1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

KEREN E. GESUND, ESQ.

Cal. Bar No. 253242

GESUND & PAILET, LLC

3421 N. Causeway Blvd

Suite 805

Metairie, LA 70002

Tel: (702) 300-1180

Fax: (504) 265-9492

keren@gp-nola.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIOT BASSICK, an individual, on behalf of 

himself and those similarly situated; 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

TRUEACCORD CORP., a Delaware 

corporation,

Defendant.

 Case No.: 

 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 

 VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT 

 COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

 JURY DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ELLIOT BASSICK (hereinafter referred to as “PLAINTIFF”), on behalf of 

himself and all those similarly situated, by and through undersigned counsel, alleges upon 

knowledge as to himself and his own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, 

and brings this complaint against Defendant, TRUEACCORD CORP. (hereinafter referred to as 

“DEFENDANT”) and in support thereof alleges the following:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. PLAINTIFF brings this action for actual and statutory damages arising from 

DEFENDANT’s violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq

(“FDCPA”) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq. 

(“RFDCPA”). 

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). The 

Court has supplemental jurisdiction for the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because DEFENDANT 

resides in the Northern District of California. 

PARTIES

4. PLAINTIFF is a natural person residing in San Francisco, California.

5. PLAINTIFF is a “consumer” as defined in the FDCPA at 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

6. PLAINTIFF allegedly owes a (past due) consumer “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692a(5).

7. DEFENDANT is incorporated in Delaware, the principal purpose of whose 

business is the collection of debts, with a principal place of business at

153 Maiden Lane, San Francisco, California, 94108. 

8. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT

regularly collects or attempts to collect consumer debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due 

another and that DEFENDANT is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and 

§1788.2(c).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

9. PLAINTIFF repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, paragraphs 1 

through 8 inclusive, above. 

10. On or about December 16, 2016, DEFENDANT sent an initial collection letter to 

Mr. Bassick via email in an attempt to collect an alleged debt owed to StubHub, attached hereto 

as Exhibit 1.

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

11. On or about December 17, 2016, PLAINTIFF replied to the email explaining that 

he had been unaware he owed the debt and disputing the amount of the debt, a true and correct 

copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2.

12. On or about December 19, 2016, without providing validation or verification of 

the debt, DEFENDANT responded it does not provide settlement offers and continued 

collections, writing “I’d like you to get started on a payment plan today, even if you can’t start 

making payments right away,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3.

13. The December 19, 2016 email provided a link for PLAINTIFF to set up a payment 

plan. Id. 

14. PLAINTIFF clicked the link in the December 19, 2016 email to view the terms of 

DEFENDANT’s payment plan, but never agreed to the terms.

15. Nevertheless, on or about December 22, 2016, DEFENDANT emailed 

PLAINTIFF regarding an alleged “payment plan [they] discussed,” a true and correct copy of 

which is attached as Exhibit 4. 

16. DEFENDANT’s e-mail goes on to say “[y]ou told us you would be ready to start 

settling your balance of $414.00 with StubHub in the next few weeks – that’s great!” Id.

17. PLAINTIFF never spoke to anyone at DEFENDANT nor made such 

representations. 

18. On or about December 26, 2016, DEFENDANT sent another email to PLAINTIFF 

again misrepresenting that “[l]ast we spoke you indicated you would be ready to start resolving 

this sometime in the next few weeks.,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5.

19. On or about December 29, 2016, PLAINTIFF again disputed the debt to 

DEFENDANT, requesting DEFENDANT “[p]lease validate this ‘debt’ with complete supporting 

documentation,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 6.

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 3 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

20. On or about January 3, 2017, without having verified the debt, DEFENDANT 

continued trying to collect the disputed debt, writing “you can’t get rid of us that easily,” and that 

the “sooner we can determine a solution, the faster we can come to a resolution, and, eventually, 

relieve you of your financial burden,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 7. 

21. It was not until the next day, on or about January 4, 2017, that DEFENDANT 

recognized the dispute explaining that “I am going to file a dispute for you now. We will be 

reaching out to you soon once we receive more information from StubHub,” and that “[w]e’re 

working to process your dispute. No action is required at this time” true and correct copies of 

which are attached as Exhibits 8 and 9. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

22. PLAINTIFF repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, paragraphs 1 

through 21 inclusive, above.

23. PLAINTIFF brings this claim individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated for the purpose of asserting the claim alleged in this Complaint on a common basis. 

PLAINTIFF’s proposed class is defined under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. 

