In Lynch v. Nelson Watson & Associates, LLC, 2011 WL 2472588 (D.Kan. 2011), Judge Melgren held that 56 calls in a 3 month period was not too many under the FDCPA. 


In this case, the Court finds there is no evidence of an unacceptable pattern of calls. The record is lacking any indicia of the type of egregious conduct raising issues of triable fact when coupled with a high call volume. Specifically, NWA claims its records show that it placed a total of 56 calls over an ap-proximately three month period. Of that total, NWA claims only 41 calls were placed to Plaintiff’s home, while the other 15 calls were placed to another num-ber that was later disconnected. Plaintiff counters that the exact number of calls could not be confirmed. In support of this assertion, Plaintiff cites to deposition testimony in which a representative of NWA testified about its record keeping. This court reviewed the deposition testimony, and found nothing to support Plaintiff’s assertion that the number of calls could not be confirmed. Further, Plaintiff has failed to offer evidence to contradict NWA’s explanation of its phone records, and further fails to acknowledge Plaintiff’s own phone records, which NWA claims matches its own phone logs.


The Court also held that knowledge by the creditor that the consumer was represented by counsel was not imputed to the debt collector, so the debt collector did not violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2)


Although the Tenth Circuit has not specifically addressed this issue, this court finds the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning persuasive. As such, any knowledge that G.E. had regarding the Plaintiff’s alleged attorney representation is not imputed to NWA. Because Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that NWA had prior knowledge that the updated address it obtained actually belong to a bankruptcy lawyer who she had once consulted, and because any knowledge that G.E. may have had about possible representation based an a letter from Ms. Janzen is not imputed to NWA, summary judgment is proper on this claim.