Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Class Action Complaint
Class Action Complaint
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
___________________________________________
Introduction
1. Plaintiff, Rivka Warman, brings this action against Selip & Stylianou, LLP for violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”). The
FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair
Parties
2. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New York who resides within this District.
that the alleged debt that Defendant sought to collect from Plaintiff a consumer debt.
5. Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by
consumers.
1692(a)(6).
-1-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2
7. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. §
1331.
8. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the acts and
transactions that give rise to this action occurred, in substantial part, in this district.
9. Upon information and belief, on a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began to
10. On or about February 4, 2016, Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter.
12. The said letter stated the following: “If the amount forgiven is $600 or more, Discover
13. The Defendant's language is deceptive and misleading and violated the FDCPA.
14. Under 26 C.F.R. §1.6050P-1(d)(2) and (3), only the discharge of principal need be
reported:
15. There are several exceptions in which settlements in excess of $600.00 are not reported to
the IRS.
16. In addition, it is highly improbable for one who is in debt to have income as a result of
settling a debt, as that person is more likely to be insolvent; so such a discharge would
-2-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3
17. A collection notice is deceptive when it reasonably can be read to have two or more
18. The language in the letter that states “If the amount forgiven is $600 or more, Discover
may need to file a 1099C form with the IRS” could reasonably be understood by the least
sophisticated consumer to mean that IRS regulations require that the client report all
forgiveness of debt.
19. The phrase “If the amount forgiven is $600 or more, Discover may need to file a 1099C
form with the IRS” injects the Internal Revenue Service where there is no legal
20. Defendant included the said language in an attempt to intimidate Plaintiff in violation of
the FDCPA.
21. The unsophisticated consumer reading the said letter will reasonably believe that if he or
she does not contact Defendant immediately, a 1099-C Form could be filed with the IRS.
22. The unsophisticated consumer would understand this statement to mean that the creditor
23. The Defendant made the false and deceptive threat in an effort to scare and frighten the
unsophisticated consumer into thinking he or she has to deal with the IRS and pay tax on
24. Although the Defendant had no duty to disclose any potential tax ramifications,2 when
1
Pipiles v. Credit Bureau of Lockport, Inc., 886 F.2d 22, 25 (2d Cir. 1989) (Because the collection notice was reasonably susceptible to an
inaccurate reading, it was deceptive within the meaning of the Act.); Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, 1319 (2d Cir. 1993) (Collection notices
are deceptive if they are open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate.); Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d
30, 34 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1996) (A collection notice is deceptive when it can be reasonably read to have two or more different meanings, one of which
is inaccurate. The fact that the notice's terminology was vague or uncertain will not prevent it from being held deceptive under § 1692e(10) of the
Act.)
2
Altman v. J.C. Christensen & Assocs., 786 F.3d 191, 194, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7980, *7 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2015) "[T]he FDCPA does not require
a debt collector to make any affirmative disclosures of potential tax consequences when collecting a debt.")
