HOOVER v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC.

Filing 31

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED FOR THAT PORTION OF COUNT I ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF & #167; 1692D, GENERALLY, § 1692E, AND § 1692F OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 1 ("FDCPA").IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PORTION OF COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF § 1692D, GENERALLY, § 1692(E) AND § 1692F OF THE FDCPA IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED FOR THAT PORTION OF COUNT I ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA GENERALLY AND THAT PORT ION OF COUNT I ALLEGING THAT DEFENDANT ACTED IN AN OTHERWISE DECEPTIVE, UNFAIR AND UNCONSCIONABLE MANNER AND FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE FDCPA. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED FOR COUNT II O F PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, DEFENDANT 'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 17, 2012 TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO STATE CLAIMS UNDER § 1692C(B) AND § 1692G OF THE FDCPA, AND TO CLARIFY THAT PORTION OF COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA GENERALLY AND ALLEGING THAT DEFENDANT ACTED IN AN OTHERWISE DECEPTIVE, UNFAIR AND UNCONSCIONABLE MANNER AND FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE FDCPA. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 8/24/12. 8/24/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(er, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANGELA HOOVER,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., )
)
Defendant
)
*

*

Civil Action
No. 11-cv-04322

*

APPEARANCES:
CRAIG THOR KIMMEL, ESQUIRE
TARA L. PATTERSON, ESQUIRE
On behalf of Plaintiff
LAUREN A. MOSER, ESQUIRE
ANDREW M. SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE
On behalf of Defendant
*

*

*

O P I N I O N
JAMES KNOLL GARDNER
United States District Judge
This matter is before the court on the Motion of
Defendant, Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., for Judgment on the
Pleadings, filed October 25, 2011.

Plaintiff, Angela Hoover’s

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
was filed November 8, 2011.1

1

In addition to defendant’s motion and plaintiff’s opposition, the
court also considered both parties’ briefs in support of their motion and
opposition, as well as defendant’s reply brief, plaintiff’s sur-reply,
plaintiff’s Complaint, and defendant’s answer.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
For the reasons expressed below, I grant in part, and
deny in part, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
Specifically, I grant defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings and dismiss with prejudice the claims in Count I of
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging that defendant violated § 1692d,
generally, of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)2
(which prohibits harassing, oppressing, or abusing a debtor in
the attempt to collect a debt); § 1692e of the FDCPA (which
prohibits false, deceptive or misleading representations by a
debt collector); and § 1692f of the FDCPA (which prohibits unfair
or unconscionable means to collect a debt).

I dismiss these

claims because I agree with defendant that the Complaint fails to
allege sufficient facts to support them.
I also grant defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and dismiss without prejudice to replead the claims in
Count I of plaintiff’s Complaint alleging that defendant violated
the FDCPA generally and that defendant acted in an otherwise
deceptive, unfair and unconscionable manner and failed to comply
with the FDCPA.

I dismiss these claims because I agree with

defendant that the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to
support them.

2

15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p.

- 2 -

Furthermore, I grant defendant’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings and dismiss with prejudice the claims in
Count II of plaintiff’s Complaint alleging that defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”)3 (which
prohibits calling a residential telephone line using an
artificial or prerecorded voice without prior consent).

I

dismiss these claims because I agree with defendant that the
Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support them.
However, I deny defendant’s motion in all other
respects.

Specifically, I conclude that the factual averments

contained in Count I plaintiff's Complaint support a reasonable
inference that defendant violated § 1692d(5) of the FDCPA (which
prohibits harassment by a debt collector by repeated or
continuous telephone calls).
Finally, I grant plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint to allege, if she can, sufficient facts to state claims
under §§ 1692c(b) and 1692g of the FDCPA.

I also grant plaintiff

leave to amend to allege, if she can, sufficient facts to support
that part of that part of Count I of her Complaint alleging that
defendant violated the FDCPA generally and that defendant acted
in an otherwise deceptive, unfair and unconscionable manner and
failed to comply with the FDCPA.

3

47 U.S.C. § 227.

- 3 -

JURISDICTION
This court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to
15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d)4 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges that defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and thus poses a federal question.
This court also has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that
defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and
because the conduct which plaintiff alleges violates the TCPA
arises out of the same case or controversy as plaintiff’s FDCPA
claims.5
VENUE
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
because a substantial part of the events giving rise to
plaintiff’s claims allegedly occurred in Strasburg, Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania, which is located in this judicial district.

4

Section 1692k(d) provides:
An action to enforce any liability created by this
subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States
district court without regard to the amount in controversy,
or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one
year from the date on which the violation occurs.

15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).
5
In Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Associates, 640 F.3d 72,
90 (3d Cir. 2011) the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
concluded that “neither the TCPA itself nor our decision in ErieNet precludes
district courts from hearing TCPA claims where an independent basis for
federal jurisdiction, like diversity or supplemental jurisdiction, exists.”

- 4 -

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c),
judgment on the pleadings will be granted only if “the movant
clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and
[it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Sikirica v.

Nationwide Insurance Company, 416 F.3d 214, 220 (3d Cir. 2005)
(citing Society Hill Civic Association v. Harris, 632 F.2d 1045,
1054 (3d Cir. 1980)).

The court “must view the facts presented

in the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Sikirica,

416 F.3d at 220.
A party may move for judgment on the pleadings “[a]fter
the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).

The pleadings are closed after an answer is

filed, unless a reply to any additional claims asserted in the
answer has not been filed.

