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 D. Conn., 1 in W.D. NY., 1 in W.D. La., 2 in E.D. Pa., 1 in D. Kan., and 1 in S.D. Ga.

 Possible Violations Found

  1. Ghawi v. Law Offices of Howard Lee Schiff, P.C., 2014 WL 6885141, *2 (D. Conn. 2014) - The plaintiff alleged that the collector left 29 voicemails and called countless times through a period of 1 year after plaintiff requested the collector validate the debt and cease calling.  The court ruled that the plaintiff presented sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims.
  2. Mitchell v. Ne. Collection Bureau, 2015 WL 114123, *1 (W.D. N.Y. 2015) - The Plaintiff alleged collectors called both to her home phone and cell phone twice within 40 minutes, totaling 4 calls in 40 minutes.  The court ruled that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish the defendant's liability under the FDCPA, granting a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

 No Violations Found

  1. Johns v. Northland Grp., Inc., 2014 WL 7404131, **8-9 (E.D. Pa. 2014) - The plaintiff alleged that the collector called her "numerous" times, called friends and family, and improperly sought information regarding the debt.  The court determined that these allegations failed to provide sufficient facts to support an FDCPA claim.
  2. Zarichny v. Complete Payment Recovery Servs., Inc., 2015 WL 249853, *8 (E.D. Pa. 2015) - The plaintiff alleged that "at the very least" she received 11 calls over a 6-month period, and sought to add to this number through discovery.  The court ruled that a claim of 11 calls over 6 months does not meet the threshold for excessive calls, dismissing the claim.
  3. Miller v. Cain, 2015 WL 222434, *5 (W.D. La. 2015) - The plaintiff alleged 1 unanswered call to his cell phone during the work day.  The court ruled that a single unanswered call, whether or not plaintiff was at his place of employment at the time, is legally insufficient to state a claim for relief under § 1692d(5).
  4. Little v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2015 WL 72774, *2 (D. Kan. 2015) - Plaintiff alleged that the collector violated the FDCPA by placing 10 calls over 50 days where plaintiff stated in some of the calls that she could not pay that day.  The court determined that allegations of 10 calls in 50 days, with no more than 2 calls per day, and no back-to-back calls, did not state a claim under § 1692d(5) where the plaintiff neither told the collector to stop calling nor told the collector that she could not ever pay the debt.
  5. Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 2015 WL 74267, *6 (S.D. Ga. 2015) - The plaintiff alleged that the collector called 5 times over 4 months, after the plaintiff verbally disputed the debt.  The court found that without any evidence of harassing conduct, this pattern did not create a triable issue of fact for a potential violation of § 1692d(5).

                          To view the entire memo, Click Here 

 

► Back to News & Resources