In Lopez v. Professional Collection Consultants, 2011 WL 4964886 (C.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Gutierrez granted a debt collector’s Motion to Dismiss a telephonic harassment case, with leave to amend, holding:

There are no facts alleged as to the content of the calls. And the confusing statement that Defendant made “up to three [ ] collection calls five [ ] times per week” does not state the period of time during which this activity occured, such that one could conclude the activity was harassing, oppresive, or abusive. Courts have required factual particularity regarding the dates and contents of alleged communications for FDCPA and Rosenthal Act claims. See Parker v. Barclays Bank Del., No. CV–10–5096–RMP, 2011 WL 2709407, at *3 (E.D.Wash. July 12, 2011) (complaint failed to state an FDCPA claim where complaint only alleged repeated calls from creditor); Blaxill v. Arrow Fin. Servs., No. 5:10–CV–04520 JF (PSG), 2011 WL1299350, at *2 (N.D. Cal. April 4, 2011) (“Because the instant complaint lacks any factual particularity, such as the dates and contents of the alleged communications, it fails to state a claim” under the FDCPA); Gates v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, No. 2:09–cv–02464–FCD/EFB, 2010 WL 2606511, at *4 (E.D.Cal. June 28, 2010) (dismissing a Rosenthal claim where complaint alleged date and time of collection calls, but failed to allege nature of the calls); Ash v. OneWest Bank, FSB, No. 2:09–cv–00974–FCD/DAD, 2010 WL 375744, at *7 (E.D.Cal. Jan.26, 2010) (holding a high volume of calls does not constitute a violation of the Rosenthal Act). Plaintiff’s spare factual allegations fail to state a claim under this standard.