IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Gordon Dunahoo, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 4280

)

Viking Client Services, Inc., d/b/a Viking )

Collection Services, a Minnesota )

corporation, and Icon Equities, LLC, a )

Nevada limited liability company, )

)

Defendants. ) Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Gordon Dunahoo, brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), for a finding that Defendants’ debt 

collection actions violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages for Defendants’ 

violations of the FDCPA, and alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to § 1692k(d) of the FDCPA, and 28 

U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Venue is proper in this District because: a) parts of the acts and 

transactions occurred here; and, b) Defendants reside and transact business here.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Gordon Dunahoo ("Dunahoo"), is a citizen of the State of New 

Mexico, from whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt owed 

to Wells Fargo Financial, which was then allegedly owed to a bad debt buyer, Icon 

Equities, LLC, despite the fact that he was represented by the legal aid attorneys at the 

Case: 1:12-cv-04280 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
2

Chicago Legal Clinic's Legal Advocates for Seniors and People with Disabilities 

program ("LASPD"), located in Chicago, Illinois.

4. Defendant, Viking Client Services, Inc., d/b/a Viking Collection Service

(“Viking”), is a Minnesota corporation, that acts as a debt collector, as defined by § 

1692a of the FDCPA, because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to 

collect, or attempt to collect, delinquent consumer debts. Viking operates a nationwide 

delinquent debt collection business, and attempts to collect debts from consumers in 

virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Illinois. In fact, Defendant 

Viking was acting as a debt collector, as that term is defined in the FDCPA, as to the 

delinquent consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff.

5. Defendant, Icon Equities, LLC (“Icon"), is a Nevada limited liability 

company that acts as a debt collector, as defined by § 1692a of the FDCPA, because it 

regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, directly or 

indirectly, delinquent consumer debts. Icon operates a nationwide delinquent debt 

collection business, and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every 

state, including consumers in the State of Illinois. In fact, Defendant Icon was acting as 

a debt collector, as that term is defined in the FDCPA, as to the delinquent consumer 

debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff. 

6. Defendant Icon is a bad debt buyer that buys large portfolios of defaulted 

consumer debts for pennies on the dollar, which it then collects upon through other 

collection agencies, such as Defendant Viking.

7. Defendants Viking and Icon are both authorized to conduct business in the 

State of Illinois and maintain registered agents within the State of Illinois, see, records

Case: 1:12-cv-04280 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
3

from the Illinois Secretary of State, attached as Group Exhibit A. In fact, Icon and Viking

each conduct extensive and substantial business in Illinois.

8. Defendants Viking and Icon are both licensed as debt collection agencies

in the State of Illinois, see, record from the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation, 

attached as Group Exhibit B. In fact, Defendant Icon and Viking act as collection 

agencies in Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Mr. Dunahoo is a senior citizen, with limited assets and income, who fell 

behind on paying his bills, including a debt he owed originally to Wells Fargo Financial. 

At some point in time after that debt became delinquent, Defendant Icon bought Mr. 

Dunahoo’s Wells Fargo Financial (“Wells Fargo”) debt, and when Defendants’ began 

trying to collect the Wells Fargo debt from him, he sought the assistance of legal aid 

attorneys at the Chicago Legal Clinic’s LASPD program, regarding his financial 

difficulties and Defendants’ collection actions. 

10. Specifically, Defendant Icon hired Defendant Viking to demand payment of 

the Wells Fargo debt from Mr. Dunahoo, which began to do so by calling him from 

phone number 800-559-3865. Accordingly, on April 17, 2012, one of Mr. Dunahoo's

attorneys at LASPD informed Defendants that Mr. Dunahoo was represented by 

counsel, and directed Defendants to cease contacting him, and to cease all further 

collection activities because Mr. Dunahoo was forced, by his financial circumstances, to 

refuse to pay his unsecured debt. Copies of this letter and fax confirmation are

attached as Exhibit C. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04280 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
4

11. Nonetheless, Defendants sent a collection letter, dated April 19, 2012, 

directly to Mr. Dunahoo, which demanded payment of the Wells Fargo debt. A copy

of this collection letter is attached as Exhibit D.

12. Accordingly, on May 16, 2012, Mr. Dunahoo's LASPD attorney had to 

send Defendants yet another letter, directing them to cease communications and to 

cease collections. Copies of this letter and fax confirmation are attached as Exhibit E.

13. Defendants’ collection actions complained of herein occurred within one 

year of the date of this Complaint. 

14. Defendants’ collection communications are to be interpreted under the 

“unsophisticated consumer” standard. See, Gammon v. GC Services, Ltd. Partnership, 

27 F.3d 1254, 1257 (7th Cir. 1994).

COUNT I

Violation Of § 1692c(c) Of The FDCPA --

Failure To Cease Communications And Cease Collections

15. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-14.

16. Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from 

communicating with a consumer after a direction to cease communications, and from 

continuing to demand payment of a debt that the consumer has indicated that they 

refuse to pay. See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c).

17. Here, the letter from Mr. Dunahoo's agent/attorney, LASPD, told 

Defendants to cease communications and cease collections (Exhibit C). By continuing 

to communicate regarding this debt and demanding payment (Exhibit D), Defendants 

violated § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA.

Case: 1:12-cv-04280 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
5

18. Defendants’ violation of § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA renders them liable for 

actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. See, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k.

COUNT II

Violation Of § 1692c(a)(2) Of The FDCPA --

Communicating With A Consumer Represented By Counsel

19. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-14.

20. Section 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from 

communicating with a consumer if the debt collector knows the consumer is 

represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can 

readily ascertain, such attorney’s name and address. See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2). 

21. Defendants knew, or readily could have known, that Mr. Dunahoo was 

represented by counsel in connection with his debts because his attorneys at LASPD 

had informed Defendants, in writing (Exhibit C), that Mr. Dunahoo was represented by 

counsel, and had directed a cessation of communications with Mr. Dunahoo. By directly 

sending a collection letter to Mr. Dunahoo (Exhibit D), despite being advised that he 

was represented by counsel, Defendants violated § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

22. Defendants’ violation of § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA renders them liable 

for actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. See, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692k.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, Gordon Dunahoo, prays that this Court:

1. Find that Defendants’ debt collection actions violated the FDCPA;

Case: 1:12-cv-04280 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
6

2. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Dunahoo, and against Defendants, for 

actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by §

1692k(a) of the FDCPA; and,

3. Grant such further relief as deemed just.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Gordon Dunahoo, demands trial by jury.

Gordon Dunahoo,

By: /s/ David J. Philipps___

One of Plaintiff's Attorneys

Dated: June 1, 2012

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285)

Mary E. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06197113)

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.

9760 S. Roberts Road

Suite One

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465

(708) 974-2900

(708) 974-2907 (FAX)

davephilipps@aol.com

mephilipps@aol.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04280 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6