UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION NAME, individually and on behalf of others similarly

situated, as a private attorney general; Plaintiff, Case No. 000000 -vE !"#A$ "N#%&MA'"%N (E&)"CE( **C; et al., +efendants. PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ALIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC.S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff, Name, hereby responds to +efendant Allian,e%ne &e,eivables Management, "n,.-s .Allian,e%ne/ Motion to +ismiss Plaintiff-s Complaint and Memorandum of *a0, and states1 2. "t is diffi,ult to ,omprehend the basis for Allian,e%ne-s motion, 0hi,h appears to have been filed in bad faith. 3. 'he Complaint spe,ifies that Allian,e%ne illegally pulled Plaintiff-s ,redit report and illegally attempted to ,olle,t on a none4istent debt. 'he fa,tual bases of Plaintiff-s allegations against Allian,e%ne are ,rystal ,lear1 5226. %n 7une 36, 3008, Allian,e%ne initiated a hard pull of Plaintiff-s ,redit report from E4perian 0ithout permissible purpose, thereby redu,ing his ,redit s,ore.9 5230. %n or about #ebruary :, 3006, Allian,e%ne sent Plaintiff a letter attempting to ,olle,t on a none4istent alleged debt.9 ;. "f true, and Plaintiff affirmatively asserts that both of these statements are true, <226 is inherently a ,lear-,ut violation of the #air Credit &eporting A,t and <230 is inherently a ,lear,ut violation of both the #air +ebt Colle,tion Pra,ti,es A,t and the #lorida Consumer Colle,tion Pra,ti,es A,t.

:. "t is not ne,essary in this &esponse to outline e4a,tly ho0 Allian,e%ne-s a,tions violated the la0. Allian,e%ne-s o0n motion does this =uite effe,tively. !nfortunately this fa,t seemed to es,ape the attention of Allian,e%ne-s attorney, +ale '. >olden. ?. 'he Court should not tolerate an utterly frivolous motion su,h as this by a party 0ho does not 0ish to have its illegal a,tivities e4posed. @. Plaintiff respe,tfully re=uests that the Court taAe noti,e of the 0ell-pleaded allegations of the pro se Plaintiff-s ,omplaint, 0hi,h this Court must a,,ept as true at this Bun,ture of the pro,eedings, and 0hi,h, in light of the Plaintiff-s pro se status, the Court must hold to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by an attorney and ,onstrue liberally. (ee Caines v. Derner, :0: !.(. ?26, ?30, 63 (.Ct. ?6:, ?6@, ;0 *.Ed. 3d @?3 .2683/. ECE&E#%&E, Plaintiff re=uests that the Court deny Allian,e%ne-s Motion to +ismiss, and instru,t Allian,e%ne-s attorney, +ale '. >olden, to ,ease filing frivolous motions. +ated1 Mar,h 22, 3020 &espe,tfully submitted,

Name (treet Address City, (tate Fip Phone <