Austin Powder Company v. Knorr

Contracting, Inc., 2009 WL 773695, at *1 (M.D.Pa. Mar. 20, 2009).
Ordinarily, in deciding a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, the court considers the pleadings and attached
exhibits,6 undisputedly authentic documents attached to the

6

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c).

- 5 -

motion for judgment on the pleadings if plaintiff’s claims are
based on the documents,7 and matters of public record.8
However, where, as here, a motion for judgment on the
pleadings asserts that plaintiff fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, I consider the motion under the same
standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion even where no motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) has been made.9

See, e.g., Turbe v.

Government of Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991);
Doe v. McVey, 381 F.Supp.2d 443, 448 (E.D.Pa. 2005)
(Pollak, S.J.).

Therefore, I consider defendant’s motion under a

Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review.
To determine the sufficiency of a complaint in these
circumstances, the court looks only to the facts alleged in the
complaint and the content of any documents to which the complaint
makes reference.

See, e.g., NIA Learning Center, Inc. v. Empire

Fire and Marine Insurance Companies, 2009 WL 3245424, at *7
(E.D.Pa. Oct. 1, 2009)(Baylson, J.).
A claim may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for
"failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
7

CitiSteel USA, Inc. v. General Electric Company, 78 Fed.Appx. 832,
835 (3d Cir. 2003); Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated
Industries, Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993).
8

Chemi Spa v. GlaxoSmithKline, 356 F.Supp.2d 495, 496-497 (E.D.Pa.
2005) (Bartle, J.); see also Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman,
38 F.3d 1380, 1385 n.2 (3d Cir. 1994).
9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(2) provides that the defense
of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted may be made by a
motion for judgment on the pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(2).

- 6 -

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion requires the court to examine the
sufficiency of the complaint.

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45,

78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80, 84 (1957) (abrogated in other
respects by Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).

Generally, in ruling on

a motion to dismiss, the court relies on the complaint, attached
exhibits, and matters of public record, including other judicial
proceedings.

Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir.

2008).
Except as provided in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9, a complaint is sufficient if it complies with
Rule 8(a)(2), which requires "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief".

Rule

8(a)(2) does not require heightened fact pleading of specifics,
but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570,

127 S.Ct. at 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d at 949.10
In determining whether a complaint is sufficient, the
court must accept all factual allegations as true, construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
10

The Supreme Court’s Opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
684, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1953, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 887 (2009), states clearly that
the “facial plausibility” pleading standard set forth in Twombly applies to
all civil suits in the federal courts. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside,
578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). This showing of facial plausibility then
“allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged”, and that plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949,
173 L.Ed.2d at 884).

- 7 -

determine whether, under any reasonable reading, the plaintiff
may be entitled to relief.

Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 (citing

Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir.
2008)).
Although “conclusory” or “bare-bones allegations” will
not survive a motion to dismiss, Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210, a
complaint may not be dismissed merely because it appears unlikely
that the plaintiff can prove those facts or will ultimately
prevail on the merits.

Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231.

Nonetheless,

to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must provide
"enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery
will reveal evidence of the necessary element."

Id. at 234

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965,
167 L.Ed.2d at 940) (internal quotations omitted).
The court is required to conduct a two-part analysis
when considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

First, the factual

matters averred in the complaint, and any attached exhibits,
should be separated from legal conclusions asserted.
578 F.3d at 210.

Fowler,

Any facts pled must be taken as true, and any

legal conclusions asserted may be disregarded.

Id. at 210-211.

Second, the court must determine whether those factual
matters averred are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a
“plausible claim for relief.”

Id. at 211 (quoting Iqbal,

556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. at 1950, 178 L.Ed.2d at 884).

- 8 -

Ultimately, this two-part analysis is “contextspecific” and requires the court to draw on “its judicial
experience and common sense” to determine if the facts pled in
the complaint have “nudged [plaintiff’s] claims” over the line
from “[merely] conceivable [or possible] to plausible.”

Iqbal,

556 U.S. at 679-680, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-1951, 178 L.Ed.2d at 884885.
A well-pled complaint may not be dismissed simply
because “it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those
facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and
unlikely.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965,

167 L.Ed.2d at 940-941 (internal quotations omitted).
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
In her two-count Complaint, plaintiff Angela Hoover
alleges that defendant Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. violated
15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d-1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (Count I) and section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (Count II).

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B).11

Specifically, in Count I plaintiff alleges that defendant: (1)
violated the FDCPA generally; (2) violated § 1692d, which
prohibits harassing a consumer in the collection of an alleged
debt; (3) violated § 1692d(5), which prohibits calling a consumer
repeatedly or continuously with intent to harass, annoy, or abuse

11

Complaint at ¶¶ 41 and 50.

- 9 -

the consumer; (4) violated § 1692e, which prohibits using false,
deceptive, or misleading means in the collection of an alleged
debt; (5) violated § 1692f, which prohibits using unfair or
unconscionable means to attempt to collect an alleged debt; and
(6) acted in an otherwise deceptive, unfair and unconscionable
manner and failed to comply with the FDCPA.12
In Count II of plaintiff’s Complaint, she alleges that
defendant violated § 227(b)(1)(B) of the TCPA, which prohibits
calling a residential telephone using an artificial prerecorded
voice without the consent of the individual being called.13
FACTS
Based upon the well-pled averments in plaintiff’s
Complaint, which I must accept as true under the applicable
standard of review discussed above, the pertinent facts are as
follows.
Plaintiff Angela Hoover is an adult individual who
resides in Strasburg, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

Defendant

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. is a debt collection company
which sought to collect an alleged consumer debt from plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s alleged debt arose from transactions primarily for
personal, family, and household purposes.14

12

Complaint at ¶ 41(a)-(f).

