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.: 118090

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVSION

Ricardo Covarrubia Jr, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Southern Credit Adjusters, 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 Southern Credit Adjusters, 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-00339-FB Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 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 Southern Credit Adjusters, Inc., is a North 

Carolina Corporation with a principal place of business in Nash County, North Carolina.

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-00339-FB Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 9
3

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

(“the Letter”) dated May 16, 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. 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.

28. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1) provides that the written notice must contain the amount 

of the debt. 

29. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) provides that the written notice must contain the name of 

the creditor to whom the debt is owed. 

30. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) provides that the written notice must contain a statement 

that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the 

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

31. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4) provides that the written notice must contain a statement 

that if the 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 such verification or judgment will be mailed to 

the consumer by the debt collector

Case 5:20-cv-00339-FB Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 3 of 9
4

32. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(5) provides that the written notice must contain 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 of the original creditor, if different from the 

current creditor.

33. A debt collector has the obligation, not just to convey the required information, 

but also to convey such clearly. 

34. Even if a debt collector conveys the required information accurately, the debt 

collector nonetheless violates the FDCPA if that information is overshadowed or contradicted by 

other language in the communication. 

35. Even if a debt collector conveys the required information accurately, the debt 

collector nonetheless violates the FDCPA if that information is overshadowed by other collection 

activities during the 30-day validation period following the communication.

36. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) provides that 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.

37. A collection activity or communication overshadows or contradicts the validation 

notice if it would make the least sophisticated consumer uncertain or confused as to her rights.

38. Demanding payment during the 30-day validation without explaining that such 

demand does not override the consumer's right to dispute the debt is a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 

1692g(b).

39. Demanding payment during the 30-day validation without explaining that such 

demand does not override the consumer's right to request validation of the debt is a violation of 

15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).

40. Demanding payment during the 30-day validation without explaining that such 

demand does not override the consumer's right to request the name and address of the original 

creditor is a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).

41. The Letter demands payment during the 30-day validation. 

42. The Letter provides: “Your account has been placed in our hands by the above 

named client with full authority to demand payment and to record this debt in your credit record 

file in this office.”

Case 5:20-cv-00339-FB Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 4 of 9
5

43. The Letter contains no statement pertaining to Plaintiff's rights following such 

payment demand.

44. The Letter fails to advise that such payment demand does not override the 

Plaintiff's right to dispute the alleged Debt.

45. The Letter fails to advise that such payment demand does not override the 

Plaintiff's right to request validation of the alleged Debt.

46. The Letter fails to advise that such payment demand does not override the 

Plaintiff's right to request the name and address of the original creditor.

47. The least sophisticated consumer, upon reading such payment demand, could 

reasonably interpret the Letter to mean that even if she exercises her validation rights, she must 

nevertheless make a payment in full.

48. The least sophisticated consumer, upon reading such payment demand, and in the 

absence of any further explanation, could reasonably interpret the Letter to mean that even if she 

disputes the validity of the alleged Debt, she must nevertheless make a payment in full even 

during the verification process. 

49. Defendant placed the required validation notice in the body of the Letter, in the 

same font, font size, and typeface as the rest of body. 

50. The Letter contains no visually conspicuous transitionary language, such as “See 

Important Notice Below,” directing Plaintiff's attention to the required validation notice.

51. The Letter does not otherwise direct the consumer's attention to the required 

validation notice in any way. 

52. The manner in which the Letter is formatted would likely make the least 

sophisticated consumer uncertain as to her rights.

53. The manner in which the Letter is formatted would likely make the least 

sophisticated consumer confused as to her rights.

54. The manner in which the Letter is formatted would likely make the least 

sophisticated consumer overlook her rights. 

55. The letter is structured in such a way that it makes Plaintiff's validation rights 

difficult to read and easy to overlook. 

56. The letter is structured in such a way that it makes Plaintiff's validation rights 

appear as boilerplate language.

Case 5:20-cv-00339-FB Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 5 of 9
6

57. The letter is structured in such a way that it makes Plaintiff's validation rights 

appear unimportant.

58. The letter is structured in such a way that it discourages Plaintiff from reading her 

validation rights.

59. Because Plaintiff's validation rights are set forth in an inconspicuous manner, the 

least sophisticated consumer is less likely to realize that such rights are not affected by 

Defendant's payment demand. 

60. Because Plaintiff's validation rights are set forth in an inconspicuous manner, the 

least sophisticated consumer is likely to overlook the rights, especially in relation to the payment 

demand.

61. Because Plaintiff's validation rights are set forth in an inconspicuous manner, the 

least sophisticated consumer is likely to believe the rights are unimportant, especially in relation 

to the payment demand. 

62. As a result of the foregoing, the Letter would likely discourage the least 

sophisticated consumer from exercising her right to dispute the alleged Debt. 

63. As a result of the foregoing, the Letter would likely discourage the least 

sophisticated consumer from exercising her right to request validation of the alleged Debt. 

64. As a result of the foregoing, such payment demand would likely make the least 

sophisticated consumer confused as to her rights.

65. As a result of the foregoing, such payment demand would likely make the least 

sophisticated consumer uncertain as to her rights.

66. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as such payment demand overshadows 

the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the alleged Debt.

67. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as such payment demand overshadows 

the disclosure of the consumer's right to request validation of the alleged Debt.

68. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as such payment demand overshadows 

the disclosure of the consumer's right to request the name and address of the original creditor.

69. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as such payment demand is inconsistent 

with the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the alleged Debt.

70. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as such payment demand is inconsistent 

with the disclosure of the consumer's right to request validation of the alleged Debt.

Case 5:20-cv-00339-FB Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 6 of 9
7

71. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as such payment demand is inconsistent 

with the disclosure of the consumer's right to request the name and address of the original 

creditor.

72. 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.

73. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) prohibits the use of any false representation or deceptive 

means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 

74. A debt collection practice can be a “false, deceptive, or misleading” practice in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e even if it does not fall within any of the subsections of 15 U.S.C. § 

1692e. 

75. A collection letter violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692e if, in the eyes of the least 

sophisticated consumer it is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which 

is inaccurate. 

76. A collection letter also violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692e if it is reasonably susceptible to 

an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer. 

77. The least sophisticated consumer could reasonably interpret the Letter to mean 

that even if she exercises her validation rights, she must nevertheless make a payment in full.

78. The least sophisticated consumer, upon reading such payment demand, and in the 

absence of any further explanation, could reasonably interpret the Letter to mean that even if she 

disputes the validity of the alleged Debt, she must nevertheless make a payment in full even 

during the verification process. 

79. Because the Letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation it violates 

15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

80. Because the Letter is reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least 

sophisticated consumer it violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

81. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(b), 1692e and 

1692e(10) and is liable to Plaintiff therefor.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

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

persons similarly situated in the State of Texas.

Case 5:20-cv-00339-FB Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 7 of 9
8

83. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of:

All consumers to whom Defendant sent a collection letter in which 

the consumer’s validation rights were overshadowed by a payment 

demand, 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.

84. 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.

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

86. 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.

87. 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.

88. 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

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment be entered:

Case 5:20-cv-00339-FB Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 8 of 9
9

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.

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.: 118090

Case 5:20-cv-00339-FB Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 9 of 9