30.  Plaintiff re-states, re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, paragraphs one (1)  through twenty nine (29) as if set forth fully in this cause of action.   31.  This cause of action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the members of a class.   32.  The class consists of all persons whom Defendant’s records reflect resided in New York  who received telephonic messages from Defendant within one year prior to the date of  the within complaint up to the date of the filing of the complaint; (a) the telephone call  was placed to a the consumer's home or similar party seeking payment of a consumer  debt by leaving a message for the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff asserts that the telephone  message was in violation 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692e(11), and 1692f.  3 See. Leyse v. Corporate Collection Servs., (2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67719 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2006) ("The FDCPA requires debt collectors  identify themselves as such in all messages to prevent consumers from being tricked into communicating with debt collectors regarding a debt.  Anonymous telephone messages mislead consumers in to thinking that the message could reasonably pertain to a host of issues - including  family or medical matters - which may be viewed by consumers as much more pressing, than a debt owed. The apparent purpose of these  messages is to be vague enough to provoke the recipient to return the calls in haste. Leaving a message that deceptively entices a consumer to  communicate with a debt collector when he is caught off guard is precisely the kind of abuse the FDCPA intended to prevent.")  -8-   33.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a class action is appropriate and  preferable in this case because:  A. Based on the fact that form telephonic messages are at the heart of this  litigation, the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.  B. There are questions of law and fact common to the class and these questions  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The  principal question presented by this claim is whether the Defendant violated  the FDCPA.  C. The only individual issue is the identification of the consumers who received  such telephonic messages, (i.e. the class members), a matter capable of  ministerial determination from the records of the Defendant.  D. The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of those of the class members. All are  based on the same facts and legal theories.  E. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the class members’  interests. The Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in bringing class  actions and collection-abuse claims. The Plaintiff's interests are consistent  with those of the members of the class.      34.  A class action is superior for the fair and efficient adjudication of the class members’  claims. Congress specifically envisions class actions as a principal means of enforcing  the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(k). The members of the class are generally  unsophisticated individuals, whose rights will not be vindicated in the absence of a class  action. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the classes would  -9-  create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications resulting in the establishment of  inconsistent or varying standards for the parties and would not be in the interest of  judicial economy.   35.  If the facts are discovered to be appropriate, the Plaintiff will seek to certify a class  pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   36.  Collection attempts, such as those made by the Defendant are to be evaluated by the  objective standard of the hypothetical “least sophisticated consumer.”  Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act   37.  The Defendant's actions as set forth above in the within complaint violates the Fair Debt  Collection Practices Act.   Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the  members of a class, as against the Defendant.  