P.”) 23(b)(3), and PLAINTIFF proposes to act as representative of the following classes:

a. Class One: a California class consisting of consumers who:

i. Within one year prior to the filing of this action;

ii. Disputed a debt with DEFENDANT;

iii. Where DEFENDANT continued to attempt to collect the debt before 

mailing the consumer verification of the debt.

b. Class Two: a California class consisting of consumers who:

iv. Within one year prior to the filing of this action;

v. Received a collection communication from DEFENDANT;

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 4 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

vi. Which purported that the consumer had entered into a settlement 

agreement with DEFENDANT;

vii. Where the consumer did not enter into a settlement agreement with 

DEFENDANT. 

24. PLAINTIFF does not know the exact size or identities of the classes, as 

DEFENDANT maintains exclusive control of such information. Because the communications 

appear to be automated, PLAINTIFF believes that the classes each include between 10,000 and 

20,000 individuals whose identities can be readily determined from DEFENDANT’s business 

records. Therefore, the proposed classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable. 

25. All class members have been affected by the same conduct. The common 

questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of 

the class. These questions include, but are not limited to: 

a. Whether DEFENDANT’s communications violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) by 

neglecting to cease communication after receipt of a dispute and before 

mailing verification of the debt to the consumer;

b. Whether DEFENDANT’s communications violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by 

wrongfully stating that the consumer had entered into a settlement agreement 

with DEFENDANT;

c. The identities of individuals who received substantially similar

communications from DEFENDANT which violated the above subsections; 

and

d. The total number of communications that DEFENDANT made to consumers 

which violated the above subsections.

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 5 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

26. PLAINTIFF’s claims are typical of the claims of the classes and do not conflict 

with the interests of any other class members. PLAINTIFF and the members of the classes were 

uniformly subjected to the same conduct.

27. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANT has a policy and practice of

communicating with consumers after receipt of a dispute and before mailing verification of the 

debt. 

28. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANT has a policy and practice of 

misrepresenting that the consumer had entered into a settlement agreement with DEFENDANT. 

29. PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent the class members’ interests and 

has retained counsel who are qualified to pursue this litigation. PLAINTIFF’s counsel’s firm, 

GESUND & PAILET, LLC, focuses on prosecuting FDCPA lawsuits. PLAINTIFF’s counsel, 

Keren E. Gesund, also has extensive experience in prosecuting FDCPA class actions. 

30. PLAINTIFF is committed to vigorously pursuing his claims. 

31. A class action is superior for the fair and efficient adjudication of the class 

members’ claims as Congress specifically envisioned class actions as a principal means of 

enforcing the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. The members of the classes are generally 

unsophisticated consumers, whose rights will not be vindicated in the absence of a class action. 

Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the classes would also create the risk of 

inconsistent or varying adjudications resulting in the establishment of inconsistent or varying 

standards and would not be in the best interest of judicial economy. 

32. A class action regarding the issues in this case does not create any problems of 

manageability. 

33. If facts are discovered to be appropriate, PLAINTIFF will seek to certify the class 

under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 6 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) and RFDCPA CAL. CIV. 

CODE § 1788.17 BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF INDIVIDUALLY AND 

ON BEHALF OF CLASS ONE

34. PLAINTIFF repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, paragraphs 1 

through 33 inclusive, above.

35. DEFENDANT has established an electronic procedure of issuing automated form 

emails prompted by information provided by the consumer.

36. Pursuant to §1788.17 of the RFDCPA, “every debt collector collecting or 

attempting to collect a consumer debt shall comply with the provision of Sections 1692b to 1692j, 

inclusive, of, and shall be subject to the remedies in Section 1692k of, Title 15 of the United 

States Code.”

37. According to the FDCPA: 

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the 

thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any 

portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name 

and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease 

collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt 

collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or 

the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such 

verification or judgment, or name and address of the original 

creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). 

38. On or about December 16, 2016, DEFENDANT sent an initial collection letter to 

Mr. Bassick via email in an attempt to collect an alleged debt owed to StubHub. Ex. 1. 

39. On or about December 17, 2016, PLAINTIFF replied to the email explaining that 

he had been unaware he owed the debt and disputing the amount of the debt. Ex. 2. 

40. On or about December 19, 2016, DEFENDANT, without verifying or validating 

the debt, explained it does not provide settlement offers and continued collections, writing “I’d 

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 7 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

like you to get started on a payment plan today, even if you can’t start making payments right 

away.” Ex. 3. 

41. The December 19, 2016 email provided a link for PLAINTIFF to set up a payment 

plan. Id.

42. DEFENDANT’s response indicated that it continued to attempt to collect the debt 

before mailing verification of the debt to PLAINTIFF. 

43. By neglecting to cease communication with PLAINTIFF after receipt of a dispute 

and before mailing verification, DEFENDANT violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). 

44. On or about December 29, 2016, PLAINTIFF again disputed the debt to 

DEFENDANT, requesting DEFENDANT “[p]lease validate this ‘debt’ with complete supporting 

documentation.” Ex. 6.