13

Complaint at ¶ 50.

14

Complaint at ¶¶ 6, 7-9, 15 and 16.

- 10 -

Defendant contacted plaintiff constantly and
continuously on her home telephone from late May, 2010 until
early August, 2010, seeking payment for an alleged consumer debt.
Plaintiff received both telephone calls and recorded voice
messages from defendant.

Defendant willfully and knowingly used

an “automated telephone dialing system or pre-recorded or
artificial voice” when contacting plaintiff on the telephone.15
Defendant contacted plaintiff for debt collection
purposes, on average, more than ten times per week for
approximately eleven weeks.

Examples of particular times

defendant placed calls to plaintiff's home include Monday, May
24, 2010, at 8:15 a.m., Wednesday, May 26, 2010, at 9:25 a.m.,
and Friday, May 28, 2010, at 8:24 a.m.16
Plaintiff received automated, prerecorded voice
messages on her home answering machine, which were able to be
heard by members of plaintiff’s family, including her minor
children.

The voice messages contained the following message:
This is a message for Angela Hoover. If this
is not you please hang up or disconnect. By
continuing to listen to this message you
acknowledge you are Angela Hoover. This is
Monarch Recovery Management. This communication
is from a debt collector. This is an attempt to
collect a debt and any information obtained will
be used for that purpose. Please contact me about

15

Complaint at ¶¶ 28 and 32.

16

Complaint at ¶¶ 15, 17-20 and 27.

- 11 -

this matter at 888-220-2577 and refer to file
number 98500370. Thank you.17
Examples of particular times defendant left the above voice
message include June 8, 2010, at 8:23 a.m.; July 5, 2010; July 6,
2010 at 9:26 a.m.; July 11, 2010 at 12:20 p.m.; July 13, 2010, at
8:57 a.m.; and August 3, 2010, at 8:13 a.m.18
Plaintiff provided neither defendant, nor the original
creditor of the alleged debt, express consent to make telephone
calls by an automatic telephone dialing system or by a
prerecorded or artificial voice.

Defendant knew that it did not

have plaintiff’s consent prior to placing these calls.19
Finally, when plaintiff spoke with a representative of
defendant, defendant’s representative asked plaintiff personal
questions, including whether she was married and how many
dependents she had.

Plaintiff further avers that defendant's

representative sought other unidentified personal information.20
DISCUSSION
Count I
Section 1692d: Harassment or Abuse
Requesting Personal Information
Section 1692d of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
17

Complaint at ¶¶ 22 and 24-27 and Exhibits A-E.

18

Complaint at ¶¶ 21-27 and Exhibits A-E.

19

Complaint at ¶¶ 29, 31 and 32.

20

Complaint at ¶ 33.

- 12 -

provides that “[a] debt collector may not engage in any conduct
the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse
any person in connection with the collection of a debt.”
15 U.S.C. § 1692d.
Initially, plaintiff contends that defendant violated
§ 1692d generally by repeatedly asking her personal questions,
including whether she was married and how many dependents she
had.21

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

requires that a district court analyze the statutory requirements
of the FDCPA “from the perspective of the least sophisticated
consumer.”

Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,

550 F.3d 294, 298 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Rosenau v. Unifund
Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008)).
Violations of § 1692d involve “tactics intended to
embarrass, upset, or frighten a debtor.”

Donatelli v. Warmbrodt,

2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 69207, at *32 (W.D.Pa. 2011) (quoting
Harvey v. Great Seneca Financial Corporation, 453 F.3d 324, 330
(6th Cir. 2006)).
Generally, “whether conduct harasses, oppresses, or
abuses will be a question for the jury”.

Regan v. Law Offices of

Edwin A. Abrahamsen & Associates, P.C., 2009 U.S.Dist. LEXIS
112046, at *18 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 1, 2009) (Yohn Jr., S.J.) (quoting
Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168, 1179 (11th Cir.

21

Id.

- 13 -

1985).

However, the conduct plaintiff alleges must still meet a

threshold level in which the facts support a reasonable inference
that she has made a plausible claim to relief under § 1692d.
Accordingly, a court will not permit “bizarre or idiosyncratic
interpretations of collection notices”.

Campuzano-Burgos,

550 F.3d at 298 (quoting Rosenau, 539 F.3d at 221).
Plaintiff contends that “the reason [Congress] passed
the FDCPA was because of the abundant evidence of ‘invasions of
individual privacy,’ stemming from debt collection activity.”22
This intent is demonstrated in § 1692d(3), which states that a
debt collector may not publish “a list of consumers who allegedly
refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting agency or to
persons meeting the requirements” of other sections of the Act.
15 U.S.C. § 1692d(3).
However, nothing in § 1692 suggests that a goal of the
FDCPA is to prevent debtors from revealing private information
about themselves.

Pursuant to § 1692d(3), the privacy issue the

FDCPA sought to prevent was debt collectors revealing private
information about debtors, not debt collectors encouraging
debtors to reveal private information about themselves.
Plaintiff has provided no authority to support her
proposition that the act of a debt collector asking for personal

22

Plaintiff, Angela Hoover's Brief in Opposition to Defendant,
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at
page 13.

