EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
Even a non-lawyer like me remembers that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has a one-year statute of limitations in which a consumer can file a lawsuit alleging that a violation of the statute has occurred. But one plaintiff in California is trying to make the case that he should be allowed to file a lawsuit for a violation that occurred all the way back in 2021.
The background: Back in November of 2021, the plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant in regard to a debt that was owed to the Louisiana Department of Revenue. The complaint doesn’t provide details about whether the plaintiff was living in Louisiana at the time he received the letter in question or if it was sent to him in California.
- The letter allegedly failed to include required disclosures under the FDCPA, such as informing the plaintiff that he had 30 days in which to dispute all or part of the debt. The letter also allegedly indicated that if the plaintiff failed to respond, his inaction would constitute an admission of liability. The letter also allegedly failed to disclose that interest was accruing on the debt and made a misrepresentation regarding legal review.
- Nothing appears to have happened after the plaintiff received that letter back in November of 2021 until February of this year. It was then when the plaintiff reviewed the letter and consulted with legal counsel. Does that mean he waited more than three years to read the letter?
- The plaintiff invokes the discovery rule applies in this case because he did not and could not have reasonably discovered the violations at the time the letter was received due to the defendant’s misleading and deceptive conduct.
- Receiving the letter has caused the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress and anxiety, according to the complaint.
The claims: The plaintiff claims the letter violated Sections 1692g(a), 1692g(c), 1692e(2)(A), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA as well as sections of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Read the complaint.
