In Lopez v. Professional Collection Consultants, 2013 WL 708701 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Gutierrez found Defendant’s call volume, without more, to be FDCPA compliant.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to put forth evidence that the call volume violates the FDCPA under section 1692d(5). Mot. 2:14–21. Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the frequency of Defendant’s calls do not rise to the level of harassment required under Section 1692d(5). Arteaga, 733 F.Supp.2d at 1229 (finding no triable issue of material fact where plaintiff alleged multiple calls per day but did not allege any other harassing behavior). It is undisputed that Defendant placed at least twelve phone calls to Plaintiff from around March 18, 2010 to February 23, 2011. SSUF ¶ 2. FN1 However, without providing evidence that Defendant called Plaintiff immediately after hanging up, called at odd hours, called at the debtor’s place of employment, or called multiple times in a single day, the number of phone calls alone does not create a triable issue of fact. Arteaga, 733 F.Supp.2d at 1229. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint separately seeks relief under 1692d(5), Plaintiff has failed to refute that there is no triable issue of material fact that the volume of calls violates the FDCPA.
Judge Gutierrez also suggested in a footnote that calls outside of the 1-year statute of limitation were not actionable.
FN1. Two of the alleged phone calls are outside of the statute of limitations, as the Complaint was filed on April 15, 2011, and the two calls pre-date the filing of the Com-plaint by more than one year. Shields Decl., ¶ 12. See Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.30(f) (“Any action under this section may be brought … within one year from the date of the occur-rence of the violation.”).