- 14 -

information from a consumer constitutes harassment under § 1692d.
Moreover, I conclude that plaintiff’s claims do not rise to the
level of seriousness against which § 1692d is intended to
protect.
For example, in Thomas v. LDG Financial Services, LLC,
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted a motion to dismiss a § 1692d claim when
defendant debt collector told plaintiff debtor that the creditor
was going to be paid “one way or the other”, yelled that “Georgia
is a garnishable state”, and then hung up the phone.
463 F.Supp.2d 1370, 1371-1372 (N.D.Ga. 2006).
In Unterreiner v. Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC,
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted defendant debt collector’s motion to dismiss a
§ 1692d claim where plaintiff debtor alleged that defendant
“screamed” at her, told her that she owed “all kinds of money”,
and asked: “How could you go and max out a card like that?”.
2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 60786, at *2 (N.D.Ill. 2010).23
If defendant asked plaintiff for personal information
“repeatedly or continuously”, which is not pled by plaintiff

23

See also Kelemen v. Professional Collection Systems, 2011 WL
31396, at *3 (M.D.Fla. 2011); Bassett v. I.C. System, Inc., 715 F.Supp.2d 803,
809 (N.D.Ill. 2010); and Guajardo v. GC Services, LP, 2009 WL 3715603, at *1
(S.D.Tex. 2009).

- 15 -

here,24 that may constitute a violation of § 1692d(5), which is
addressed below.

However, I conclude that the mere fact that

defendant asked plaintiff for personal information is insufficient to support a reasonable inference that she has a plausible
claim to relief under § 1692d generally.
Accordingly, I grant defendant’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings to the extent that plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a
violation of § 1692d generally and dismiss with prejudice that
portion of Count I alleging a § 1692d general claim.
§ 1692d(5): Calling repeatedly or continuously
Next, plaintiff contends that defendant violated
subsection 5 of § 1692d, which prohibits “[c]ausing a telephone
to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation
repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass
any person at the called number.”

15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5).

Hence,

plaintiff must provide sufficient facts to support a plausible
claim not only that defendant contacted her by telephone
repeatedly or continuously, but also did so with intent to annoy,
abuse, or harass her.
Plaintiff avers that defendant contacted her by
telephone, on average, more than ten times per week, for

24
In her Complaint, plaintiff avers that when she spoke to
defendant, defendant asked questions about her marital status, number of
dependents, and requested other personal information. Complaint at ¶ 33.
However, plaintiff does not aver that these questions were asked "repeatedly
or continuously" or allege how many times plaintiff spoke to defendant.

- 16 -

approximately eleven weeks.25

To determine whether plaintiff has

pled conduct by defendant constituting “actionable harassment or
annoyance turns not only on the volume of calls made, but also on
the pattern of the calls.”

Shand-Pistilli v. Professional

Account Services, Inc., 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 75056, at *11
(E.D.Pa. July 26, 2010)(O’Neill, S.J.).
In Shand-Pistilli, my colleague Senior United States
District Judge Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. concluded that plaintiff
pled sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the
purpose of defendant’s repeated phone calls was to harass or
annoy plaintiff.

Id. at *11-12.

While unlike in Shand-Pistilli,

plaintiff in this case does not aver that she asked defendant to
stop contacting her, plaintiff does aver that the calls made to
her home telephone were constant and continuous,26 as plaintiff
in Shand-Pistilli also alleged.

Id. at *12.

Furthermore, the volume of calls in this case, 110
times over an eleven-week period, is significantly higher than
other cases in which courts in this judicial district permitted
the parties to reach the discovery stage.

For example, in Shand-

Pistilli, the court denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss a
§ 1692d(5) claim when plaintiff averred that defendant had made

25

Complaint at ¶¶ 15, 17, 19, 20 and 27.

26

Complaint at ¶ 17.

- 17 -

“continuous” calls to plaintiff, without specifying an amount.
Id. at *12-13.
In addition, my colleague United States District Judge
Gene Pratter denied defendant’s motion to dismiss a § 1692d(5)
claim when plaintiff identified nine times when defendant called
her in a thirty-day period, and averred that defendant called her
other times as well.

Carr v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc.,

2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 145993 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 20, 2011) (Pratter,
J.).
Plaintiff cites the decision in Krapf v. Nationwide
Credit Inc., 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 57849 (C.D.Cal. May 21, 2010),
where the United States District Court for the Central District
of California noted that district courts disagree as to the
volume of calls sufficient to raise a plausible claim under
§ 1692d(5).27

Although the cases cited by the district court in

Krapf require plaintiff to meet a high threshold of call volume,
plaintiffs in those cases were permitted to proceed through
discovery before summary judgment was granted for failure to
meet that threshold.
For example in Tucker v. The CBE Group, Inc.,
710 F.Supp.2d 1301 (M.D.Fla. 2010) the court granted defendant’s
motion for summary judgment when plaintiff averred that defendant

27

Plaintiff, Angela Hoover’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant,
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at
pages 8 and 9.

- 18 -

called her 57 times over an unspecified period, and once called
her seven times in one day.

In Saltzman v. I.C. System, Inc.,

2009 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 90681, at *10-11 & n.4 (E.D.Mich. Sept. 30,
2009) the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment
when plaintiff averred that defendant called plaintiff between
ten and twenty times successfully and between twenty and fifty
times unsuccessfully over approximately one month.
Defendant cites no instances where courts precluded a
case with such a high volume of calls from proceeding to the
discovery stage.

Rather, Shand-Pistilli and Carr, discussed

above, reveal that in this judicial district, judges lean toward
giving plaintiff an opportunity to conduct discovery if plaintiff
alleges a significant volume of calls, even without alleging
separate facts supporting defendant’s intent.
Defendant cites a Western District of Washington case
in which the United States District Court found that § 1692d(5)
“does not even prevent a collector from calling multiple times in
a week, or even in a day.28

Allegations of daily, or nearly

daily, phone calls do not raise a triable issue of fact to claims
under § 1692d(5).”

