their right to” contact the Law Offices to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor, and that “[i]f anything, [Defendants] expanded the rights available to plaintiffs by not limiting the means by which they could make such requests.” (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 4-5.) Several district courts have confronted this precise issue in recent years. As far as this Court can tell, all of them have held that a debt collector’s failure to include the “in writing” requirement violates subsections (a)(4) and (5) of Section 1692g. See, e.g., Welker v. Law Office of Daniel J. Horwitz, 699 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1170 (S.D.Cal.2010); Beasley v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., No. 5:09-CV-43-D, 2010 WL 1980083, at *6-7, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52010, at *18-19 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 1, 2010) (<HOLDING>); (Nero v. Law Office of Sam, Streeter,
holding complaint that sentence violated equal protection was waived because of failure to object at trial holding that section 890041 is not a jurisdictional requirement rather a requirement to maintain suit holding that  notice can refer to transmitting a fact either orally or in writing holding that failure to include in writing requirement violated  1692ga4 holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal