IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.: 

STEPHANIE SEO, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

VIKING COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., a Minnesota corporation, 

 Defendant.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(d).

2. This action arises out of the Defendant’s violation of the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (hereinafter the “FDCPA”). 

 VENUE

3. Venue is proper in this Judicial District.

4. The acts and transactions alleged herein occurred in this Judicial District.

5. The Plaintiff resides in this Judicial District. 

6. The Defendant transacts business in this Judicial District.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Stephanie Seo is a natural person.

Case 1:11-cv-02248-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
2 

8. The Plaintiff resides in the City of Northglenn, County of Adams, State of 

Colorado. 

9. The Plaintiff is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

10. The Plaintiff is a “any person” as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. § 1692d 

preface.

11. Defendant Viking Collection Service, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation 

operating from an address at 7500 Office Ridge Circle, Eden Prairie, 

Minnesota, 55344. 

12. The Defendant’s registered agent in the state of Colorado is Beverly Hills 

Inc., 3605 Mead Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526. 

13. The Defendant is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(6). 

14. The Defendant is licensed as a collection agency by the state of Colorado.

15. The principal purpose of the Defendant is the collection of debts using the 

mails and telephone.

16. The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, 

debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

17. The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, 

debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another that arose out of 

transactions in which the money, property or services which are the subject 

of the transactions are primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

Case 1:11-cv-02248-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
3 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

18. Sometime prior to 2011 the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial 

obligation that was primarily for personal, family and household purposes 

namely an amount due and owing on a personal account owed to Wells 

Fargo (hereinafter the “Account”). 

19. The Account constitutes a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(5). 

20. The Account went into default with Wells Fargo. 

21. After the Account went into default the Account was placed or otherwise 

transferred to the Defendant for collection. 

22. The Plaintiff disputes the Account. 

23. The Plaintiff requests that the Defendant cease all further communication 

on the Account. 

24. The Defendant’s collector(s) were employee(s) of the Defendant at all 

times mentioned herein. 

25. The Defendant acted at all times mentioned herein through its 

employee(s). 

26. In the year prior to the filing of the instant action the Defendant and / or 

representative(s), employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the Defendant made 

telephone call(s) to the Plaintiff and left voicemail message(s) for the 

Plaintiff. 

Case 1:11-cv-02248-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7
4 

27. In the year prior to the filing of the instant action the Plaintiff called the 

Defendant and / or representative(s), employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the 

Defendant in response to the telephone call(s) and voicemail message(s). 

28. The Defendant’s purpose for these telephone call(s) and voicemail 

message(s) was to attempt to collect the Account. 

29. The telephone call(s) and voicemail message(s) each individually 

conveyed information regarding the Account directly or indirectly to the 

Plaintiff. 

30. The telephone call(s) and voicemail message(s) each individually 

constituted a “communication” as defined by FDCPA § 1692a(2). 

31. The only reason that the Defendant and / or representative(s), 

employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the Defendant made telephone call(s) to 

the Plaintiff was to attempt to collect the Account. 

32. The only reason that the Defendant and / or representative(s), 

employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the Defendant had telephone 

conversation(s) with the Plaintiff was to attempt to collect the Account. 

33. The only reason that the Defendant and / or representative(s), 

employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the Defendant received telephone call(s) 

from the Plaintiff was to attempt to collect the Account. 

34. During the communication(s) the Defendant and / or representative(s), 

employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the Defendant attempting to collect the 

Account represented to the Plaintiff that she could not dispute the Account 

Case 1:11-cv-02248-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
5 

with the Defendant and that she had to dispute the Account with Wells 

Fargo. 

35. The Defendant’s representations stated in paragraph 34 were false and 

were false representations in connection with the collection of a debt, the 

Account. 

36. In the year prior to the filing of the instant action the Defendant while 

attempting to collect the Account left voicemail message(s) for the Plaintiff

that did not contain meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity as 

required by FDCPA 1692d(6) and/or did not contain the language required 

by FDCPA 1692e(11). 

37. On information and belief the Defendant made audio recording(s) of some 

of its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) with the Plaintiff and the voicemail 

message(s) it left for the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the instant 

action. 

38. On information and belief the Defendant has a copy or copies of some of 

the audio recording(s) of its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) with the 

Plaintiff and the voicemail message(s) it left for the Plaintiff in the year 

prior to the filing of the instant action. 

39. On information and belief the Defendant made audio recording(s) of all of 

its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) with the Plaintiff and the voicemail 

message(s) it left for the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the instant 

action. 

Case 1:11-cv-02248-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
6 

40. On information and belief the Defendant has a copy or copies of the audio 

recording(s) of all of its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) with the Plaintiff 

and the voicemail message(s) it left for the Plaintiff in the year prior to the 

filing of the instant action. 

41. On information and belief the Defendant’s copies of the audio recording(s) 

of its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) with the Plaintiff and the voicemail 

message(s) it left for the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the instant 

action substantiate the Plaintiff’s allegations in this action. 

42. The Defendant’s action(s) constitute harassment or abuse and violate 

FDCPA 1692d(6). 

43. The Defendant’s action(s) constitute false and misleading 

representation(s) and mean(s) and violate FDCPA 1692e preface, e(2)(A), 

e(10) and e(11). 

44. The Defendant’s action(s) constitute unfair or unconscionable means to 

collect or attempt to collect a debt and violate FDCPA 1692f preface. 

45. The FDCPA is a “strict liability statute,” and Plaintiff need only “show one 

violation of its provisions to be entitled to judgment in her favor.” Ellis v. 

Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 701 F.Supp. 2d 215, 219 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). 

46. As a consequence of the Defendant’s action(s), the Plaintiff has 

sustained damages pursuant to FDCPA § 1692k. 

COUNT I, FDCPA VIOLATION 

47. The previous paragraphs are incorporated into this Count as if set forth in 

Case 1:11-cv-02248-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
7 

 full. 

48. The act(s) and omission(s) of the Defendant constitute a violation of the 

§ 1692d(6), § 1692e preface, e(2)(A), e(10), e(11) and § 1692f preface. 

49. Pursuant to FDCPA § 1692k the Plaintiff is entitled to damages, 

 reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

The Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury. U.S. Const. 

amend. 7., Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 38. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that the Court grants the following: 

1. A finding that the Defendant violated the FDCPA and/or an admission from 

the Defendant that it violated the FDCPA. 

2. Damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). 

3. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). 

4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

_s/ David M. Larson ________ 

David M. Larson, Esq. 

405 S. Cascade Avenue, Suite 305 

Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

 (719) 473-0006 

 Attorney for the Plaintiff 

Case 1:11-cv-02248-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7