An order certifying that Count I may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing Plaintiff and the undersigned counsel to  represent the Plaintiff Class as previously set forth and defined above;   On or about August 11 2005, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt (the “Debt” or “Mortgage  Loan”).   The Debt arose 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,  namely fees emanating from a personal mortgage loan on the Plaintiff’s personal residence.   The Mortgage Loan is a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(5).   According to a foreclosure complaint filed against Plaintiff earlier this year, Green Tree  (which is now Ditech) was assigned plaintiff’s mortgage on June 10, 2013.   According to the foreclosure complaint, Plaintiff has been in default on his mortgage since  2009.   An award of statutory damages for Aaron Cohen and the Plaintiff Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  §1692k;    Shortly after the foreclosure complaint was filed, Plaintiff received in the mail a foreclosure  complaint providing him with the alleged amount of the debt ($545,425.53), the alleged name of  the creditor to whom the debt was owed (Green Tree Servicing LLC), dispute rights and rights  relating to obtaining information.   The name of the creditor to whom the debt was owed at the time of the foreclosure complaint  was not Green Tree Servicing, LLC.   The name of the creditor to whom the debt was owed at the time of the foreclosure complaint  was Fannie Mae according to a letter in response to a qualified written request by Plaintiff.   Shortly after the foreclosure complaint was filed Plaintiff received a certificate of merit as  well as a request for judicial intervention.   The certificate of merit, the foreclosure complaint and the request for judicial intervention are  “communications” as defined by the FDCPA.    The foreclosure complaint is a formal pleading in a civil action.   The request for judicial intervention and the certificate of merit are not formal pleadings in a  civil action.   The identification of the “creditor to whom the debt is owed” was readily available to  Rosicki and Ditech at the time of Rosicki’s communications with Plaintiff.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though  fully stated herein.   In their collection efforts, Ditech and Rosicki violated 15 U.S.C. §§1692, 1692e, and  §1692g(a)(2).   Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k; and   Section 15 U.S.C. §1692e provides:  1692e False or misleading representations  A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in  connection with the collection of any debt.   Rosicki and Ditech violated §1692e of the FDCPA because they falsely stated that Green  Tree Loan Servicing, LLC was the creditor to whom the Plaintiff’s debt and the debts of the  putative class members was owed when, in fact, Green Tree Servicing, LLC was not the creditor  to whom the Plaintiff’s debt and the debts of the putative class members was owed. As such the  Defendants used a false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in the collection of a  debt in violation of the FDCPA. See Bourff v. Rubin Lublin, LLC, 674 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.  2012).   Section 15 USC §1692g provides:  (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the  collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the  initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice  containing --  (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;   Rosicki and Ditech violated §1692g(a)(2) of the FDCPA because Rosicki did not state the  name the creditor to whom the Plaintiff’s debt and the debts of the putative class members was  owed. The current “creditor to whom the debt is owed” is not Green Tree Servicing, LLC as  stated in the foreclosure complaint.    Despite Rosicki making an “initial communication” with plaintiff, neither Rosicki nor Green  Tree informed Plaintiff of the correct name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.    Rosicki and Ditech are liable to the Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k because of the  FDCPA violations.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).   The class consists of all natural persons with a New York address who were sent or hand  delivered a foreclosure complaint and another communication relating to a mortgage incurred to  purchase a residential owner occupied house where Rosicki names Green Tree the creditor when  it is not the creditor on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this complaint.   Upon information and belief the identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from  the records of Rosicki and Ditech.   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.  On information and belief, there are at least 40 members of the class.   Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.   Dated: Decatur, Georgia               November 25, 2015                                                   The Law Offices of Shimshon Wexler, PC  By: /s Shimshon Wexler                                                                   Shimshon Wexler                                                                    Attorney for Plaintiff                                                                   315 W Ponce de Leon Ave Suite 250                                                                   Decatur, Georgia 30030                                                                   Tel: (212)760-2400                                                                   Fax: (917)512-6132                                                                   swexleresq@gmail.com        Admitted to practice law in New York and Georgia  Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.   By: /s Shimshon Wexler                                                                                 Shimshon Wexler    Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all  members of the Plaintiff Class and those questions predominate over any questions or issues  involving only individual class members. The principal issue is whether Defendants satisfied  their “g” notice obligations and whether the communication is false, deceptive or misleading.   Typicality: The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members. Plaintiff  and all members of the Plaintiff Class have claims arising out of the Defendant’s common  uniform course of conduct complained of herein.   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 litigation. Neither the Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interests which might  cause them not to vigorously pursue the instant class action lawsuit.   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.   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.  WHEREFORE, the Court should enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the class and against  Defendants for:   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT  15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq.  