-3-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4
Defendant chooses to give tax disclosures, it must do so in a way that it will not mislead
25. Current case law has made clear, that if debt collectors are providing tax advice with
regards to the reporting of forgiveness of debt, they cannot provide vague, incomplete
and misleading disclosures that leaves out the essential element that the reporting of
forgiveness of a debt happens only if the principal forgiven exceeds $600, and that
reporting of forgiveness of a debt would not happen even if the amount is greater than
$600, if the $600 or greater amount forgiven contained interest forgiveness so long as the
26. The statement “If the amount forgiven is $600 or more, Discover may need to file a
1099C form with the IRS” is ambiguous, yet the vagueness and uncertainty does not
erase the fundamental mischief and deception that the statement intends to cause to the
consumer. A consumer reading this statement will be led to believe that if a settlement
erases any amount of the debt, then the creditor is required to report the forgiveness of
3
Foster v. Allianceone Receivables Mgmt., No. 15-cv-11108, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56958, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2016) ("Plaintiff also
argues that including any language regarding the IRS is a "collection ploy designed to deceive or mislead" the consumer into thinking that the
IRS could be involved in their debt where there is no set of circumstances in which the IRS would be involved. At issue in this case is whether
the unsophisticated consumer would plausibly be deceived by the Letter, and whether this deception would lead that consumer to settle the matter
without negotiating the debt for fear that the settlement would be reported to the IRS. While the language at issue is not necessarily a
misrepresentation of the law, by Defendant's own admission, the offered debt write-off does not meet the $600.00 threshold mentioned. It is
plausible that mention of the IRS in a situation where there is no set of circumstances in which the IRS would be involved could mislead "a
person of modest education and limited commercial savvy." As a consumer may forego his or her rights related to the disputed debt, by settling
the matter without negotiation due to this deception, the statement in question is material. Accepting the Complaint's well-pleaded factual
allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor, Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for
relief."); Velez v. Enhanced Recovery Co., No. 16-164, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57832 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2016) ("The Statement "may not be false
in all respects, [but] it certainly is not completely true... the use of the contingent "may" in the Statement here does not materially distinguish it
from the challenged language in Good because both phrases fail to communicate that there are other exceptional circumstances beyond the
threshold amount that affect whether the cancellation of the debt is reportable... The least sophisticated debtor, given a generally applicable
rule with some, but not all, of the relevant exceptions thereto, might be misled into thinking that there will be adverse tax consequences for
settling a debt for less than the total amount due. The conditional "may" of the Statement does not remove from the realm of possibility that the
least sophisticated debtor might be deceived into thinking that ERC must or will report certain settlement amounts to the IRS, even when it does
not intend to, or would not be required to, under the relevant statute and regulations... It would not be bizarre or idiosyncratic for the least
sophisticated debtor to believe that the "invocation of the IRS reasonably suggests…that he or she could get in trouble with the IRS for refusal to
pay the debt, or for obtaining any debt forgiveness of $600 or more." The least sophisticated debtor could reasonably assume that ERC included
the Statement because it was relevant, and such a debtor could believe, given the lack of specificity in the generally-stated rule that mentions one
exception but not others, that the action he chooses to take with respect to the debt will trigger tax consequences or reporting requirements... we
do not believe that the conditional "may" of the Statement renders it proper...The least sophisticated debtor, even reading carefully, might not
understand that the "may" refers only to the $600 threshold and to no other possible triggering event or exception. It would not be bizarre or
idiosyncratic for the least sophisticated debtor to believe that ERC retained some discretion in whether to report or that some other related federal
law governed the reporting of the discharge.") (emphasis added)
-4-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5
debt to the IRS, per the IRS regulations (creating by fear of the IRS another incentive for
the consumer to pay the debt without erasing any amount through settlement). However,
incomplete tax information - because in actual fact and according to IRS regulations, the
creditor "will not" be required to report to the IRS report forgiveness of debt less than
$600, nor would the creditor be required to report an amount greater than $600 in
27. If the creditor wishes to legitimately give tax advice in a sincere manner, one that does
not mislead the consumer, then that creditor should specify and make clear to the least
sophisticated consumer that only certain amounts require reporting, and that this applies
28. The creditor should also specify what amounts are principle and what part of it is interest,
in the amounts owed. Any tax advice that does not specify the tax consequences as it
applies to the consumer's circumstances is nothing more than a ploy to elicit a more
substantial payment from the consumer than the consumer would have paid, had he or
29. Defendant included the said language in its letter as a collection ploy designed to deceive
or mislead the unsophisticated consumer into thinking the IRS will be somehow involved
30. The unsophisticated consumer will reasonably believe that in order not to be reported to
the IRS, he or she must contact Defendant to keep that from occurring, regardless of
31. Defendant is not an applicable entity with a reporting obligation, it is but a debt collector.
Defendant should especially refrain from giving such misleading tax advice, by
-5-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6
suggesting that there is a possibility that the IRS could be involved in Plaintiff's debt,
when, in fact, under no set of current circumstances would the IRS be involved.
