United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
March 20, 2003
PETER BENNETT, PLAINTIFF, VS. ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James B. Moran, Senior Judge, United States District Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 26, 2002, we dismissed the two claims then alleged, but we granted leave to amend. Plaintiff did file an amended complaint, albeit late, still referring to alleged conduct which was the basis for his dismissed claims, and not alleging intent with particular clarity. Defendant moves to strike. We will not strike for being somewhat tardy; we disregard the allegations relating to dismissed claims; and we believe that the amended complaint, fairly read, does allege telephone calls made with intent to annoy, abuse or harass.
The conduct of which plaintiff complains is more than five telephone calls on September 10, 2002. Plaintiff also alleges he received two letters several months earlier, but we do not understand that allegation to bolster his claim in any way. Can more than five telephone calls on a single day with the requisite intent rise to the level of a 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) violation? Perhaps not. But perhaps so. With notice pleading we must consider possible scenarios giving rise to liability, and those we can envision. Perhaps defendant can prevail on summary judgment, but for now plaintiff states a claim. The motion to strike is denied,
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.