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

Avraham Zvi Cutler

Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler

729 7th Ave., 17th Fl.

New York, NY 10019

State Bar No. 028441

Fax: 212-764-5060

avicutler@gmail.com 

Tel: 718-578-7711 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Rayshonda Roberson

RAYSHONDA ROBERSON aka ROSESHONDA 

ROBERSON, individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Civil Action No:

Plaintiff(s),

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-v.-

THUNDERBIRD COLLECTION SPECIALISTS, 

INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25,

Defendant(s). 

Plaintiff Rayshonda Roberson aka Roseshonda Roberson (hereinafter, “Plaintiff” or 

“Roberson”), an Arizona resident, brings this Class Action Complaint by and through her 

attorneys, Ballon Stoll Bader and Nadler, against Defendant Thunderbird Collection Specialists, 

Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Thunderbird”), individually and on behalf of a class of all others 

similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based upon 

information and belief of Plaintiff’s counsel, except for allegations specifically pertaining to 

Plaintiff, which are based upon Plaintiff's personal knowledge.

Case 2:18-cv-00815-DWL Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 10
2

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

INTRODUCTION/PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977 in response to the "abundant evidence of the 

use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors." 15 

U.S.C. §1692(a). At that time, Congress was concerned that "abusive debt collection practices 

contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to material instability, to the loss of jobs, 

and to invasions of individual privacy." Id. Congress concluded that "existing laws...[we]re 

inadequate to protect consumers," and that "'the effective collection of debts" does not require 

"misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices." 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692(b) & (c).

2. Congress explained that the purpose of the Act was not only to eliminate abusive 

debt collection practices, but also to "insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using 

abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged." Id. § 1692(e). “After 

determining that the existing consumer protection laws ·were inadequate.” Id. § l692(b), 

Congress gave consumers a private cause of action against debt collectors who fail to comply 

with the Act. Id. § 1692k.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. The Court has jurisdiction over this class action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq. The Court also has pendent jurisdiction over the State law claims in 

this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as this 

is where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 2:18-cv-00815-DWL Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 2 of 10
3

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. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a class of Arizona consumers under 

§1692 et seq. of Title 15 of the United States Code, commonly referred to as the Fair Debt 

Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and

6. Plaintiff is seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa, residing at 1427 

S 3rd Avenue #646, Phoenix, AZ 85003.

8. Defendant Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc. is a "debt collector" as the 

phrase is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6) and used in the FDCPA with an address at 3200 

N. Hayden Rd., Ste 110, Scottsdale, AZ 85251.

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Thunderbird is a company that uses the 

mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which 

is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.

10. John Does l-25, are fictitious names of individuals and businesses alleged for the 

purpose of substituting names of Defendants whose identities will be disclosed in discovery 

and should be made parties to this action.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of the following case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

12. The Class consists of: 

a. all individuals with addresses in the State of Arizona;

b. who were sent a letter from Defendant Thunderbird attempting to collect a 

consumer debt;

Case 2:18-cv-00815-DWL Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 3 of 10
4

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

c. whose letter falsely states that negative information (regarding credit reporting) 

will remain on your file for 7 years;

d. which letter was sent on or after a date one (1) year prior to the filing of this 

action and on or before a date twenty-one (2l) days after the filing of this action.

13. The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of 

Defendants and those companies and entities on whose behalf they attempt to collect and/or 

have purchased debts.

14. Excluded from the Plaintiff Classes are the Defendants and all officer, members, 

partners, managers, directors and employees of the Defendants and their respective 

immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their 

immediate families. 

15. There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Classes, which common 

issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The principal 

issue is whether the Defendants' written communications to consumers, in the forms attached 

as Exhibits A, violate 15 U.S.C. §§ l692e and 1692f.

16. The Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the 

same facts and legal theories. The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of 

the Plaintiff Classes defined in this complaint. The Plaintiffs have retained counsel with 

experience in handling consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and 

neither the Plaintiffs nor their attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to 

vigorously pursue this action.

