthe debt collector's business, company, or

organization when claiming to be a debt collector but using Navient or Navient

Department ofLoan Servicing in the letter as stated above. Exhibit 1 and 2.

e. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(9) with the use by Navient ofthe US Department of

Education Seal and sponsorship in the eyes ofthe unsophisticated consumer receiving

letters and envelopes from Navient or Navient Department ofEducation Loan Serving as

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 18 of 21 Pg ID 18
stated above. Exhibit 1 and 2.

f. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692f(8) by placing information on the collection envelope

announcing to the world that the enclosed letter is concerning a debt of Plaintiff or any

Michigan Consumer with words on the envelope that state, "Information about your

federal student loan" or "Important information about your student loan" as stated above.

Exhibit 2.

Wherefore, Plaintiffseeks judgment against Defendant for:

a. Statutory damages for Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

1692k(a)(2)(A) and (B);

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

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 deems just and proper.

Count 2-Michigan Collection Practices Act

67.

Defendants have violated the RCPA. Defendant's violations ofthe RCPA include, but are

not necessarily limited to, the following:

a. Defendant violated MCLA 445.252(e) by making an inaccurate, misleading, untrue or

deceptive statement or claim in a communication to collect a debt using Exhibit 1 and 2

as mentioned above;

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 19 of 21 Pg ID 19
b. Defendant violated MCLA 445.252© by using seals ofthe US Department ofEducation

on its letters and envelopes in collecting a debt when Defendant is not part of or

sponsored by the US Department ofEducation. See Exhibit 1 and 2 as mentioned above.

c. Defendant violated MCLA 445.252(d) by using letters and envelopes with seals from the

US Department ofEducation to make the person receiving the letters that believe they are

from the government and heighten the fear to act on the letters. See Exhibit 1 and 2 as

mentioned above.

d. Defendant has violated MCLA 445.252(q) by failing to implement a procedure designed

to prevent a violation by an employee.

Wherefore, Plaintiffseeksjudgment against Defendants for:

a. Statutory damages for Plaintiff in the amount of $50.00, trebled to $150.00 for a willfiil

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), and without regards to

defendant's net worth;

c. Equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to M.C.L. 445.257(1), including but

not limited to, a declaration that defendant's debt collection practices violated the MCPA,

as well as an injunction, enjoining Defendants from using Exhibit 1 and 2 letters and

envelopes which violate Michigan law; and

d. Reasonable attomey's fees and court cost pursuant to M.C.L. 445.257(2).

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 20 of 21 Pg ID 20
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a Trial by Jury on all issues.

This 24^^ day ofApril, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Brian P. Parker

BRIAN P. PARKER (P48617)

Attorney for Plaintiff

2:15-cv-11518-GER-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 21 of 21 Pg ID 21