The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld a summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that the plaintiff’s claims were outside the FDCPA’s one year statute of limitations and his attempt to request verification of the debt “was untimely by many years.”
The Background: The plaintiff was sued by the defendants — the creditor to whom the debt was owed and a collection law firm. While that suit was pending, the plaintiff filed a suit of his own, alleging violations of the FDCPA, the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, which all arose from the suit against him.
- The defendants removed the plaintiff’s suit to federal court. After discovery began, the plaintiff informed the defendants that he had filed for bankruptcy protection.
- The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking to enforce a settlement agreement he claimed had been reached by all the parties. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that no settlement had been reached.
- The District Court sided with the defendants, saying any agreement was voidable because the plaintiff’s attorney had engaged in negotiations while he knew he was about to be suspended from the practice of law, which he did fraudulently concealed from the defendants.
- Ultimately the District Court concluded there was no valid settlement agreement and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which the plaintiff appealed.
The Ruling: The plaintiff, who appeared to be representing himself, did not cite any precedents supporting his argument that the statutes of limitation for the FDCPA and FCEUA were enlarged by the UTPCPL. The other arguments made by the plaintiff also did not hold water for the Appeals Court. “Overall, [the plaintiff’s] presentation is not adequate to preserve any issue for appeal,” it wrote.
- Even if it were adequate, the Appeals Court continued, there was no error made by the District Court judge. The FDCPA claim was brought “well outside” the one year statute of limitations and his request for debt verification under the FDCPA “was untimely by many years.”