Case 2:18-cv-00815-DWL Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 4 of 10
5

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

17. This action has been brought, and may properly be maintained, as a class action 

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because there 

is a well-defined community interest in the litigation:

e. Numerosity: The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 

that the Plaintiff Classes defined above are so numerous that joinder of all 

members would be impractical.

f. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist 

as to all members of the Plaintiff Classes and those questions predominance 

over any questions or issues involving only individual class members. The 

principal issue is whether the Defendants' written communications to 

consumers, in the forms attached as Exhibit A violate 15 USC §l692e and 

§1692f.

g. Typicality: The Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class 

members. The Plaintiffs and all members of the Plaintiff Classes have claims 

arising out of the Defendants' common uniform course of conduct complained 

of herein.

h. Adequacy: The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

class members insofar as Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to the 

absent class members. The Plaintiffs are committed to vigorously litigating this 

matter. Plaintiffs have also retained counsel experienced in handling consumer 

lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions. Neither the Plaintiffs nor their 

counsel have any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue the 

instant class action lawsuit.

Case 2:18-cv-00815-DWL Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 5 of 10
6

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

i. Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available means for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual joinder of all 

members would be impracticable. Class action treatment will permit a large 

number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a 

single forum efficiently and without unnecessary duplication of effort and 

expense that individual actions would engender.

18. Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

is also appropriate in that the questions of law and fact common to members of the Plaintiff 

Classes predominate over any questions affecting an individual member, and a class action 

is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the 

controversy.

19. Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiffs may, 

at the time of class certification motion, seek to certify a class(es) only as to particular issues 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as 

though fully state herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length 

herein.

21. On information and belief, on a date better known to Defendant, Defendant began 

collection activities on an alleged consumer debt from the Plaintiff (“Alleged Debt”).

Case 2:18-cv-00815-DWL Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 6 of 10
7

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

22. This debt was incurred as a personal obligation with the original creditor of 

Bellridge Apartments which was incurred for personal, residential purposes and is therefore 

a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

23. On or around May 9, 2017, Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff. See 

Collection Letter attached hereto as Exhibit A.

24. The second to last paragraph of the letter states: 

*Please note credit bureaus are information warehouses that supply 

credit background on individuals to lenders for use in determining 

whether credit should be granted. Negative information remains on 

personal files for 7 years.

25. This language is threatening, and coercive, and only used with the intent of scaring 

Plaintiff into making payment.

26. Specifically, though, this language is false since negative reporting information 

only remains on a credit report for 7 years from the date of charge-off of the debt.

27. Any reporting the Defendant makes to the credit bureau will remain on for less than 

7 years, in this instance significantly less time than 7 years.

28. This language is deceiving to the least sophisticated consumer who would believe

that he/she had to pay immediately or the alleged debt would appear on his/her credit report 

for 7 years from the date of placement.

29. Plaintiff suffered an informational injury as she was falsely advised that the debt 

would remain on her credit report for 7 years which caused her undue stress and emotional 

damages.

30. As a result of Defendant's false, deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection 

practices, Plaintiff has been damaged.

Case 2:18-cv-00815-DWL Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 7 of 10
8

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

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. §1692e 

et seq.

31. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 

above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.

32. Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff 

violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

33. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e, a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or 

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

34. Defendants made false and misleading representations when they communicated to 

Plaintiff that their reporting of her alleged debt would remain on her credit report for 7 years 

from the date of reporting in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5) and 

1692e(10).

35. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant's 

conduct violated Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, 

costs and attorneys’ fees.

COUNT II

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. 

§1692f et seq.

33. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 

above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.

34. Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff 

violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.

Case 2:18-cv-00815-DWL Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 8 of 10
9

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

35. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692f, a debt collector may not use any unfair or 

unconscionable means in connection with the collection of any debt.

36. Defendant violated this section by threatening the Plaintiff with the false threat of 

credit reporting for 7 years where the debt, in actuality, will be reported for less than 7 years.

37. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant's 

conduct violated Section 1692f et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, 

costs and attorneys’ fees.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

38. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby 

requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rayshonda Roberson aka Roseshonda Roberson, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated demands judgment from Defendant Thunderbird Collection 

Services, Inc., as follows:

1. Declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a Class Action and certifying 

Plaintiff as Class representative, and Avraham Zvi Cutler, Esq. as Class Counsel;

2. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class statutory damages;

3. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class actual damages;

4. Awarding Plaintiff costs of this Action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

expenses;

5. Awarding pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest; and

Case 2:18-cv-00815-DWL Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 9 of 10
10

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. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class such other and further relief as this Court may 

deem just and proper.

DATED, this 13th day of March, 2018

s/Avraham Cutler

Avraham Zvi Cutler

Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler

Attorneys for Plaintiff Rayshonda Roberson

Case 2:18-cv-00815-DWL Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 10 of 10