“The overriding common question here is grounded in Defendant’s Scripted Voicemail and whether that Scripted Voicemail violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant has estimated that approximately 3350 of its account holders received a materially identical Scripted Voicemail, and, accordingly, Plaintiff has met its burden to show shared issues of fact and law, as resolution of this claim would resolve whether Defendant violated the FDCPA as to a particular account holder ‘in one stroke.'” The proposed Class Definition was modified to replace one of the elements “that failed to state that Olson Associates, P.C. was a debt collector and/or that the purpose of the call was to collect a debt and/or that any information would be used for that purpose” with “where Olson Associates, P.C. left a message for the consumer that is materially identical to the following message: ‘…’.” The court found that this language was more precise, and could streamline the process of identifying potential class members. Rhodes v. Olson Associates, No.14-00919, 2015 WL 1136176 (D. Colo. March 13, 2015).