approximately one month later. See id. This letter again threatened legal action if she did not pay the entire balance within five days. See id. Neither the defendant nor the creditor took any legal action. See id. Rather, the plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the FDCPA, including §§ 1692e(5) and 1692e(10). See id. at 1171-72. Thus, the issue concerned the defendant’s intent, not whether it could legally take the threatened action, as in the case at bar. See id. at 1175. Although Jeter left the issue open as to whether the “least sophisticated consumer” standard applies to claims that the debt collector allegedly threatened to take action that can not legally be taken, at least one court outside the Eleventh Circuit has resolved the issue. See Swanson, 869 F.2d at 1226-27 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this Court finds it appropriate
holding that the least sophisticated debtor standard applies to an allegation that a debt collector made a threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken  holding that debt collector violated fdcpa when it held debtor liable for court costs that had not yet been awarded holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt holding that the notice requirement applies only to the first debt collector that communicates with the consumer holding that the act extends to claims by individuals against whom a debt collector has made purposeful targeted and directed attempts to collect a debt alleged to be owed by the plaintiffs