In Brown v. Hosto & Buchan, PLLC (2010 Wl 4352932 (W.D.Tn. 2010), Judge Mays framed the issue on a Motion to Dismiss as whether “a debt collector calling a debtor’s telephone seventeen times in one month and impermissibly calling a cellular telephone at least once plausibly violates section 1692d(5)”. The Court found that Plaintiff stated a claim, explaining that “the frequency of Hosto’s calls to Brown’s telephone and the manner in which Hosto called Brown’s cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system could plausibly cause an unsophisticated debtor to feel harassed, oppressed, or abused. . . the frequency and nature of these calls provide plausible grounds to infer that Hosto’s intent was to annoy, abuse, or harass Brown.”