The opinion of the court was delivered by: John E. Mcdermott United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT
On March 8, 2011, Plaintiffs Thomas Davis and Guadalupe Davis filed a complaint alleging that Defendant Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. violated certain provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA") and California's Rosenthal Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1788 et seq. ("Rosenthal Act"). On April 1, 2011, Defendant filed an Answer. The parties filed Statements of Consent to proceed before this Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On September 9, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ"). On October 4, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition. On October 11, 2011, Defendant filed a Reply.
On October 25, 2011, the Court ordered the parties to submit further briefing. On November 8, 2011, Defendant filed a Supplemental Reply. On November 22, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Sur-Reply.
The matter is now ready for decision. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
II. PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs allege the following in the Complaint:
Plaintiff Thomas Davis ("T. Davis") incurred a financial obligation of $22,000 (the "Debt") to Sallie Mae (the "Creditor"). (Complaint ¶ 9.) The Debt was purchased, assigned or transferred to Defendant for collection, or Defendant was employed by the Creditor to collect the Debt. (Id. ¶ 11.)
Defendant, through its employees, engaged in the following illegal tactics in order to collect the Debt: placed calls to Plaintiff*fn1 three times a day up to five days a week for several weeks; used deceptive tactics and tried to collect a debt that had been discharged in a bankruptcy; called Plaintiff's place of employment on three separate occasions, despite being told to stop; threatened Plaintiff with garnishment of his wages, but no such action has taken place; threatened Plaintiff with legal action, but no such action has taken place; threatened Plaintiff with a lien on his Social Security; refused to repeat their names when asked to identify themselves; failed to identify themselves when speaking with Plaintiffs and did not include a warning stating that the call was an attempt to collect a debt; and continued calling after Plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter. (Complaint ¶¶13-21.)
Based on the foregoing actions, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the FDCPA, as follows:
a. informing a third party of Plaintiff's debt (15 U.S.C. § 1692(b));
b. contacting third parties regarding Plaintiff's debt (15 U.S.C. § 1692b(3));
c. contacting Plaintiff post cease and desist notification (15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c));
d. employing false and deceptive means to collect a debt (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10));
e. contacting Plaintiff at a place and time known to be inconvenient (15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1));
f. contacting Plaintiff at his place of employment with knowledge such communication was prohibited (15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1));
g. using profane and abusive language (15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2));
h. causing the phone to ring repeatedly and engaging Plaintiff in telephone conversations with intent to annoy and harass (15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5));
i. failing to disclose the identity of the debt collection agency (15 U.S.C. § 1692d(6));
j. threatening wage garnishment (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4));
k. threatening to take legal action without actually intending to do so (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5));
l. failing to inform the consumer that the communication was one seeking to collect a debt (15 ...