32. The use of the words “If the amount forgiven is $600 or more, Discover may need to file
a 1099C form with the IRS” is an attempt by the debt collector to make the debtor think
that the IRS regulations require the reporting of all forgiveness of debt. The least
sophisticated consumer would reasonably read the letter to mean that the creditor will
33. Additionally, the Defendant's use of conditional language, i.e., the use of the word “may”
34. The Seventh Circuit, in Lox v. CDA, Ltd., 689 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2012), stated “that it is
improper under the FDCPA to imply that certain outcomes might befall a delinquent
debtor when, legally, those outcomes cannot come to pass”. Id., at 825. In reaching this
conclusion, the Court in Lox discussed Ruth v. Triumph P'Ships, 577 F.3d 790 (7th Cir.
2009), and Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011). In
Gonzales, the defendant had alleged that it would report the account as settled “if [the
defendant was] reporting the account...” Id., at 1059. In Gonzales, the defendant could
not legally report the debt to a credit bureau, much like in this case Defendant, or its
client, could not legally file a Form 1099-C with the IRS. Gonzales specifically reasoned
explaining the conditions, does not insulate a debt collector from liability.” Id., at 1063.
In Ruth, the defendant alleged that it “may collect and/or share all the information
[defendant obtains] in servicing [the plaintiff's] account”. Id., at 793. However, the
defendant in Ruth was legally barred from sharing any information absent consent, much
4
Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 35, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 1042, *13 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1996) (That a notice's terminology is vague or
uncertain will not prevent it from being held deceptive under 1692e.)
-6-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7
like Defendant, or its client, is legally barred from filing a Form 1099-C with the IRS
regarding Plaintiff's debt. Defendant simply included the IRS in its letter to intimidate
35. In a recent decision, this court found in the case of Kaff v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 1:13-
cv-05413, No. 32 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015) (Towns, J,) that a statement regarding the
requirement to file a 1099: "was not strictly true under all circumstances because it failed
to apprise debtors that possible exceptions could apply to the creditor's mandatory
reporting requirement, such as the exceptions for interest and other non-principal
debts." Kaff v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 1:13-cv-05413, No. 32 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015)
(Towns, J,) (emphasis added); see also Good v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., No. 14-4295,
2014 BL 302150 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2014) (finding that the statement "American Express
is required to file a form 1099C with the Internal Revenue Service for any cancelled debt
of $600 or more. Please consult your tax advisor concerning any tax questions" is not true
and does not accurately reflect the relevant law the court also found that the statement's
invocation of the IRS was deceptive and materially misleading in violation of the
FDCPA.)
36. The Defendant tends to give erroneous and/or incomplete tax advice to consumers.
37. The FDCPA does not require that tax consequences be identified in collection letters sent
to consumers; but where a debt collector has chosen to threaten the debtor with tax
consequences, and has done so inaccurately, the false representation causes detrimental
harm to the consumer since it concretely thwarts the consumer’s ability to freely navigate
a course of action in response to the collection notice. The risk in this type of harm is the
detrimental impact to the consumer. And such harm is precisely the kind of infringement
-7-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8
38. Such a statement in a collection letter suggests to the least sophisticated consumer that
failure to pay will get the consumer into trouble with the IRS.5
39. The statement in the said February 4, 2016 letter is false and misleading, in violation of
40. Plaintiff suffered injury in fact by being subjected to unfair and abusive practices of the
Defendant.
41. Plaintiff suffered actual harm by being the target of the Defendant's misleading debt
collection communications.
42. Defendant violated the Plaintiff's right not to be the target of misleading debt collection
communications.
