In Daniel v. West Asset Management, Inc., 2011 WL 2412950 (E.D.Mich. 2011), Judge Lujan rejected a TCPA claim against a debt collector based on land-line calls to a debtor. “Plaintiff Rochelle Daniel filed her third amended complaint against Defendant West Asset Management, Inc. Among its twenty-two counts, the complaint asserts fourteen counts of vio-lating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by placing automated and prerecorded telephone calls to Plaintiff’s residential landline for the purpose of debt collection.” Judge Lujan found that the allegation stated no claim, explaining:
Viewing the facts alleged in the complaint in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendant made fourteen automated telephone calls to Plaintiff for a commercial purpose and without Plaintiff’s consent. Even with such facts, however, Defendant is not liable under the TCPA because the calls fall within the two exceptions listed above. Prerecorded telephone calls made for the purpose of debt collection have consistently been found to fit both exemptions for calls not containing “unsolicited advertisement or constitute telephone solicitation” and for calls made to a recipient “with whom the caller has an established business relationship.” E.g., Pugliese v. Professional Recovery Service, Inc., No. 09–12262, 2010 WL 2632562, at *7 (E.D.Mich. June 29, 2010); Meadows v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc., No. 10–13474, 2011 WL 479997, at *4 (11th Cir. Feb.11, 2011); In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 7 FCC Rcd. 8752, 8773 (1992). Plaintiff’s contentions that the debt was not properly owing and that Defendant was not properly authorized by the nonparty claiming a right to collect the debt are immaterial to the analysis under the TCPA. Because Defendant’s calls were for debt collection purposes, they are exempted from liability under § 227(b)(1)(B). Therefore, the court will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s FTCA claims.