No Harassment Under FDCPA With 179 Collection Calls
In Jones v. Rash Curtis & Associates in the Northern District of California, the Court granted summary judgment for defendant in a case that elaborates on plaintiff's burden to show an FDCPA violation.
In Jones, plaintiff alleged approximately 179 collection calls in a one-year time period. Plaintiff's complaint alleged FDCPA violations based on allegations that: (1) defendant constantly and continuously placed collection calls to Plaintiff seeking payment for an alleged debt; (2) defendant placed approximately 200 collection calls to Plaintiff in 2009; (3) defendant contacted Plaintiff’s mother and disclosed the nature and existence of an alleged consumer debt to her; (4) defendant failed to identify itself as a debt collector; and (5) defendant placed collection calls to Plaintiff from blocked and private numbers.
The Court granted summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's FDCPA claims, noting that plaintiff bears the burden of showing more than simply a high volume of collection calls. The Court identified certain factors that might establish an FDCPA violation for harassment, including: (1) calling a consumer back immediately after the consumer hung up on the collector; (2) calling the consumer after the consumer requested the collector cease communications; or (3) calling the consumer at a time or pace which is known to be inconvenient to the consumer. Absent evidence of these actions, the Court found there was no evidence of harassment. Significantly, the Court noted that plaintiff "did not complain about the content of calls, rarely answered the calls, and never instructed [defendant] to stop calling."
http://www.consumerfinancelitigation.com/admin/trackback/238852
