In Daniel v. West Asset Management, Inc., 2011 WL 5142980 (E.D.Mich. 2011), Judge Cleland granted summary judgment against a debtor on the debtor’s FDCPA harassment claim:
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue for trial because “Plaintiff has offered no indication on the number of calls, the time of calls, the content of any conversations occurring during such calls, or any other information that might reveal a § 1692d violation.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 8.) Indeed, the only evidence in the record before the court to support Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant’s collection activities were harassing, oppressive, or abusive, is Defendant’s own admission that it placed 67 calls to Plaintiff during an approximately six month period. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at ¶ 11.) But the volume of calls alone does not establish a violation of § 1692d(5). See Pugliese, 2010 WL 2632562 at *9. Plaintiff must offer evidence beyond the mere number of calls to support her allegation that the telephone calls were harassing, oppressive, or abusive. Here, the only evidence offered related to the nature and pattern of calls is Defendant’s uncontroverted evidence that it never placed a call before 8:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m., nor did it ever immediately call Plaintiff back after speaking with her or ending a prior call. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at ¶ 11.) In fact, Plaintiff never answered a call from Defendant, and the only telephonic contact Defendant had with Plaintiff were the two calls placed by Plaintiff to Defendant on November 27, 2009. (Id.) Because Plaintiff has failed to proffer any evidence to show that Defendant’s collection activities were harassing, oppressive, or abusive, Plaintiff has not carried her burden of showing that a genuine issue of fact exists for trial. Therefore, summary judgment will be granted in favor Defendant on Plaintiff’s § 1692d(5) claim.