The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge James B. Zagel
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed his forty-count complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The parties reached a settlement on counts one through seventeen, and those counts were dismissed on July 23, 2009. Counts eighteen through forty are made pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Counts eighteen through twenty-six allege that Defendant Credit Control Services ("CCS") violated 47 U.S. C. § 227(b)(1)(A) by leaving messages without prior consent. Counts twenty-seven through thirty-five assert that CCS violated 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(B)(1) by not stating its legal name in its prerecorded messages. Finally, counts thirty-six through forty allege that CCS violated 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(B)(2) because five prerecorded messages did not provide CCS's telephone number. Plaintiff and Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment as to the TCPA claims. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's and Defendant's motions are granted in part and denied in part.
In August 2008, Sengenberger sought medical treatment from Dr. Gilberto Munoz. At this time, Plaintiff provided Dr. Munoz with his cell phone number and authorized Dr. Munoz to call his cell phone. In connection with Plaintiff's office visit, Dr. Munoz requested laboratory testing services from Quest Diagnostics, Inc. ("Quest"). Dr. Munoz provided Quest with Sengenberger's contact information including a telephone number.
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to pay his debt due to Quest. The allegedly unpaid debt was $22.97. Quest provided Defendant with the contact information that had been supplied to Quest by Dr. Munoz, including Sengenberger's phone number. While Plaintiff disputes that he owed Quest any outstanding payments, it is undisputed that Quest asked Defendant to collect Plaintiff's alleged debt. Defendant regularly does business as "Credit Collection Services" which is not its legal name. The name Credit Collection Services is an assumed name and is registered as an assumed name at the Illinois Secretary of State's Office. The name Credit Collection Services is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State, and is listed on the License provided to it by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.
Defendant made phone calls to collect the debt and only called the telephone number that was provided to them by Quest. Each time Defendant called Plaintiff, it played a prerecorded message which stated:
This is an important message for Christopher Sengenberger. This is regarding a private business matter. If you are not the intended party we are trying to reach, please call 1-866-945-4973 and we will cease further attempts to this number. If you are not the intended party please hang up at this time. This message contains private information and should not be played in a manner where it could be heard by others. This call is from Credit Collection Services. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. For your privacy protection, visit www.warningnotice.com to access your personal account information. Your file number is ***-193-400-81. To hear this message again press #. Thank you.
On December 23, 2008, January 6, 2009, January 13, 2009, January 18, 2009, and February 28, 2009, a portion of the prerecorded message was left on Plaintiff's voicemail. The partial message stated: to this number. If you are not the intended party please hang up at this time. This message contains private information and should not be played in a manner where it could be heard by others. This call is from Credit Collection Services. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. For your privacy protection, visit www.warningnotice.com to access your personal account information. Your file number is ***-193-400-81. To hear this message again press #. Thank you.
The message in its entirety was not recorded on Plaintiff's voicemail because it began to play when Plaintiff's personal greeting answered the telephone.
On January 3, 2009, January 10, 2009, January 22, 2009, and January 26, 2009, Plaintiff answered the phone call from Defendant and heard the entire prerecorded message. On December 26, 2008, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants via certified mail disputing the alleged debt and instructing Defendants to cease further telephone calls to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has provided the Court with a return receipt indicating that CCS received this letter on December 29, 2008.
Summary judgment should be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of triable fact exists only if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Pugh v. City of Attica, Ind., 259 F.3d 619, 625 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
Once the moving party has set forth the basis for summary judgment, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who must go beyond mere allegations and offer specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). The nonmoving party must offer more than "[c]onclusory allegations, unsupported by specific facts" in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact.
Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)). A party will be successful in opposing summary judgment only if it presents "definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion." EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 233 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2000). I consider the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Lesch v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 282 F.3d 467, 471 (7th Cir. 2002). I will accept the nonmoving party's version of any ...