43. Defendant violated the Plaintiff's right to a truthful and fair debt collection process.
44. Defendant used materially false, deceptive, misleading representations and means in its
45. Defendant's communications were designed to cause the debtor to suffer a harmful
46. The FDCPA ensures that consumers are fully and truthfully apprised of the facts and of
their rights, the act enables them to understand, make informed decisions about, and
participate fully and meaningfully in the debt collection process. The purpose of the
Defendant's false representations misled the Plaintiff in a manner that deprived her of
hers right to enjoy these benefits, these materially misleading statements trigger liability
47. These deceptive communications additionally violated the FDCPA since they frustrate
5
Kaff v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 1:13-cv-05413, No. 32 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015) (Towns, J,); Wagner v. Client Services, Inc., No. 08-5546,
2009 WL 839073, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26604 (E.D.Pa., March 26, 2009); Sledge v. Sands, 182 F.R.D. 255 (N.D.Ill. 1998).
-8-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9
48. Plaintiff seeks to end these violations of the FDCPA. Plaintiff has suffered damages
including but not limited to, fear, stress, mental anguish, emotional stress and acute
embarrassment. Plaintiff and putative class members are entitled to preliminary and
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
49. This action is brought as a class action. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
50. The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of Selip &
Stylianou, LLP and those business and governmental entities on whose behalf it attempts
to collect debts.
51. Excluded from the Plaintiff's Class is the Defendant and all officers, members, partners,
managers, directors, and employees of Selip & Stylianou, LLP, and all of their respective
immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action and all members of
52. There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff's Class, which common
issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The
principal issues are whether the Defendant's communications with the Plaintiff, such as
the above stated claims, violate provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
53. The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same
54. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff's Class defined
in this complaint. The Plaintiff has retained counsel with experience in handling
-9-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10
consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiff nor
her attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this
action.
55. 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
(a) Numerosity: The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
that the Plaintiff's Class defined above is so numerous that joinder of all
(b) Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist
over any questions or issues involving only individual class members. The
Plaintiff, such as the above stated claims, violate provisions of the Fair Debt
(c) Typicality: The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the class
members. Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff's Class defined in this
(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
consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions. Neither the
-10-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11
Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interests, which might cause them not to
(e) Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available means for the
America.
56. Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is
also appropriate in that a determination that the above stated claims, violate provisions of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and is tantamount to declaratory relief and any
monetary relief under the FDCPA would be merely incidental to that determination.
57. 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's 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.
-11-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12
58. Further, Defendant has acted, or failed to act, on grounds generally applicable to the Rule
(b)(l)(A) and (b)(2) Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect
59. Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff may, at the
time of class certification motion, seek to certify one or more classes only as to particular
Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
herself and the members of a class, as against the Defendant.
60. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs
numbered one (1) through fifty nine (59) herein with the same force and effect is if the
61. This cause of action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the members of a class.
62. The class involves all individuals whom Defendant's records reflect resided in the State
of New York and who were sent a collection letter in substantially the same form letter as
the letter sent to the Plaintiff on or about February 4, 2016; and (a) the collection letter
was sent to a consumer seeking payment of a personal debt; and (b) the collection letter
was not returned by the postal service as undelivered; (c) and the Plaintiff asserts that the
63. The Defendant's actions as set forth above in the within complaint violates the Fair Debt
64. Because the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Plaintiff and
the members of the class are entitled to damages in accordance with the Fair Debt
-12-
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and that this
Court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against the Defendant and award damages as follows:
(b) Attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred in bringing this action; and
(c) Any other relief that this Court deems appropriate and just under the
circumstances.
-13-
JS 44 (Rev. 1/2013)
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1-1 Filed 11/24/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff KINGS County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP OFFICE: (718) 395-3459
1701 AVENUE P FAX: (718) 408-9570
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11229 E-MAIL: [email protected]
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Local Arbitration Rule 83.10 provides that with certain exceptions, actions seeking money damages only in an amount not in excess of $150,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, are eligible for compulsory arbitration. The amount of damages is presumed to be below the threshold amount unless a
certification to the contrary is filed.
