1

BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC

100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 

Garden City, New York 11530

Tel: (516) 203-7600

Fax: (516) 706-5055

Email: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Our File No.: 118082

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Ricardo Covarrubia Jr, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Bay Area Credit Service Inc.,

Defendant.

Docket No: 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Ricardo Covarrubia Jr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 

(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, complains, states 

and alleges against Bay Area Credit Service Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), as 

follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

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

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

and 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). 

Case 5:20-cv-00330 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 1 of 9
2

3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the 

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this Judicial District. 

4. At all relevant times, Defendant conducted business within the State of Texas.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Ricardo Covarrubia Jr is an individual who is a citizen of the State of 

Texas residing in Medina County, Texas. 

6. Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt.

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

8. On information and belief, Defendant Bay Area Credit Service Inc., is a Georgia 

Corporation with a principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia.

9. Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect debts asserted to be owed to 

others. 

10. Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly 

owed by consumers. 

11. The principal purpose of Defendant's business is the collection of such debts.

12. Defendant uses the mails in its debt collection business.

13. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 

ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF

14. Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt (“the alleged Debt”). 

15. The alleged Debt is an alleged obligation of Plaintiff to pay money arising out of 

a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the 

transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

16. The alleged Debt does not arise from any business enterprise of Plaintiff.

17. The alleged Debt is a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

18. At an exact time known only to Defendant, the alleged Debt was assigned or 

otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection. 

19. At the time the alleged Debt was assigned or otherwise transferred to Defendant 

for collection, the alleged Debt was in default.

Case 5:20-cv-00330 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 2 of 9
3

20. In its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter 

(“the Letter”) dated May 15, 2019. (A true and accurate copy is annexed hereto as “Exhibit 1.”)

21. The Letter conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt.

22. The Letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2). 

23. The Letter was the initial written communication Plaintiff received from 

Defendant concerning the alleged Debt.

24. The Letter was received and read by Plaintiff.

25. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g protects Plaintiff's concrete interests. Plaintiff has the interest 

and right to receive a clear, accurate and unambiguous validation notice, which allows a 

consumer to confirm that he or she owes the debt sought to be collected by the debt collector. As 

set forth herein, Defendant deprived Plaintiff of this right.

26. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e protects Plaintiff's concrete interests. Plaintiff has the interest 

and right to be free from deceptive and/or misleading communications from Defendant. As set 

forth herein, Defendant deprived Plaintiff of this right.

27. The deprivation of Plaintiff's rights will be redressed by a favorable decision

herein.

FIRST COUNT

Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f

28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 

29. 15 U.S.C. § 1692f provides a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable 

means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.

30. 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) prohibits the collection of any amount, including any 

interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the debt, unless such amount is expressly 

authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

31. Defendant maintains a website at www.bayareacredit.com/pay.

32. Defendant's website provides a payment portal, at www.bayareacredit.com/pay, 

for consumers to make payments online.

33. Defendant’s website states, “NOTE: Payment Processing Fees using this online 

payment portal vary by state and creditor; you may or may not be charged the fee depending on 

your state and creditor. Once you choose “Proceed to Payments” below, if the $5.00 fee is 

present under the “Payment Summary” section and you do not wish to proceed, you can mail 

Case 5:20-cv-00330 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 3 of 9
4

your payment to the address below without incurring the fee: Bay Area Credit Service P.O. Box 

46700 Atlanta, GA 31146.”

34. Such processing fee is neither expressly authorized by the agreement creating the 

debt, nor permitted by law.

35. Such processing fee is prohibited by 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

36. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f and is liable to 

Plaintiff therefor.

SECOND COUNT

Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e

37. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 

38. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or 

misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any debt.

39. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) prohibits the false representation of the character, 

amount, or legal status of any debt.

40. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(B) prohibits the false representation of any services 

rendered or compensation that may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection 

of a debt.

41. Defendant violated § 1692e by making a false representation that it is entitled to 

receive compensation for payment via a processing fee. 

42. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived by the processing fee

language into believing that Defendant was legally entitled to collect the fee.

43. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived in a material way by 

Defendant's conduct. 

44. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and is liable to 

Plaintiff therefor.

THIRD COUNT

Violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g and 1692e

45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 

Case 5:20-cv-00330 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 4 of 9
5

46. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g provides that within five days after the initial communication 

with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the 

information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the 

consumer a written notice containing certain enumerated information.

47. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) requires the notice to include a statement that unless the 

consumer, within thirty days of receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any 

portion thereof, the debt will be assumed valid by the debt collector. 

48. There is no requirement that the consumer dispute the debt in writing.

49. The debt collector has the obligation to provide validation and cannot advise the 

Plaintiff to contact the Creditor for disputing the debt.

50. It is a violation of the FDCPA to require disputes be made in writing.

51. It is a violation of the FDCPA to require disputes be made directly to the Creditor.

52. It is a violation of the FDCPA to include language in the letter that overshadows 

the required 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) statement.

53. It is a violation of the FDCPA to include language in the letter that contradicts the 

required 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) statement. 