45. On or about January 3, 2017, without having verified the debt, DEFENDANT 

continued trying to collect the disputed debt, writing “you can’t get rid of us that easily,” and that 

the “sooner we can determine a solution, the faster we can come to a resolution, and, eventually, 

relieve you of your financial burden.” Ex. 7. 

46. It was not until the next day, on or about January 4, 2017, that DEFENDANT 

recognized the dispute explaining that “I am going to file a dispute for you now. We will be 

reaching out to you soon once we receive more information from StubHub.” Ex. 8 and 9. 

47. By continuing to attempt to collect from PLAINTIFF via the January 3, 2017 email, DEFENDANT again violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).

48. By violating 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b), DEFENDANT also violated § 1788.17.

49. As a result of the FDCPA violations by DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF is entitled to 

an award of statutory damages.

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 8 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

50. It has been necessary for PLAINTIFF to obtain the services of an attorney to 

pursue this claim, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, and is entitled to recover 

reasonable attorneys’ fees therefor.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and RFDCPA CAL. CIV. 

CODE § 1788.17 BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF INDIVIDUALLY AND 

ON BEHALF OF CLASS TWO

51. PLAINTIFF repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, paragraphs 1 

through 50 inclusive, above.

52. “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.

53. Pursuant to §1788.17 of the RFDCPA, “every debt collector collecting or 

attempting to collect a consumer debt shall comply with the provision of Sections 1692b to 1692j, 

inclusive, of, and shall be subject to the remedies in Section 1692k of, Title 15 of the United 

States Code.”

54. On or about December 16, 2016, DEFENDANT sent an initial collection letter to 

Mr. Bassick via email in an attempt to collect an alleged debt owed to StubHub. Ex. 1. 

55. On or about December 17, 2016, PLAINTIFF replied to the email explaining that 

he had been unaware he owed the debt and disputing the amount of the debt. Ex. 2. 

56. On or about December 19, 2016, DEFENDANT explained it does not provide 

settlement offers and continued collections, writing “I’d like you to get started on a payment plan 

today, even if you can’t start making payments right away.” Ex. 3. 

57. The December 19, 2016 email provided a link for PLAINTIFF to set up a payment 

plan. Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 9 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

58. PLAINTIFF clicked the link in the December 19, 2016 email to view the terms of 

DEFENDANT’s payment plan, but never agreed to the terms.

59. Nevertheless, on or about December 22, 2016, DEFENDANT emailed 

PLAINTIFF regarding an alleged “payment plan [they] discussed.” Ex. 4. 

60. DEFENDANT’s e-mail goes on to say “[y]ou told us you would be ready to start 

settling your balance of $414.00 with StubHub in the next few weeks – that’s great!” Id.

61. PLAINTIFF never spoke to anyone at DEFENDANT nor made such 

representations. 

62. On or about December 26, 2016, DEFENDANT sent another email to PLAINTIFF 

again misrepresenting that “[l]ast we spoke you indicated you would be ready to start resolving 

this sometime in the next few weeks.” Ex. 5. 

63. By misrepresenting that PLAINTIFF was “ready to start settling [his] balance,” 

misrepresenting that they had discussed a payment plan, and misrepresenting that PLAINTIFF 

had agreed to settle the balance in the “next few weeks,” DEFENDANT attempted to coerce 

PLAINTIFF into paying the disputed debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. 

64. By violating 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, DEFENDANT also violated § 1788.17.

65. As a result of the FDCPA violations by DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF is entitled to 

an award of statutory damages.

66. It has been necessary for PLAINTIFF to obtain the services of an attorney to 

pursue this claim, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, and is entitled to recover 

reasonable attorneys’ fees therefor.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

67. Please take notice that PLAINTIFF demands trial by jury in this action.

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 10 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF respectfully prays that this Court grant the following relief in 

PLAINTIFF’s favor, and on behalf of the class, and that judgment be entered against 

DEFENDANT for the following:

(1) For actual damages incurred by PLAINTIFF pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1)

and §1788.30(a);

(2) For statutory damages awarded to PLAINTIFF, not to exceed $1000, pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A) and §1788.30(b);

(3) For statutory damages awarded to the Class Members, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(a)(2)(B), of the amount not to exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per 

centum (1%) of the net worth of the DEFENDANT;

(4) For disgorgement of all of Defendant’s revenues obtained through use of the 

automated communications at issue;

(5) For reasonable attorneys’ fees for all services performed by counsel in connection 

with the prosecution of these claims;

(6) For reimbursement for all costs and expenses incurred in connection with the 

prosecution of these claims; and

(7) For any and all other relief this Court may deem appropriate.

DATED this 14th day of February 2017.

GESUND & PAILET, LLC

Keren E. Gesund, Esq.

KEREN E. GESUND, ESQ.

Cal. Bar No. 253242

GESUND & PAILET, LLC

keren@gp-nola.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 11 of 11