Dudley v. Powell Law Office, P.C.,

2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 111688, at *2 (W.D.Wash. Sept. 29, 2011).

28
Brief in Support of Motion of Defendant, Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc., for Judgment on the Pleadings at page 6.

- 19 -

In Dudley, the court granted defendant’s motion to
dismiss plaintiff’s § 1692d(5) claim.

However, the Dudley case

is distinguishable from the instant matter because in Dudley,
defendant called plaintiff only four times in one day, and at no
other time.

On the other hand, in the case before this court,

defendant called plaintiff twice per day, each day for eleven
weeks.
As noted above, “whether conduct harasses, oppresses,
or abuses will be a question for the jury”.

Regan, 2009

U.S.Dist. LEXIS 112046, at *18 (quoting Jeter, 760 F.2d at 1179).
Absent authority in this district that the volume and pattern of
calls in this case fails to demonstrate an intent to harass, I
find that plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to support a
reasonable inference that defendant violated § 1692d(5) of the
FDCPA.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings regarding plaintiff’s § 1692d(5) claim is denied.
Section 1692e: False or misleading representations
Section 1692e of the FDCPA provides that “[a] debt
collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any
debt.”

15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

A communication is deceptive for

purposes of the FDCPA if “it can be reasonably read to have two
or more different meanings, one of which is inaccurate, viewed
from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer.”

- 20 -

Reed v. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, 2009 WL 2461852, at *4
(E.D.Pa. Aug. 11, 2009)(DuBois, S.J.).
Plaintiff contends that defendant violated § 1692e by
failing to include the amount of the alleged debt and the
identity of the creditor to whom the debt was owed in the voice
messages defendant left for plaintiff.29

Plaintiff does not,

however, claim that defendant violated § 1692g, which requires
the following:
Within five days after the initial
communication with a consumer in connection with
the collection of any debt, a debt collector
shall, unless the following information is
contained in the initial communication or the
consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a
written notice containing–
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt
is owed;
15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1) and (2).
Plaintiff argues that there was no written
communication from defendant, and that plaintiff did not know who
the original creditor was the entire time defendant was
attempting to contact her.30

Even if I were to take these

statements as true, which I do not because plaintiff does not
include these facts in her Complaint, I conclude that Congress
29

Plaintiff, Angela Hoover’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant,
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at
page 15.
30

Id. at page 16.

- 21 -

intended for omissions of such information to be dealt with under
§ 1692g.
Under § 1692e, Congress explicitly requires debt
collectors to inform consumers of the fact that they are debt
collectors and that any information obtained will be used for
that purpose.

15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11).

That Congress did not

include other requirements, such as the amount of the debt and
the original creditor’s identity, while requiring such
information in § 1692g, indicates that Congress did not intend
for the omission of such information to constitute a violation of
§ 1692e.

See Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395, 404-

405, 111 S.Ct. 840, 846-847, 112 L.Ed.2d 919, 930 (1991).
In Gozlon-Peretz the United States Supreme Court stated
that “[w]here Congress includes particular language in one
section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same
Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally
and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion” (quoting
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 300,
78 L.Ed.2d 17, 24 (1983)).
In addition to the lack of an explicit requirement in
§ 1692e and the existence of such a requirement in § 1692g, the
conduct alleged by plaintiff would not amount to a violation of
§ 1692g.

Section 1692g does not disallow withholding the amount

of the debt and the original creditor’s identity when speaking
- 22 -

with the debtor.

Rather, § 1692g disallows not sending a

subsequent writing containing such information when it is not
disclosed in the initial communication.

Plaintiff does not

allege anywhere in her Complaint that defendant did not
communicate to her the amount of the debt or the identity of the
original creditor in the initial communication or in a subsequent
written communication.
Furthermore, plaintiff fails to cite any authority
providing that an omission of the amount of the debt or the
identity of the original creditor renders a debt collection call
deceptive or misleading in violation of § 1692e.

Moreover, my

independent research reveals no such authority.
Given an absence of authority consistent with
plaintiff’s § 1692e claim, I interpret the inclusion of the
requirements that the consumer be made aware of the amount of the
debt and the original creditor’s identity in § 1692g of the
FDCPA, and the lack thereof in § 1692e, to indicate Congress’
intent that the omission of such information in voice messages
left for the consumer is not a violation of § 1692e.

Therefore,

I grant defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to the
extent that it claims a violation of § 1692e, and give plaintiff
leave to amend that portion of Count I of her Complaint to
attempt to state a claim under § 1692g.

- 23 -

Section 1692f: Unfair practices
Section 1692f of the FDCPA provides that “[a] debt
collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect
or attempt to collect any debt.”

15 U.S.C. § 1692f.

Plaintiff

contends that defendant also violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.”31

For

the reasons below, I grant defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings with regard to this part of Count I of plaintiff’s
Complaint.
Plaintiff contends that the voice messages defendant
left for plaintiff were unfair or unconscionable because the
messages “were able to be heard by other people in her family,
including her minor children.”32

Part of plaintiff’s argument

for her § 1692f claim is that this type of behavior is not
explicitly prohibited in any other section of the FDCPA.33
Plaintiff is correct in contending that § 1692f
“operates as a catchall for conduct that is recognizably unfair,
but not explicitly enumerated in other sections of the FDCPA.”34
See Shand-Pistilli, 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 75056, at *17.

