Southern District of California Says Unanswered Calls are Not a Communication Published on: 19 May 2021 at 11:00 a.m. ET May 19, 2021, 11 a.m. May 19, 2021, 10:28 a.m. insideARM.com The iA Institute http://www.insidearm.com/news/00047377-southern-district-california-says-unanswe/ On May 10, 2021, not only did the District Court in the Southern District of California grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant debt collector, it did so on its own motion. Yes- you read that right- the court entered a judgment in favor of the debt collector where the debt collector had not even asked for it to do so. In the case of Pearson v. Apria HealthCare Group, Et al. (3:19-cv-02400 S.D. CA), a consumer alleged the defendant debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). According to the undisputed facts, the entirety of the case centered around three calls that the consumer did not answer. The consumer did not learn that the calls came from a collection agency until she called the number back, and asked for all calls to stop. The debt collector honored the consumer's request and did not make any additional calls or collection attempts. Based on these undisputed facts, the consumer moved for summary judgment on the FDCPA claims.