What constitutes excessive calling under the FDCPA?  While the law prohibits excessive calling, there is no bright line rule for how many times a debt collector may call a consumer over a period of time.  Recognizing the industry frustration, we regularly detail the latest rulings, separating them by violations found; violations not found; and identifying the courts that have issued the decisions.

Attached is a memorandum detailing all reported excessive call decisions we have found.  Below are the latest rulings, compiled since we last issued our complete memorandum.

There are 7 new cases - 1 in M.D. Pa., 1 in E.D. Mo., 1 in D. NJ., 1 in S.D. W.Va., 1 in S.D. Tex., 1 in E.D. Mich., and 1 in the 11th Cir. 

Possible Violations Found

  1. Hamburger v. Northland Grp., Inc., 2015 WL 631066, 7 (M.D. Pa. 2015) - The plaintiffs alleged that the collector called 7 or 8 times after plaintiffs requested the calls stop.  The court denied the collector's motion for summary judgment, finding that "while the number and frequency of the calls [were] low" there was still a triable issue of fact under § 1692d(5). 
  2. Hanks v. Valarity, LLC, 2015 WL 1886960, 4 (E.D. Mo. 2015) - The plaintiff alleged that the collector called him numerous times following his request that the calls stop.  He further alleged that the collector made a callous remark when plaintiff stated that the debt belonged to his deceased ex-girlfriend.  The court denied the collector's motion to dismiss the claim, finding that the allegations were sufficient to state a § 1692d(5) claim.

No Violations Found

  1. Lightfoot v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., LLC, 2015 WL 1103441, 3 (D. N.J. 2015) - The plaintiff alleged that the collector called him 2 times in 4 months.  The court granted the collector's motion to dismiss plaintiff's § 1692d claim, finding that the plaintiff did not allege enough calls to state a viable claim.
  2. Woods v. Oxford Law, LLC, 2015 WL 778778, 7 (S.D. W.Va. 2015) - The plaintiffs alleged that the collector placed "numerous" calls after receiving instruction to correspond with the plaintiffs only in writing.  The court dismissed the claim, finding that it could not find a violation of § 1692d(5) without any indication as to the frequency or pattern of calls.
  3. Douglas v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2015 WL 1064623, 5 (S.D. Tex. 2015) - The plaintiff alleged that the collector called him regarding collection of a debt and the calls "were annoying and harassing" to plaintiff and his family.  The court dismissed plaintiff's claim on the pleadings, finding that merely stating calls are "harassing" is not enough to state a claim under § 1692d(5).
  4. Eckel v. L.J. Ross Associates, Inc., 2015 WL 1637456, 3-5 (E.D. Mich. 2015) - The plaintiff alleged that the collector called once after the collector received a power of attorney letter that was unclear as to whether the consumer was represented by counsel for the subject debt.  The court granted the collector's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to show the collector intended to annoy, abuse, or harass him.

Isaac v. RMB Inc., 2015 WL 1189225, 1 (11th Cir. 2015) - The plaintiffs alleged that the collector called them 19 times over 17 days, including 5 calls in 1 day, where a third-party debtor had instructed the collector to call the plaintiffs about the debt.  The plaintiffs alleged the calls were intended to harass them because the collector (1) called them despite receiving a cease and desist letter, and (2) hung up on plaintiffs when they answered the calls.  The court did not find that the calls were intended to harass plaintiffs because (1) the collector did not process the cease and desist letter because its employees designated to handle such letters were coincidentally on leave at the time, and (2) the hang-up calls were due to the call system interpreting plaintiffs' voices to be an answering machine.  The 11th Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

► Back to News & Resources