However,

this conduct is better suited as a claim under § 1692c(b).
31

Complaint at ¶ 41(e).

32
Complaint at ¶ 21; Plaintiff, Angela Hoover’s Brief in Opposition
to Defendant, Monarch Recovery Management, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings at page 16.
33

Plaintiff, Angela Hoover’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant,
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at
page 16.
34

Id.

- 24 -

Section 1692c(b) explicitly provides that debt
collectors may not communicate to a third party any information
related to the collection of a debt “without the prior consent of
the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express
permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably
necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy”.
15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b).
The FDCPA is a strict liability statute, so the
plaintiff need not show intent on the defendant’s part.
LaSalle Bank, 692 F.3d 364, 368 (3d Cir. 2011).

Allen v.

This general

rule applies to § 1692c as well.
In Zortman v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc., the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied
defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings of a § 1692c(b)
claim where defendant left messages related to the collection of
a debt on plaintiff’s home and cellular phones, and the messages
were overheard by plaintiff’s children.
876 (D.Minn. 2011).

819 F.Supp.2d 874, 875-

The Zortman court reasoned that when

considering § 1692c(b) “in light of the FDCPA as a whole,
[§ 1692c(b)] does not require deliberate or purposeful
disclosures to a third party.”

Id. at 880.

Other courts have also found that voice messages
regarding the collection of a debt that are heard by third
parties could constitute a violation of § 1692c(b).

- 25 -

In

Gryzbowski v. I.C. System, Inc., the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, quoting the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, found that the
FDCPA does not give a debt collector the right to leave messages
on an answering machine.
Also, a debt collector cannot fail to disclose certain
information in a voice message in violation of § 1692e(11), out
of fear of disclosing this information to third parties in
violation of § 1692c(b).

691 F.Supp.2d 618, 622-623 (M.D.Pa.

2010) (quoting Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc.,
584 F.3d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009)).

Accord Foti v. NCO

Financial Systems, Inc., 424 F.Supp.2d 643, 659 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
The United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey held in FTC v. Check Enforcement that a plaintiff
states a claim under § 1692c(b) when plaintiff alleges that
family members and other third parties heard a message left on
the home answering machine by a debt collector attempting to
collect an alleged consumer debt.
at *24 (D.N.J. July 1, 2005).

2005 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 34349,

Accord Leahey v. Franklin

Collection Service, Inc., 756 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1327 (N.D.Ala.
2010).
The United States District Court for the District of
Florida has held that if a third party listens to a message from
a debt collector regarding an alleged consumer debt in the

- 26 -

presence of the intended recipient, the debt collector could be
in violation of § 1692c(b).

Berg v. Merchants Association

Collection Division, Inc., 586 F.Supp.2d 1336, 1343-1344
(S.D.Fla. 2008).
Given the above authority, plaintiff may be able to
state a claim under § 1692c(b).

That Congress did not include

third party disclosure in § 1692f, yet did include it in
§ 1692c(b), generally means that Congress intended for third
party disclosure not to constitute a violation of § 1692f.

See

Gozlon-Peretz, 498 U.S. at 404-405, 111 S.Ct. at 846-847,
112 L.Ed.2d at 930.
Plaintiff fails to cite any authority demonstrating
that communicating information to third parties constitutes a
violation of § 1692f.

My research also reveals no such authority

supporting plaintiff’s § 1692f claim.

Furthermore, a complaint

fails to state a claim under § 1692f unless it identifies some
misconduct by the debt collector other than that which provides
the basis for the plaintiff’s claims under other provisions of
the FDCPA.

Shand-Pistilli, 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 75056, at *17.
While plaintiff has not used the third party disclosure

to claim a violation of § 1692c(b), as noted above, Congress’
intention in including § 1692f was to make it a catch-all for any
conduct that did not violate any other section of the FDCPA.
Because I find the conclusion of my colleague Senior Judge

- 27 -

O’Neill in Shand-Pistilli persuasive, I conclude that if
plaintiff can claim a violation of another section of the FDCPA,
she fails to state a claim under § 1692f.
Accordingly, I grant defendant’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings with regard to that portion of Count I alleging a
violation of § 1692f.

However, I grant plaintiff leave to amend

her Complaint to attempt to state a claim for violation of
§ 1692c(b).
Plaintiff's Remaining FDCPA Claims
In her Complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant
violated the FDCPA generally (claim 1) and that defendant acted
in an otherwise deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable manner and
failed to comply with the FDCPA (claim 6).35
In its motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendant
does not specifically argue for judgment with respect to claims
(1) and (6) of Count I of plaintiff's Complaint.

However,

defendant does state in its motion that "judgment on the
pleadings is warranted because [p]laintiff fails to offer a
single credible fact which would give rise to a viable claim
against [defendant] under the FDCPA or under the TCPA."36
Because plaintiff does not allege separate facts for
claims (1) and (6) of Count I of her Complaint, it is not clear
35

Complaint at ¶ 41.

36
Motion of Defendant, Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., for
Judgment on the Pleadings at ¶ 20.

- 28 -

what plaintiff is alleging when she states that defendant
violated the FDCPA generally or that defendant acted in an
otherwise deceptive, unfair and unconscionable manner and failed
to comply with the FDCPA.
Claim (6) of Count I of plaintiff's Complaint appears
to fall under § 1692e, which prohibits debt collectors from
employing false, deceptive, or misleading representations, and
§ 1692f, which prohibits debt collectors from behaving in an
unfair or unconscionable manner.
If plaintiff intends to use the same conduct being
alleged as a violation of §§ 1692e and 1692f as a violation of
another section of the FDCPA, that would run counter to Congress'
intent.