I, ______________________,
N/A counsel for __________________, do hereby certify that the above captioned civil action is
ineligible for compulsory arbitration for the following reason(s):
monetary damages sought are in excess of $150,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
Identify any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more or its stocks:
N/A
Please list all cases that are arguably related pursuant to Division of Business Rule 50.3.1 in Section VIII on the front of this form. Rule 50.3.1 (a)
provides that “A civil case is “related” to another civil case for purposes of this guideline when, because of the similarity of facts and legal issues or
because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, a substantial saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning both cases to the
same judge and magistrate judge.” Rule 50.3.1 (b) provides that “ A civil case shall not be deemed “related” to another civil case merely because the civil
case: (A) involves identical legal issues, or (B) involves the same parties.” Rule 50.3.1 (c) further provides that “Presumptively, and subject to the power
of a judge to determine otherwise pursuant to paragraph (d), civil cases shall not be deemed to be “related” unless both cases are still pending before the
court.”
1.) Is the civil action being filed in the Eastern District removed from a New York State Court located in Nassau or Suffolk
County:_________________________
NO
b) Did the events of omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in the Eastern
District?_________________________
YES
If your answer to question 2 (b) is “No,” does the defendant (or a majority of the defendants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or
Suffolk County, or, in an interpleader action, does the claimant (or a majority of the claimants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau
or Suffolk County?______________________
(Note: A corporation shall be considered a resident of the County in which it has the most significant contacts).
BAR ADMISSION
I am currently admitted in the Eastern District of New York and currently a member in good standing of the bar of this court.
Yes No
Are you currently the subject of any disciplinary action (s) in this or any other state or federal court?
Yes (If yes, please explain) No
February 4, 2016
RE:
Debtor: Rivka Warman
Creditor: Discover Bank
RIVKA WARMAN Account Number: XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-8239
1115 45TH ST
NY 11219
S&S File Number:1111118
BROOKLYN, Balance Due: $5, 146.25
Option 3: 24 Monthly Payments; First Payment of $214.59 due February 25, 2016,
Followed by 23 monthly payments of $214.42 starting on March 25, 2016.
Please use the bottom portion of this letter to indicate the preferred option. We are enclosing a reply envelope for your
convenience. If you would like to discuss your account with one of our account representatives, please call us at the telephone
number set forth above. Kindly reply to us by February 25, 2016, as these options may not be available to you after this date.
THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR AND IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY
INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
11111111111111MMISMII I1IIIINIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIME1111111111111311111111111111110111111111111111111111
LOSIFOPI
Signature
tp. Current Balance: $5, 146.25 as of February 4, 2016
Offer Expires On: February 25, 2016
OPTION SELECTED (please check one): AMOUNT ENCLOSED
IT I PAYMENT OF $3, 345.06 !agree to pay as indicated above:
IT 3 PAYMENTS OF $1, 372.33 EACH
r 24 PAYMENTS, 1ST PAYMENT: $214.59 Please sign here
that we state the
Please note that all payments should be forwarded directly to this office and made payable to DISCOVER BANK. Our client requires
owed have tax consequences for you. If the amount forgiven is $600 or more, Discover may
need
following: "Settling a debt for less than the balance may
with advice. If have questions, we encourage you to consult a tax adviser of your
to file a I099C form with the IRS. We cannot provide you tax you any
choosing."
Case 1:16-cv-06548 Document 1-3 Filed 11/24/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 17
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
___________________________________________
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to file with the Clerk of this Court
and serve upon PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY:
an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, with 21 days after service of this
summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will
be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
_________________________________ _________________________________
CLERK DATE
_________________________________
BY DEPUTY CLERK
ClassAction.org
This complaint is part of ClassAction.org's searchable class action lawsuit database and can be
found in this post: Two More NYC Debt Collectors Hit with Class Actions