54. It is a violation of the FDCPA to include language in the letter that, when 

examined from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, overshadows the required § 

1692g(a)(3) statement.

55. It is a violation of the FDCPA to include language in the letter that, when 

examined from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, contradicts the required § 

1692g(a)(3) statement. 

56. It is a violation of the FDCPA to include language in the letter that, when 

examined from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, leads the least sophisticated 

consumer to believe that her dispute must be made in writing. 

57. It is a violation of the FDCPA to include language in the letter that, when 

examined from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, leads the least sophisticated 

consumer to believe that her dispute must be made to the creditor.

58. The Letter states in the coupon, “PLEASE SEND ALL PAYMENTS AND 

CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADDRESS BELOW:” 

59. Disputes need not be in writing. 

Case 5:20-cv-00330 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 5 of 9
6

60. Disputes may be made orally. 

61. The debt collector cannot direct the consumers to lodge their disputes with the 

creditor.

62. The language directing all correspondence be mailed to the creditor’s address, 

overshadows the required 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) statement. 

63. The language directing all correspondence be mailed to the creditor’s address, 

contradicts the required 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) statement. 

64. The language directing all correspondence be mailed to the creditor’s address, 

when examined from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, overshadows the 

required § 1692g(a)(3) statement.

65. The language directing all correspondence be mailed to the creditor’s address, 

when examined from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, contradicts the required 

§ 1692g(a)(3) statement.

66. The language directing all correspondence be mailed to the creditor’s address, 

when examined from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, leads the least 

sophisticated consumer to believe that her dispute must be in writing and sent to the stated 

address. 

67. Defendants have violated § 1692g, as the language directing all correspondence 

be mailed to the creditor’s address overshadows the information required to be provided by that 

Section. 

68. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or 

misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.

69. While § 1692e specifically prohibits certain practices, the list is non-exhaustive, 

and does not preclude a claim of falsity or deception based on any non-enumerated practice.

70. Collection notices are deceptive if they can be reasonably read to have two or 

more different meanings, one of which is inaccurate. 

71. The question of whether a collection letter is deceptive is determined from 

perspective of the “least sophisticated consumer.” 

72. The language directing all correspondence be mailed to the creditor’s address 

could be reasonably interpreted by the least sophisticated consumer as incorrectly representing 

that a dispute must be communicated in writing and sent to the stated address. 

Case 5:20-cv-00330 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 6 of 9
7

73. Because the Letter is reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading, as described 

above, it is deceptive within the meaning of the FDCPA.

74. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived by the language 

directing all correspondence be mailed to the creditor’s address.

75. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived in a material way by 

language directing all correspondence be mailed to the creditor’s address.

76. The misrepresentation is material because it could impede the least sophisticated 

consumer’s ability to respond to the Letter or dispute the debt.

77. Defendants have violated § 1692e by using a false, deceptive, and misleading 

representation in its attempt to collect a debt.

78. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g and 1692e 

and are liable to Plaintiff therefor. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

79. Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all 

persons similarly situated in the State of Texas.

80. Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes of:

i. All consumers from whom Defendant attempted to collect an 

unlawful processing fee on or after a date one year prior to the filing 

of this action to the present.

ii. All consumers to whom Defendant sent a collection letter directing 

the consumer to mail their dispute to an address, substantially and 

materially similar to the Letter sent to Plaintiff, which letter was sent 

on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action to the 

present

81. This action seeks a finding that Defendant's conduct violates the FDCPA, and 

asks that the Court award damages as authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.

82. The Class consists of more than thirty-five persons.

83. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Common questions of law 

or fact raised by this action affect all members of the Class and predominate over any individual 

issues. Common relief is therefore sought on behalf of all members of the Class. A class action is 

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

Case 5:20-cv-00330 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 7 of 9
8

84. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would 

create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of the 

Class, and a risk that any adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class would, as 

a practical matter, either be dispositive of the interests of other members of the Class not party to 

the adjudication, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. 

Defendant has acted in a manner applicable to the Class as a whole such that declaratory relief is 

warranted.

85. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the Class. 

The management of the class is not extraordinarily difficult, and the factual and legal issues

raised by this action will not require extended contact with the members of the Class, because 

Defendant's conduct was perpetrated on all members of the Class and will be established by 

common proof. Moreover, Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in actions brought under 

consumer protection laws.

JURY DEMAND

86. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial of this action by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment be entered:

a. Certifying this action as a class action; and 

b. Appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative and Plaintiff's attorneys as 

Class Counsel;

c. Finding Defendant's actions violate the FDCPA; and 

d. Granting damages against Defendant pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; and

e. Granting Plaintiff's attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; and

f. Granting Plaintiff's costs; all together with

g. Such other relief that the Court determines is just and proper.

Case 5:20-cv-00330 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 8 of 9
9

DATED: March 16, 2020

BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC

By: _/s/ Craig B. Sanders 

Craig B. Sanders, Esquire

100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500

Garden City, New York 11530 

Tel: (516) 203-7600

Fax: (516) 706-5055

csanders@barshaysanders.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Our File No.: 118082

Case 5:20-cv-00330 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 9 of 9