No Private Right of Action Under GLBA; Repeated Dunning Calls Do Not Constitute Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; No Duty to Wait for Grace Period to Run Before Initiating Collection Calls.

In Peters-Mone v. Clayton Homes, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:06-CV-1326-TLW (D.S.C. opinion Jan. 9, 2007), the plaintiffs sued a debt collector, asserting that its dunning calls – allegedly made after the payment due date but before the end of the late charge grace period – violated state and federal statutes and common law principles. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss all the claims which was granted. Among the more significant bases for dismissal, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), the FTC Act, and a South Carolina law prohibiting obscene and threatening phone calls, finding that no private right of action exists under those statutes. The Court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ negligence claims, finding no common law duty to wait for the grace period to run before calling on the debt. In addition, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it determined that repeated collection calls – as many as eight a day – do not constitute the sort of extreme or outrageous conduct capable of supporting such a claim. The Court denied the plaintiffs’ implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim because that covenant is extinguished when the borrower defaults. Finally, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach of confidence claim on the basis that South Carolina does not consider the creditor-debtor relationship to be a fiduciary relationship.