maintenance” {see Am. Compl. at ¶ 37), despite Sun-dance’s assertion that “the Windfall Interpretation was incorrect” {id. at ¶ 21). Thus, Sundance has alleged that GEMSA knowingly applied an interpretation of the YMA Provision that was inconsistent with the manner in which that provision was described in the Loan Agreement, and ig nored Sundance’s assertions that such an interpretation was incorrect. Although there does not appear to be any case law directly addressing the sufficiency of Sundance’s claim against GEMSA, the undersigned has previously observed that under Florida law it is sufficient to allege that a party directly participated in a violation of the FDUTPA, even if that violation was initiated by another. See Williams v. Edelman, 408 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1275 (S.D.Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); see also KC Leisure, Inc.
holding that plaintiffs allegation that debt collectors attempted to collect on a debt to a condominium association notwithstanding their knowledge that plaintiff did not really owe that debt to the condominium was sufficient to state a claim under the fdutpa holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa holding that debt collectors have no obligation to warn a consumer that her debt may increase over time holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred  is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt