No, 02 C 6746 Page 3

annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.”

Two completed telephone calls, spaced a couple of weeks apart, are hardly intentional
harassment. One can conjecture circumstances in which aborted calls could rise to the level
of intentional harassment. For example, a creditor could repeatedly call a consumer at odd
hours of the night and hang up when the consumer answers. But those were not the
circumstances here. An automated system that could conceivably have placed one cali a day
(although that is unlikely) which is not recorded because the person called hung up before any
connection was made, cannot be said to have been created to intentionally harass the person
called.

Plaintiff also contends that Arrow misrepresented the debt, with $180 having ballooned
to over $600, without explanation. Defendant’s records indicate that the excess is interest , and
interest was periodically accruing according to those records. If interest was compounding
over fourteen years, the amount appears reasonable — if interest was authorized. But we have
no evidence that it was not authorized, and it was plaintiffs burden to prove the violation, We
do not recall any testimony that an Arrow representative represented that the debt would be
reported to a credit reporting agency, Rather, it was plaintiff who testified that he told an
Arrow representative that the debt was too old to report. Finally, while we do not rest upon
it, the evidence of damages was yery weak. This collection effort was, briefly, just one more
stressor in what was, unfortunately, plaintiff's very stressful life.

We enter judgment for defendant.

JAMES B. MORAN
Seitlior Judge, U. S. District Court
April 14, 2004


rrr

Minate (ier Furnt (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

James B. Moran

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 02 C 6746 DATE 4/14/2004
CASE PETER BENNETT vs. ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendont, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DOCKET ENTRY;

(i) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Qo Brief in support of motion due.
(3) a Answer brief to motion duc____. Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) Q Ruling/Hearingon_—ssctfor__ atk
(5) Q Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on ____set. for alo.
(6) a Pretrial conference(held/continued to] [sct for/re-set for]on set for at
(7) a Trial(set for/re-set for]on___al
(8) go [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at_
(9) qo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
CPRCP4(m) CLocalRule 41.1 CFRCPAI(ay(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Judgment is entered in favor of
defendant Arrow Financial Services, LLC and against plaintiff Peter Bennett.
(11) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.)
-—-

‘No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff,

Notitied counsel by telephone,

Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magisteate judge. wo

courtroom, date mailed notice

deputy’s
initials

Datc/time received in

mailing depuly initials

sentra) Clerk's Office


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
PETER BENNETT, }
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 02 C 6746
) E
ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,) DOCKETED
) APR 1 5 2504
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case began with an overdraft on a Bank of America checking account in 1988 in
the amount of, according to plaintiff, approximately $120; according to plaintiff’s statement
of the case, approximately $180; and, according to defendant, $181.24, Plaintiff testified that
he had some financial difficulties at the time, the result of a serious head injury, and he
thought Bank of America was going to reverse the charge, but it did not do so.

The record reflects that the debt surfaced again some fourteen years later, when Arrow
Financial Services (Arrow) sent plaintiff a letter advising him that it had purchased the
account and that the balance due was $601.41. Plaintiff's financial situation was no better —
he was considering bankruptcy — and he did not respond. Further, he was aware that the
statute of limitations had long since run and the debt was far too old to be included in a credit
report, The telephone calls began in the late summer (the parties agree about that). Plaintiff
testified to many calls beginning in early August 2002. He hung up on calls where the caller
failed to identify himself. He finally took a call and the person said he was from defendant,
gave a name, and said he was calling about the Bank of America account. He testified that he

talked to someone at Arrow again in late August and a third time in September, each time

al



No. 02 C 6746 Page 2

telling the caller the debt was too old and to stop calling him. During that period, and for a
time thereafter, he also received calls where there was a delay before he was connected and
which he terminated by hanging up before anyone said anything. He assumed those calls were
from Arrow.

Arrow operates a computer-driven telephone collection call system. Its records show
a total of five calls. The first was on August 28, 2002; there was a connection and the call
lasted four minutes. According to those records, plaintiff said he was not paying and an
attorney would cal] the following day. On September 6, 2002, Arrow called but there was no
answer. It did get through on September 10, 2002, for a one-minute call, during which
plaintiff said Arrow could not call anymore and if it did, he would sue. A call on September
23, 2002, got a busy signal, and Arrow got no answer to a September 27, 2002, call. There
could have been other calls initiated, but never more than one a day and usually nore spaced
out than that. When the computer generated a call, it would transfer the call to an Arrow
representative when the caller picked up the telephone, causing a brief delay. If the person
called hung up before the transfer, the cal) would not be registered in the Arrow records.

We credit the company records, Plaintiff, by his own admission, was then unemployed
and had other debts in collection. He undoubtedly was under considerable stress and he also
undoubtedly was distressed by being dunned for payment of a small amount going back
fourteen years before, which he quite rightly viewed as uncollectible. While he recalls three
substantive calls, there were two, although in all likelihood there were a few attempts aborted
by his hanging up before the call was transferred.

The case was tried in a couple of hours, with the principal issue being whether or not
defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692d(5) by harassing plaintiff by “[c]ausing a telephone to ring

or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to