GILMORE v. USCB CORPORATION, 5:17-cv-00119

Plaintiff Phillip Gilmore alleges USCB Corporation placed multiple debt-collection calls to his cellular phone in 2017, including on Feb. 24 and Feb. 28.
Gilmore answered at least one call, informed the caller that USCB had the wrong number (seeking "Johnny Lancaster"), but calls continued.
Gilmore sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), asserting a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692d (and specifically § 1692d(5)) for repeated/continuous calls intended to annoy, abuse, or harass.
USCB moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), arguing (1) Gilmore’s amended complaint lacks sufficient facts to state a § 1692d(5) claim and (2) Gilmore lacks standing because he is not a “consumer” under § 1692a(3).
The court treated the motion under the Rule 12(b)(6)/12(c) standard (accepting well-pleaded facts as true) and found discovery incomplete, making resolution of the factual intensity premature.
The court denied USCB’s motion, holding Gilmore plausibly pled a § 1692d claim and has standing to pursue it even though he is not alleged to be the debtor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gilmore plausibly alleged a § 1692d(5) claim (repeated/continuous calls with intent to annoy/harass)	Gilmore: multiple calls occurred after he told the caller it was a wrong number; this suffices under Twombly/Iqbal to plead a plausible § 1692d claim	USCB: complaint lacks details (exact number/timing/content) and thus fails to state a § 1692d(5) claim as a matter of law	Denied — court finds allegations sufficient to state a plausible § 1692d claim at pleading stage; deciding more requires discovery
Whether Gilmore is a “consumer” with standing under FDCPA § 1692a(3)	Gilmore: FDCPA’s protections (including § 1692d) extend to persons contacted by debt collectors even if not the debtor; statute and Eleventh Circuit precedent allow non-debtors to bring § 1692d claims	USCB: Gilmore is not a debtor/consumer, so lacks statutory standing to sue under FDCPA	Denied — court holds § 1692d is not limited to consumers; non-debtors may sue for § 1692d violations (Eleventh Circuit precedent supports)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard—plausibility requirement)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard; Rule 12(b)(6))
Douglas Asphalt Co. v. Qore, Inc., 541 F.3d 1269 (Rule 12(c) standard parallels Rule 12(b)(6))
Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir.) (FDCPA protects non-debtors from abusive collection calls)
Meadows v. Franklin Collection Serv., Inc., [citation="414 F. App'x 230"] (11th Cir.) (permitting § 1692d claim by non-debtor)
Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255 (pleading/inference rules at motion to dismiss stage)
Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182 (conclusory allegations cannot prevent dismissal)
Marshall Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall Cty. Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171 (court may dismiss on dispositive legal issues regardless of facts)