 Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the following class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.  P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).    The Class consists of:   a. all individuals with addresses in the state of New York;  b. to whom Defendant EOS sent a collection letter;  c. On behalf of Defendant US Asset;  d. attempting to collect a consumer debt;  e. which debt was past the statute of limitation for filing suit thereon;  f. without disclosing that the statute of limitations for suing to collect the debt had  expired;   g. without disclosing that if a payment is made it could restart the statute of  limitations;   h. 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 (21) days after the filing of this action.    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.    Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are the Defendants and all officers, 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.     There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class, 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 Exhibit A,  violate 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f.    The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same  facts and legal theories. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff  Class defined in this complaint. The Plaintiff has retained counsel with experience in handling  consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiff nor his attorneys  have any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.    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:  a. Numerosity: The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,  that the Plaintiff Class defined above is so numerous that joinder of all members  would be impractical.  b. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist as  to all members of the Plaintiff Class 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 U.S.C. § 1692e and §1692f.  c. Typicality: The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members.  The Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff Class have claims arising out of the  Defendants' common uniform course of conduct complained of herein.  d. Adequacy: The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  class members insofar as Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to the absent  class members. The Plaintiff is committed to vigorously litigating this matter.  Plaintiff has also retained counsel experienced in handling consumer lawsuits,  complex legal issues, and class actions. Neither the Plaintiff nor his counsel have  any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue the instant class  action lawsuit.  e. 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.    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 Class  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.    Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff 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).   Plaintiff repeats the above paragraphs as if set forth here.    On a date better known to the original creditor, Verizon, Plaintiff incurred a debt.    The obligation arose out of a transaction allegedly incurred by Plaintiff in which  money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction were incurred solely  for personal purposes, specifically for personal cellphone service.    The alleged Verizon obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (5).    Verizon is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (4).    Defendant EOS collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been  incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of itself or others using the United  States Postal Services, telephone and internet.    Defendant US Asset collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have  been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of itself or others using the  United States Postal Services, telephone and internet.    Upon information and belief, Defendant EOS contracted with Defendant US Asset  to collect the alleged debt.  Violation – July 2, 2020 Collection Letter    On or about July 2, 2020, Defendant sent the Plaintiff an initial collection letter  regarding the alleged debt.  A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit A.    The letter states a balance of $40.14 and states that the Plaintiff’s payment is past  due.    The letter fails to disclose that the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit to collect the  debt had already expired.     The statute of limitations for commencing suit on this debt is two years after default  on the account, the time of which has already passed.    This material omission misleads the consumer into potentially paying a time-barred  debt, which will restart the statute of limitations.    The letter fails to state that if a partial payment is made the statute of limitations may  restart, thus allowing for a lawsuit to occur.    The letter further fails to clearly and adequately inform the consumer of the true legal  status of the debt and potential ramifications of making a payment and restarting the statute of  limitations.    As a result of Defendant’s deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection practices,  Plaintiff has been damaged.   Plaintiff repeats the above paragraphs as if set forth here.    Defendants’ 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.    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.    Defendants violated said section by:   a. omitting material information creating a false and misleading representation of  the debt in violation of §1692e (10); and  b. falsely representing the character, amount or legal status of the debt in violation  of §1692e (2)(A).    By reason thereof, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendants’  conduct violated Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs  and attorneys’ fees.   Plaintiff repeats the above paragraphs as if set forth here.    Defendants’ 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.    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.    Defendants violated this section by omitting material information that gave Plaintiff  a false understanding of her rights under the FDCPA.    By reason thereof, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendants’  conduct violated Section 1692f et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs  and attorneys’ fees.  VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. §1692f et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. §1692e et seq.  