See Gozlon-Peretz, 498 U.S. at 404-405, 111 S.Ct. at

846-847, 112 L.Ed.2d at 930.
If plaintiff intends to use different conduct to state
a claim for a violation of another section of the FDCPA,
plaintiff has not alleged what this separate conduct is and what
particular section of the FDCPA defendant has violated, other
than the sections plaintiff had explicitly cited, §§ 1692d-f.
The lack of clarity in plaintiff's Complaint makes it
very difficult to determine whether she has asserted claims upon
which relief can be granted.

Moreover, because of the lack of

clarity, I conclude that defendant has not been provided with
sufficient notice of the claims against it.

- 29 -

In appropriate circumstances, the court has the
discretion to direct more specific factual allegations from
plaintiffs.

See Thomas v. Independence Township, 463 F.3d 285,

289 (3d Cir. 2006).

I find this an appropriate circumstance for

the exercise of my discretion to permit plaintiff to file an
amended complaint to clarify the allegations being made in claims
(1) and (6) of her Complaint.
Count II
Telephone Consumer Protection Act
The TCPA prohibits a person or entity within the United
States from “initiat[ing] any telephone call to any residential
telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to
deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called
party”.

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B).

There are exceptions to this

rule.
Congress delegated to the Federal Communications
Commission (“FCC”) the authority to issue rules or orders that
exempt certain conduct from the purview of Section (b)(1)(B) of
the TCPA.

47 U.S.C. §§ 227(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2)(B).
Congress required in the TCPA that if the exemptions

the FCC created were for commercial purposes, the FCC needed to
ensure that the calls exempted would not “adversely affect the
privacy rights that [the TCPA] is intended to protect”, and would

- 30 -

“not include the transmission of any unsolicited advertisement”.
47 U.S.C.§§ 227(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) and (II).
In 1992 the FCC acted on its authority and published a
report that created an exception to Section (b)(1)(B) of the
TCPA: a person or entity may call a residential line with an
artificial or prerecorded voice without the prior consent of the
person being called if the call is “made to any person with whom
the caller has an established business relationship at the time
the call is made”, or if it is “made for a commercial purpose but
does not include or introduce an unsolicited advertisement or
constitute a telephone solicitation”.

47 C.F.R.

§§ 64.1200(a)(2)(ii) and (iii).
In its 1992 report, the FCC also stated that because
“all debt collection circumstances involve a prior or existing
business relationship”, and “do not transmit an unsolicited
advertisement”, it is unnecessary to have an explicit exception
solely for debt collection calls.

See 7 FCC Rcd. 8752, 8771-8773

(1992).
The FCC reaffirmed this position in 1995 and 2008:
As we stated in the Report and Order,
prerecorded debt collection calls are adequately
covered by exemptions adopted in our rules. Our
rules explicitly exempt calls made either by a
party with whom the subscriber has an established
business relationship or calls that do not
transmit an unsolicited advertisement and are made
for a commercial purpose.

- 31 -

10 FCC Rcd 12391, 12400 (FCC 1995); 23 FCC Rcd 559, 565

¶

11

(FCC 2008).
The FCC has defined an “established business
relationship” as follows:
[A] prior or existing relationship formed by a
voluntary two-way communication between a person
or entity and a residential subscriber with or
without an exchange of consideration, on the basis
of the subscriber’s purchase or transaction with
the entity within the eighteen (18) months
immediately preceding the date of the telephone
call or on the basis of the subscriber’s inquiry
or application regarding products or services
offered by the entity within the three months
immediately preceding the date of the call, which
relationship has not been previously terminated by
either party.
47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(5).
Most district courts, as well as the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have given deference
to the FCC’s categorical statement that all debt collection calls
made to residential homes, including erroneous calls made to nondebtors, are exempted from the TCPA, despite the fact that it
seems non-debtors do not have an established business
relationship with either the defendant or the original creditor
for whom the defendant is attempting to collect.

See Meadows v.

Franklin Collection Service, Inc., 414 Fed.Appx. 230, 235
(11th Cir. 2011); Anderson v. AFNI, Inc., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS
51368, at *30-31 (E.D.Pa. May 11, 2011) (Dalzell, J.); McBride v.
Affiliated Credit Services, Inc., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 23131,

- 32 -

at *8 (D.Or. Mar. 6, 2011); and Santino v. NCO Financial Systems,
Inc., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 18185, at *12-13 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 24,
2011).
In contrast, a minority of district courts have
concluded that the FCC has not considered non-debtors in terms of
the TCPA, and that the exceptions the FCC created do not apply to
erroneous calls made to non-debtors.
In Watson v. NCO Group, Inc., my colleague United
States District Judge Legrome D. Davis concluded that because the
FCC proceeded from the assumption that all debt collection calls
involve a prior business relationship, and erroneous calls made
to non-debtors involve no such relationship, then the FCC did not
consider erroneous debt collection calls in creating its
exceptions to the TCPA.

462 F.Supp.2d 641, 644 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 3,

2006) (Davis, J.).
Courts that follow Watson37 analyze the facts of the
case and decide whether the call falls under the exception for
commercial calls that “do not adversely affect privacy rights and
do not transmit an unsolicited advertisement.”

Id.

It is true that non-debtors have no prior business
relationship with debt collection agencies.

