In Fry v. Berks Credit and Collections, Inc., here, the Magistrate found no FDCPA telephonic harassment for 69 phone calls made to Plaintiffs’ home in two months, where there nineteen days during which Defendant placed three calls to Plaintiffs and five other days during which Defendant placed two calls, five days during which only one call was made and 24 days during which no calls were made.


After consideration of the record and precedent, the undersigned believes no reasonable juror could decide that making 69 calls over a two month period, when (1) the calls were never made more than three times per day; (2) the calls were never immediately following one another; (3) the debtor never communicated anything to the collector let alone ever told them to stop calling; (4) there were 24 days in the two-month period when no calls were made; and (5) at most only one call was ever answered, shows an intent to annoy, abuse, or harass. This determination is especially bolstered by the fact that Defendants made no more than one successful contact with the debtor’s spouse, and no successful contacts with the debtor, after at least 68 unsuccessful attempts. Following Saltzman, Hicks, and Millsap, this ratio of unsuccessful to successful calls suggests a difficulty in reaching Mrs. Fry, not an intent to abuse, harass, or annoy any person at the called number. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue.