A District Court judge in Florida has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it made five calls during an eight-day span to an individual’s grandmother trying to get in touch with the individual to collect on an unpaid debt. The plaintiff did not claim that the calls violated the location information provisions of the FDCPA, only that they violated the provisions prohibiting harassing behavior.
The judge did not completely dismiss all of the claims made by the plaintiff and gave her time to file an amended complaint separating the remaining claims.
A copy of the ruling in the case of O’Guin v. Webcollex can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff claimed to have received calls from the defendant on June 16, 17, 19, 23, and 24. The caller was looking to contact the plaintiff’s granddaughter in regard to an unpaid credit card debt. The plaintiff informed the caller that the granddaughter did not live with her and asked for the calls to stop. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the calls violated Sections 1692d, 1692c(a)(1), and 1692e of the FDCPA. She did not claim that the calls violated Section 1692b(3) which deal with acquiring location information of individuals.
The pattern of calls made by the defendant did not rise to the level of being considered harassing or abusive, ruled Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Acknowledging that there is no real standard for what defines a harassing number of phone calls, Judge Mizelle looked at other cases and found situations where judges ruled that 29 calls made during a 30-day period was ruled not to be harassing, she dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff argued that the calls were abusive because the defendant was attempting to contact her granddaughter, but because she did not claim a violation of 1692b(3) and there is nothing in 1692d(5) that “imposes a higher standard of behavior on calls to persons who are not the debtor,” she dismissed the claim.
With respect to the remaining claims, Judge Mizelle opted not to dismiss them and required the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
