14)  Upon information and belief, on a date better known by Defendant,  Defendant began to attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt from the Plaintiff.  15)  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.  -5- 16)  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 February 11, 2013:  "This is a very important message for Chana Lefkowitz; my name is Orellana;  I'm contacting regards to a file that concerns you in my office; I’m trying to see if  I can be of some assistance in helping you handling this on a voluntary basis,  while you have the opportunity of doing so; if you could contact me back at your  earliest convenience; I could be reached at 8889666016 my extension is 316;  when you are calling, it’s important you reference your file number of 1460311;  again, this is an important business matter."  17)  During the said calls, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with the notices  required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11), namely, by failing to advise Plaintiff that the calls  were from a debt collector or that the Defendant was attempting to collect a debt.  18)  Each of the messages is a "communication" as defined by 15 U.S.C. §  1692a(2). 19)  Each of the above messages uniformly failed to identify the callers as  debt collectors attempting to collect a debt.  20)  Each of the said messages uniformly failed to provide meaningful  identification of the Defendant's legal name.  21)  The least sophisticated consumer could believe that the messages were  from an original creditor. -6- 22)  The messages left by Defendant was deceptive and harassing per se in  that it secreted the identity of the Defendant in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(6). 23)  Upon information and belief, it is the regular practice of the Defendant to  leave messages on consumers' answering machines that do not meaningfully identify  themselves, and/or do not identify themselves as a debt collector. 24)  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, is to place a return call to the telephone number provided in  the messages and speak with a debt collector employed by Frontier Financial Group,  and to provide the debt collector with personal information.  25)  The Defendant intended that the messages have the effect of causing  Plaintiff, and least sophisticated consumers to place return calls to the telephone  number provided in the messages and speak with its 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 Districts 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 messages, by accurately stating the name of  the debt collection company and stating the nature and/or purpose of the call.  -7- 26)  At all times relevant to this action, Frontier Financial Group was aware of  the substantial weight of legal authority requiring it 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. 27)  At all times relevant to this action, Frontier Financial Group 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.  28)  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.  29)  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 any debt and is in violation of the FDCPA.  30)  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 Frontier Financial Group 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.  -8- 31)  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 Frontier Financial Group's  identity; and  (b)  Failing to disclose that the call is from a debt collector; and  (c)  Failing to disclose the purpose or nature of the communication, i.e.  an attempt to collect a debt.  32)  Upon information and belief, such messages, as alleged in this complaint,  number at least in the hundreds.  33)  Upon information and belief, the said messages were either pre-scripted  or pre-recorded.  34)  Defendant has engaged in a pattern of leaving messages without  disclosing that the communication is from a debt collector.  35)  The said telephone messages are in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d(6),  1692e, 1692e(10) and 1692e(11) for failing to indicate that the messages were from a  debt collector which constitutes a deceptive practice.  36)  Plaintiff seeks to end these violations of the FDCPA. Plaintiff and putative  class members are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including,  declaratory relief, and damages.  -9- 37)  This action is brought as a class action. Plaintiff brings this action  individually, 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 Frontier Financial Group  left a voicemail or answering machine message, in the form of the above said  messages, (c) that did not identify Frontier Financial Group by its true company name  or state that the call was for collection purposes (d) made in connection with Frontier  Financial Group'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.  39)  The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the  records of Frontier Financial Group and those business and governmental entities on  whose behalf it attempts to collect debts.  40)  Excluded from the Plaintiff's Class is the Defendant and all officers,  members, partners, managers, directors, and employees of Frontier Financial Group,  and all of its respective immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this  action and all members of its 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  -10- members. The principal issues are whether the Defendant's telephonic voice  messages, such as the above said messages, violate 15 U.S.C. §§ 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 her 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:  (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(6), 1692e(10), and 1692e(11).  -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 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 Defendant who, on information and  belief, collects debts throughout the United States of America.  -12- 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(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)  Further, Defendant has acted, or failed to act, on grounds generally  applicable to the Rule (b)(l)(A) and (b)(2) Class, thereby making appropriate final  injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole.  48)  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). 