37

However, I am

This court is aware of only one court that has followed Watson for
the proposition that the FCC did not consider erroneous debt collection calls
in creating its exemptions to the TCPA. See Jenkins v. Allied Interstate,
Inc., 2009 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 94183, at *9-10 (W.D.N.C. 2009) where the court
stated that “[c]alls erroneously made by a debt collector to an incorrect cell
phone number are covered by [§ 227(b)(3)(C)] of the TCPA.” (citing Watson).

- 33 -

persuaded by the majority of jurisdictions that have held that
all debt collection calls, even calls made to non-debtors, fall
under the exemptions the FCC already created, specifically the
exception for commercial calls that do not transmit an
unsolicited advertisement and do not constitute a telephone
solicitation.

47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)(iii).

I agree with the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York, which stated in Franasiak v.
Palisades Collection, LLC that it is up to the FCC to determine
whether a non-debtor’s privacy rights have been violated, and
that by classifying all debt collection calls as within their
exceptions to the TCPA, the FCC has made that decision.
822 F.Supp.2d 320, 325 (W.D.N.Y. 2011).
The FCC created exceptions to the TCPA and stated that
all debt collection calls are covered by the exceptions.

Thus, I

exercise my discretion not to question that determination,
especially when that determination has been twice repeated, and
not changed or clarified since the Watson decision.
10 FCC Rcd 12391, 12400 (FCC 1995); 23 FCC Rcd 559, 565

¶

11

(FCC 2008).
Even if I were to consider, as did Watson, whether
defendant violated plaintiff’s privacy rights, plaintiff's TCPA
claim would still be dismissed.

Once the court in Watson

concluded that the FCC did not consider non-debtors in creating

- 34 -

its exceptions to the TCPA, the court analyzed itself whether
that particular case fell under one of the FCC’s exceptions.
The only exception it could fall under was a commercial
call that did not transfer an unsolicited advertisement or
constitute a telephone solicitation.
§ 64.1200(a)(2)(iii).

47 C.F.R.

While calls to non-debtors seem to fall

under this exception, the court must still consider whether the
non-debtor's privacy rights have been violated.

Title 47 U.S.C.

§ 227(b)(1)(B) ensures that any exceptions the FCC made to the
TCPA would not “adversely affect the privacy rights that [the
TCPA] is intended to protect”.
The Watson court held that non-debtors have “vastly
greater privacy rights” than debtors.
at 644.

Watson, 462 F.Supp.2d

In Watson, plaintiff non-debtor received over 200 calls

from defendant over a period of five months, and spent over 53
hours speaking with 29 of defendant’s agents to explain that he
did not owe defendant any debt and repeatedly and unsuccessfully
attempted to stop the debt collection calls.

Id. at 643.

In Watson, Judge Davis concluded that “[w]hile the FCC
has declared that a debtor’s privacy rights are not adversely
affected when he receives debt collection calls...a non-debtor’s
rights are in fact violated when he is subjected to repeated
annoying and abusive debt collection calls that he remains
powerless to stop.”

Id. at 644-45 (emphasis added).

- 35 -

The case at hand is factually distinguishable from
Watson.

Plaintiff in this case does not allege in her Complaint

that she ever attempted to contact defendant to say that she was
a non-debtor, or that she ever attempted to get the calls to
stop.

Even if the court interprets the use of the phrase

“alleged debt” throughout the Complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and takes it as true that plaintiff
was a non-debtor, unlike in Watson, plaintiff did not remain
“powerless to stop” defendant’s calls.

Id.

The reason the Watson court ruled against the FCC’s
seemingly clear statement that all debt collection calls made to
residential telephone lines are exempt from the TCPA is because
of the extreme facts giving rise to the invasion of privacy in
that case.

Though the FCC may have decided that debt collection

calls do not constitute invasions of privacy against which the
TCPA is intended to protect, the Commission could not have
envisioned the extreme facts in Watson.
Because plaintiff’s privacy rights here were not
violated to the extent that plaintiff’s were in Watson, I will
defer to the FCC’s position that all debt collection calls fall
under its exceptions to the TCPA, and that the debt collection
calls made to plaintiff do not constitute an invasion of privacy
as a matter of law.

- 36 -

Accordingly, defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings with regard to plaintiff’s TCPA claim contained in
Count II of plaintiff’s Complaint is granted and Count II is
dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, I grant defendant’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in part and deny it in part.
I dismiss plaintiff’s claim under the § 1692d, generally, of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act with prejudice.
I dismiss plaintiff’s claim under § 1692e with
prejudice, and grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint
to attempt to state a claim under § 1692g.
I dismiss plaintiff’s claim under § 1692f with
prejudice, and grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint
to attempt to state a claim under § 1692c(b).38
I also dismiss that portion of Count I of plaintiff's
Complaint alleging that defendant violated the FDCPA generally
and that defendant acted in an otherwise deceptive, unfair and
unconscionable manner and failed to comply with the FDCPA.

38
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make it clear that
the court should freely give leave to amend a complaint when amendment is not
futile. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). See also Barr v. Diguglielmo, 348 Fed.Appx.
769, 775 n.4 (3d Cir. 2009) which directs the district court to grant
plaintiff leave to amend his complaint after vacating the district court’s
Order granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly,
I have permitted plaintiff to file an amended complaint to attempt to assert
claims under § 1692c(b) and § 1692g.

- 37 -

I grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to
clarify such claims in Count I of her Complaint.
Finally, I deny defendant’s motion in all other
respects.

Specifically, I permit plaintiff’s § 1692d(5) claim to

proceed.

- 38 -