In Valle v. National Recovery Service, here, Judge Merryday held that 82 calls during a 252 day span did not constitute harassment as a matter of law, granting summary judgment for the debt collector under the FDCPA.
Attempting to show a triable issue of fact, Valle cites only the phone calls from National. Occurring during a 252-day span, the eighty-two calls occurred at the rate of approximately one every three days. In February, 2010, National called Valle twenty-two times. On seventeen days, National called Valle twice, once at home and once at work. Valle produces no other evidence of potentially harassing conduct. National never called Valle twice at the same phone number during the same day. National conversed with Valle only once and only when Valle called National, who never again called Valle. National never threatened Valle; never called Valle at an odd hour; never contacted a friend, employer, co-worker, or family member; and never engaged in other conduct “naturally” resulting, or intending to result, in harassment, oppression, or abuse. Valle never disputed the debt, never demanded cessation of the calls, and never answered the phone. On facts more egregious and more indicative of harassment, oppression, or abuse, summary judgment is routinely granted in favor of the debt collector. See, e.g., Tucker v. CBE Group, Inc., 710 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (Adams, J.) (granting summary judgment although the debt collector called fifty-seven times, often calling seven times per day, and leaving six identical voice messages); Waite v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., No. 8:09-cv-2336, 2010 WL 5209350 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2010) (Covington, J.) (granting summary judgment although the debt collector during nine months called 132 times, often calling four times per day); Druschel v. CCB Credit Servs., Inc., No. 8:10-cv-838, 2011 WL 2681637 (M.D. Fla. June 14, 2011) (McCoun, M.J.) (recommending summary judgment although the debt collector called the debtor fourteen times during two weeks), adopted by 2011 WL 2681953 (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2011); Carman v. CBE Group, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (D. Kan. 2011) (Robinson, J.) (granting summary judgment although the debt collector called the debtor 149 times during two months); Pugliese v. Prof. Recovery Serv., Inc., No. 09-12262, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 64111 (E.D. Mich. June 29, 2010) (Edmunds, J.) (granting summary judgment although the debt collector called 350 times during eight months); Katz v. Capital One, No. 09-10096, 2009 WL 3190359 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2009) (Edmunds, J.) (granting summary judgment although the debt collector called fifteen to seventeen times after receipt of a cease and desist letter disputing the debt). Absent evidence of harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct, the pattern and frequency of National’s calls to Valle create no triable issue of fact under either Section 1692d or Section 1692d(5).