1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID MACK on behalf of himself and others 

similarly situated,

 Plaintiff, 

 v.

VIKING CLIENT SERVICES, INC. f/k/a VIKING 

COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

1:12-cv-4574

JURY DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

CLASS ACTION

1. Plaintiff David Mack brings this action against Viking Client Services, Inc., 

formerly known as Viking Collection Services, Inc. (“Viking”) to secure redress for violation of 

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”) and the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. 

2. The defendant debt collection agency called plaintiff with respect to a debt it 

knew or should have known was not that of plaintiff, using an automatic telephone dialing 

system. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The Court has federal question jurisdiction over the FDCPA and TCPA claims.

Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 132 S.Ct. 740 (2012). 

4. Venue is proper because a substantial portion of the events complained of 

occurred in this District.

Case: 1:12-cv-04574 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/13/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
2 

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in this District. Plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

number is 773-xxx-9181. 

6. Viking is a debt collection agency located in Minneapolis, Minnesota and 

Phoenix, Arizona. 

FACTS

7. The TCPA prohibits the use of “automatic telephone dialing systems” to call 

cellular telephones. 

8. “Automatic telephone dialing system” means any equipment that has the 

“capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.” Griffith v. Consumer Portfolio Serv., 

Inc., 2011 WL 3609012 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 16, 2011) (emphasis original). 

9. According to its sworn autodialer application with the Texas Utility Commission, 

Viking uses Diallogic predictive dialing equipment. 

10. Viking used an automatic telephone dialing system to call plaintiff and the class, 

in violation of the TCPA. It also may have employed an artificial or prerecorded voice for some 

or all such calls.

11. Upon information and belief, defendant obtained plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

number through a “skip trace” or other similar service. 

12. Defendant did not obtain plaintiff’s cellular telephone number from plaintiff, as 

to the debt it was collecting. Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Company, Inc., - F.3d ----, 2012 WL 

1650485 (7th Cir. May 11, 2012). 

Case: 1:12-cv-04574 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/13/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
3 

13. After one of defendant’s calls to plaintiff’s cell phone, plaintiff called Viking back. 

Plaintiff asked why defendant was calling, and a representative of Viking lied to plaintiff about 

the purpose of her calls. 

14. Plaintiff and the class have been substantially damaged by defendant’s illegal 

calls.

15. Plaintiff and the class members’ privacy was invaded, they were forced to use 

minutes from their cellular telephone plans and were therefore “charged” for the calls, In re 

Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, GC Doc. 

02-278, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, 14114, paragraph 165 (July 3, 2003), and they were annoyed and 

forced to spend time dealing with the illegal calls. 

COUNT I – TCPA

16. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this complaint.

17. It is a violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §227(b) to call a person's cellular telephone 

using an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded or artificial voice message. 

18. Plaintiff and the class are entitled to have their rights, status and legal relations 

under the TCPA relating to defendant's calling of cell phones using an automatic dialing system.

19. The defendant's calls were negligent, or alternatively, they were willful. 47 

U.S.C. §312(f)(1).

Class Allegations

20. Plaintiff brings Count I on behalf of a class, which consists of:

All persons with Illinois who defendant or some person on its behalf called on their cell 

phone using equipment that had the capacity to dial numbers without human 

Case: 1:12-cv-04574 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/13/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
4 

intervention, where defendant obtained the phone number from some source other 

than directly from the called party with respect to the alleged debt being collected, 

where any call was made between and including a date four years prior to the filing of 

this action. 

21. Upon information and belief, based upon industry practices, defendant called 

more than 1,000 Illinois phone numbers during 2010, where defendant obtained the cell phone 

number through a skip trace, caller ID (“ANI”) or from some source other than from the called 

party with respect to the alleged debt being collected. 

22. Upon information and belief, more than 40 of the above phone numbers were 

cellular telephone numbers. 

23. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class and 

predominate over any questions solely affecting any individual member of the class, including 

plaintiff. Such questions common to the Class include, but are not limited to: 

a. Whether defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system as that 

term us defined in the TCPA and applicable FCC regulations and orders; 

b. Whether obtaining a cellular telephone number through a skip trace, or 

means other than directly from the debtor, constitutes “prior express consent” 

for defendant to call that number using an automatic telephone dialing system; 

and

c. Damages, including whether the violation was willful. 

24. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff has 

no interests that might conflict with the interests of the class. Plaintiff is interested in pursuing 

his claims vigorously, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and 

complex litigation. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04574 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/13/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
5 

25. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of 

similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, 

efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions 

would entail. 

26. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class 

action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists 

for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 

27. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby 

making relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. Prosecution of separate actions 

by individual members of the class, should they realize their rights have been violated, would 

likely create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members 

of the class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct. 

28. The identity of the class is likely readily identifiable from defendant's records.

29. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of himself and 

the class and against defendant that provides the following relief: 

a. Statutory damages of $500 per violation, and up to $1,500 per violation if

proven to be willful; 

Case: 1:12-cv-04574 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/13/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
6 

b. A permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from violating the TCPA in 

the future through calling cellular phones using an automatic telephone dialing 

system and/or a prerecorded voice message; and

c. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper. 

COUNT II – FDCPA

30. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this complaint.

31. Defendant lied to plaintiff during a telephone conversation that happened within 

one year of filing of this complaint. It lied about the purpose of its call. The representative acted 

like she knew plaintiff personally. This was a violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f.

32. Upon information and belief, defendant had location information for the true 

debtor. Thus, Viking had no legitimate reason to call plaintiff, and its calls therefore violated 15 

U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e and 1692f.

33. Furthermore, the conversation between plaintiff and Viking did not comply the 

requirements of section 1692b, and defendant therefore also violated 15 U.S.C. §1692c(b). 

Thomas v. Consumer Adjustment Co., Inc., 579 F. Supp.2d 1290, 1298 (E.D.Mo. 2008). 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of himself against 

defendant that provides the following relief: 

a. Statutory damages;

b. Attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and 

c. Any other relief the Court finds just and appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted,

Case: 1:12-cv-04574 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/13/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
7 

/s/Alexander H. Burke

Alexander H. Burke

BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 729-5288

(312) 729-5289 (fax)

ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury. 

/s/Alexander H. Burke

Alexander H. Burke

BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 729-5288

(312) 729-5289 (fax)

ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04574 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/13/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
8 

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands that the defendant take affirmative steps to preserve all 

recordings, data, emails, recordings, documents and all other tangible things that relate to the 

allegations herein, plaintiff or the putative class members, or the making of telephone calls, the 

events described herein, any third party associated with any telephone call, campaign, account, 

sale or file associated with plaintiff or the putative class members, and any account or number 

or symbol relating to any of them. These materials are very likely relevant to the litigation of 

this claim. If defendant is aware of any third party that has possession, custody or control of 

any such materials, plaintiff demands that defendant request that such third party also take 

steps to preserve the materials. This demand shall not narrow the scope of any independent 

document preservation duties of the defendant.

/s/Alexander H. Burke

Case: 1:12-cv-04574 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/13/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8