After reading this case, I have sided with the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff owes the defendant money but has not paid the defendant his money for about 6 months. The plaintiff is taking the defendant to court because she believes that the defendant was harassing and threatening her to collect the money.

One reason I supported the plaintiff was that the defendant was not a debt collector. To be a debt collector, you must be a person who regularly collects debt for another institution, or another person, or uses another name than their own when collecting a debt. This was not the case, because the defendant did the photography himself and tried to collect the debt by himself too. Another reason, I supported the plaintiff was that even though a creditor has the right to take action to collect their debt, invasion of privacy should not be necessary. The defendant called the plaintiff many times at all hours of day and night. He even started to use threatening language. To add, he started to interfere with the plaintiff's job. Those actions of the defendants are clear invasions of privacy and are unnecessary actions to collect his money.

A detail that created some hesitation in my decision was whether the defendant was qualified under the FDCPA. However, with more attention to detail, the defendant was not qualified as a debt collector for the FDCPA to be applied to him. However, this just makes me think that regardless of whether or not the FDCPA applied to him, he was harassing, threatening, and inappropriately contacting the plaintiff, which makes him wrong either way, Therefore, it was easy for me to decide to side with the plaintiff.

Rewrite to own words "paraphrase"