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.: 118529

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

Jose Luis Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

National Credit Systems, Inc.,

Defendant.

Docket No: 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Jose Luis Sanchez, 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 National Credit Systems, 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). 

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. 

Case 1:20-cv-00237-RP Document 1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 5
2

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

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Jose Luis Sanchez is an individual who is a citizen of the State of Texas 

residing in Travis 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 National Credit Systems, 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.

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

Letter”) dated October 4, 2019. (A true and accurate copy is annexed hereto as “Exhibit 1.”)

21. The Letter conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt.

Case 1:20-cv-00237-RP Document 1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 5
3

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

23. The Letter was received and read by Plaintiff.

24. 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.

25. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e prohibits the use of any false, deceptive, or misleading 

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

26. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) prohibits the use of any false representation or deceptive 

means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.

27. The Letter contains a settlement offer. 

28. While a settlement offer in and of itself is not improper, such offer runs afoul of the 

FDCPA if it impresses upon the least sophisticated consumer that if he or she does not accept the 

settlement, he or she will have no further opportunity to settle the alleged Debt for less than the 

full amount.

29. These concerns can be adequately addressed by the debt collector including with 

the offer the following language: “We are not obligated to renew this offer.” 

30. The phrase “we are not obligated to renew this offer” adequately conveys to the 

least sophisticated consumer that there is a renewal possibility, but also that it is not assured. 

31. The Letter does not state “we are not obligated to renew this offer,” nor does it 

include any kind of substantially similar language. 

32. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be misled by the settlement offer.

33. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be misled in a material way by the 

settlement offer.

34. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692e(10) 

and is liable to Plaintiff therefor.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

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

similarly situated in the State of Texas.

36. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of:

All consumers to whom Defendant sent a collection letter containing a 

Case 1:20-cv-00237-RP Document 1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 5
4

settlement offer without any statement such as “we are not obligated to 

renew this offer,” or any substantially similar language, 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.

37. 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.

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

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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

42. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-00237-RP Document 1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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.

DATED: March 2, 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.: 118529

Case 1:20-cv-00237-RP Document 1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 5 of 5