15.  Upon information and belief, on a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began to  attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt from the Plaintiff.   16.  Within the one year immediately preceding the filing of this complaint, the Defendant  contacted the Plaintiff on multiple occasions via telephone and left numerous voice  messages in an attempt to collect the alleged obligation.   17.  By way of limited example only, the following is a transcript of one such message that  Defendant left for Plaintiff on her cellular telephone voicemail system on or about  October 4, 2012:  "Message is for Carmit Taibe, this is Dan Clark of Viking Client Services, please return  my call at 18002019433 thank you."   18.  At the time Plaintiff received the said messages, she did not know the identity of the  caller.   19.  At the time Plaintiff received the said messages, she did not know any person named  "Dan Clark of Viking Client Services."   20.  At the time Plaintiff received the said messages, she did not know any company named  "Viking Client Services"   21.  At the time Plaintiff received the said messages, she did not know that the caller was a  -5-  debt collector.   22.  At the time Plaintiff received the said messages, she did not know that the call concerned  the collection of a debt.   23.  Each of the messages is a "communication" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).   24.  Each of the above messages uniformly failed to identify the callers as debt collectors  attempting to collect a debt.   25.  The only way for Plaintiff and/or any least sophisticated consumer to obtain the identity  of the caller leaving the messages, and to ascertain the purpose underlying the messages,  was to place a return call to the telephone number provided in the messages and to speak  with a debt collector employed by Viking Client Services, Inc., and to provide the debt  collector with personal information.   26.  The Defendant intended that the messages have the effect of causing Plaintiff, and other  least sophisticated consumers, to place return calls to the telephone number provided in  the messages and to speak with their debt collectors, and then provide those debt  collectors with their personal information, as the sole means of obtaining the identity of  the caller leaving the messages, and to ascertain the purpose underlying the messages.  Scores of federal court decisions -- including the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and  District Courts within the State of New York -- uniformly hold that the FDCPA requires  debt collectors to provide meaningful identification of itself in telephonic voice messages  left for consumers, such as the said messages, by accurately stating the name of the debt  collection company and stating the nature and/or purpose of the call.   27.  At all times relevant to this action, Viking Client Services, Inc. was aware of the  substantial weight of legal authority requiring it to provide meaningful identification of  -6-  itself in telephonic voice messages left for consumers, such as the said messages, by  accurately stating its company name and stating the nature and/or purpose of the call.   28.  At all times relevant to this action, Viking Client Services, Inc. willfully, deliberately,  and intentionally chose not to provide meaningful identification of itself in telephonic  voice messages left for consumers, such as the said messages, by accurately stating its  company name and stating the nature and/or purpose of the call.   29.  The Defendant's act of leaving the said messages for Plaintiff is conduct the natural  consequences of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse a person in connection with the  collection of a debt and is in violation of the FDCPA.   30.  The Defendant's act of leaving the said messages for Plaintiff constitutes the use of a  false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection  of a debt and is in violation of the FDCPA.   31.  The FDCPA secures a consumer's right to have a debt collector cease further  communications with the consumer.  By failing to meaningfully identify itself, disclose  the purpose of its call and state that Viking Client Services, Inc. is a debt collector in a  manner understandable to the least sophisticated consumer, the Defendant has engaged in  conduct designed to deprive consumers of their right to have a debt collector cease  further communications.   32.  It is Defendant's policy and practice to  leave telephonic voice messages for consumers  and other persons, such as the above said messages, that violate the FDCPA by, inter alia:  (a)   Failing to provide meaningful disclosure of Viking Client Services, Inc.'s               identity;  (b)   Failing to disclose that the call is from a debt collector; and  -7-  (c)   Failing to disclose the purpose or nature of the communication, i.e. an attempt to                  collect a debt.   33.  Upon information and belief, such messages, as alleged in this complaint, number at least  in the hundreds.   34.  Upon information and belief, the said messages were either pre-scripted or pre-recorded.   35.  Defendant has engaged in a pattern of leaving messages without disclosing that the  communication is from a debt collector.   36.  The said telephone messages are in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692d(6), 1692e(10)  and 1692e(11) for failing to indicate that the messages were from a debt collector, which  constitutes a deceptive practice.  37.  This action is brought as a class action.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself  and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure.   38.  With respect to the Plaintiff's Class, this claim is brought on behalf of a class of (a) all  persons in the State of New York (b) for whom Viking Client Services, Inc. left a  voicemail or answering machine message, in the form of the above said messages (c) that  did not identify Viking Client Services, Inc. by its true company name or state that the  call was for collection purposes (d) made in connection with Viking Client Services,  Inc.'s attempt to collect a debt (e) which the said messages violate the FDCPA (f) during  a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this initial action and ending 21 days  after the service of the initial complaint filed in this action.  -8-   39.  The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of Viking  Client Services, Inc. and those business and governmental entities on whose behalf it  attempts to collect debts.   40.  Excluded from the Plaintiff's Class are the Defendants and all officers, members,  partners, managers, directors, and employees of Viking Client Services, Inc., and all of  their respective immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action and all  members of their immediate families.   41.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff's Class, which common  issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members.  The  principal issues are whether the Defendant's telephonic voice messages, such as the above  said messages, violate 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692d(6), 1692e(10), and 1692e(11).   42.  The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same  facts and legal theories.   43.  The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff's Class defined  in this complaint.  The Plaintiff has retained counsel with experience in handling  consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiff nor  her attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this  action.   44.  This action has been brought, and may properly be maintained, as a class action pursuant  to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because there is a  well-defined community interest in the litigation:  -9-  (a)  Numerosity: The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,  that the Plaintiff's Class defined above is so numerous that joinder of all  members would be impractical.  (b)  Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist  as to all members of the Plaintiff's Class and those questions predominate  over any questions or issues involving only individual class members.  The  principal issues are whether the Defendant's telephonic voice messages, such  as the above said messages violate 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692d(6), 1692e(10),  and 1692e(11).  (c)  Typicality: The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the class  members.  Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff's Class defined in this  complaint have claims arising out of the Defendant's common uniform  course of conduct complained of herein.  (d)  Adequacy:  The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of  the class members insofar as Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to the  absent class members.  The Plaintiff is committed to vigorously litigating  this matter.  Plaintiff has also retained counsel experienced in handling  consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions.  Neither the  Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interests, which might cause them not to  vigorously pursue the instant class action lawsuit.  (e)  Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available means for the  fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual  joinder of all members would be impracticable.  Class action treatment  -10-  will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their  common claims in a single forum efficiently and without unnecessary  duplication of effort and expense that individual actions would engender.  Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(l)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure is appropriate because adjudications with respect to individual  members create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications which could  establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants who, on  information and belief, collect debts throughout the United States of  America.   45.  Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is   also appropriate in that a determination that the said messages violate 15 U.S.C. §§  1692d, 1692d(6), 1692e(10), and/or 1692e(11) is tantamount to declaratory relief and any  monetary relief under the FDCPA would be merely incidental to that determination.   46.  Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is  also appropriate in that the questions of law and fact common to members of the  Plaintiff’s Class predominate over any questions affecting an individual member, and a   class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of  the controversy.   47.  Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff  may, at the  time of class certification motion, seek to certify one or more classes only as to particular  issues pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).  -11-  48.  Plaintiff re-states, re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, paragraphs one (1)  through forty seven (47) as if set forth fully in this cause of action.   49.  Defendant violated the FDCPA.  Defendant's violations with respect to the above said  messages include, but are not limited to, the following:  (a)  Engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress,  or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt, in violation  of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d;  (b)  Leaving telephonic voice messages which fail to disclose the purpose or  nature of the communication (i.e., an attempt to collect a debt), in violation of  15 U.S.C. § 1692d(6);  (c)  Using a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to  collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer, in violation  of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10);  (d)  Failing to disclose in its initial communication with the consumer, when that  communication is oral, that Defendant, Viking Client Services, Inc. was  attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for  that purpose, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11); and  (e)  Failing to disclose in all oral communications that Viking Client Services,  Inc. is a debt collector, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11).  -12-  Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act brought by Plaintiff on behalf  of herself and the members of a class, as against the Defendant  