Kalkstein v. Collecto, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2019

Plaintiff Eli Kalkstein received a January 16, 2013 collection letter from Collecto, Inc. on behalf of New York Institute of Technology showing $5,172 principal and $2,216.57 (≈43%) in fees/collection costs; plaintiff alleges no agreement authorized those fees.
The letter stated, among other things, that Collecto “may report information about your account to credit bureaus,” despite plaintiff alleging the debt was beyond the permissible credit-reporting period.
Collecto sent materially identical letters to 360 individuals with New York mailing addresses who allegedly attended NYIT.
Plaintiff sued under the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.) asserting violations of §§1692e, 1692f, and 1692g and moved to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
The court found the facts and claims substantially similar to Annunziato v. Collecto, previously certified by the same judge, and applied that precedent in analyzing class certification.
The court granted class certification and approved the proposed class definition (New York-addressed recipients between July 20, 2012 and April 30, 2013 who received substantially similar letters about debts outside the permissible reporting period or containing unauthorized collection fees).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Numerosity (Rule 23(a)(1))	Class large enough; Collecto admitted sending 360 identical letters to NY addresses.	Many of the 360 may be ineligible (debts within SOL or had fee agreements).	Numerosity satisfied based on Collecto's admission and common-sense estimate.
Commonality & Typicality (Rule 23(a)(2),(3))	Claims derive from identical form letters; legal questions common across class.	Identification of class members requires individualized inquiries (agreements, reporting period).	Commonality and typicality satisfied; unitary course of conduct (form letters) predominates.
Adequacy of Representation (Rule 23(a)(4))	Plaintiff and counsel will fairly and adequately represent class; counsel experienced in FDCPA class suits.	Plaintiff did not pay fees so may differ from members who paid and seek compensatory damages.	Adequacy satisfied; no actual conflict shown and counsel found qualified.
Predominance & Superiority (Rule 23(b)(3))	Common legal question (legality of form letters) predominates; class action is superior given negative-value claims.	Individual actions might yield greater individual recoveries and individualized defenses could predominate.	Predominance and superiority satisfied; individual defenses speculative and manageable; class device efficient.

Annunziato v. Collecto, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 329 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (certifying similar FDCPA class based on identical form letters)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (standard for Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) certification)
Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993) (numerosity need not be exact; common-sense class size estimates permissible)