Defendants have been attempting to collect from plaintiff an alleged credit card debt incurred, if at all, for personal, family or household purposes and not for business purposes. The alleged original creditor was Credit One Bank, which is also part of the Sherman Financial Group.  Credit One Bank reported the debt to Experian and possibly other credit bureaus (consumer reporting agencies) as delinquent beginning in March 2016.    LVNV began reporting the debt (or Resurgent reported it for LVNV) to Experian and possibly other credit bureaus in October 2016, as a “collection account” held by a “debt buyer.”  Resurgent, on behalf of LVNV, placed the alleged debt with Frontline for collection.  On or about November 4, 2016, after the debt had already been reported by both LVNV and Credit One Bank, Frontline sent plaintiff the letter attached as Exhibit A.  LVNV and Credit One Bank have standardized credit reporting practices, in terms of the time at which a debt is reported to credit bureaus.  Exhibit A is a form letter.  Exhibit A offers a settlement and asks plaintiff to make payment arrangements.  It also states: “In order to prevent any further action, please contact us so that we may assist you in resolving this debt.  Please note that a negative credit bureau report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency by the current account holder if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations.”  The quoted statement seeks to induce payment by telling the least sophisticated consumer that payment of the debt will avoid a negative credit bureau report.  The quoted statement is false and misleading, and omits to state material facts 5 necessary to make the statements made not misleading, in that a negative credit bureau report has already been made and will not be avoided by payment.  The quoted statement was made by Frontline as authorized agent of Resurgent  and LVNV. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-42.  Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5),  and 1692e(10) by making the statements quoted above.  Section 1692e provides: § 1692e. False or misleading representations [Section 807 of P.L.]  A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.  Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: . . . (2) The false representation of-- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; . . .  (5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. . . .  (10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. . . . Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of a class and subclass, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).    The class consists of (a) all individuals (b) to whom Frontline sent a letter in the form represented by Exhibit A (c) relating to a debt that had already been reported to a credit bureau by the current owner of the debt or an affiliate (d) which letter was sent at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 20 days after the filing of this action.   6  The subclass consists of class members whose debts were allegedly owned by LVNV at the time the letter was sent.  On information and belief, based on the use of a form letter, the class and subclass are so numerous that joinder of all members is not practicable.  There are questions of law and fact common to the class members, which common  questions predominate over any questions relating to individual class members.  The predominant common questions are: a. Whether defendants represent that negative credit bureau reporting may be avoided by payment, when it has already occurred; b. Whether such representation violates the FDCPA.  Plaintiff’s claim is typical of the claims of the class members.  All are based on the same factual and legal theories.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the class members.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in class actions and FDCPA litigation.  A class action is superior for the fair and efficient adjudication of this matter, in that: a. Individual actions are not economically feasible. b. Members of the class are likely to be unaware of their rights; c. Congress intended class actions to be the principal enforcement mechanism under the FDCPA. 7 WHEREFORE, the Court should enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class members and against defendants for: i. Statutory damages; ii. Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; iii. Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. s/Tiffany N. Hardy  Tiffany N. Hardy  Tiffany N. Hardy 