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.
Here it comes, your understatement of the day … Judgments are tricky. Renewing judgments even more so. A collection law firm and two if its employees are being sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law in Arizona because the plaintiff was turned down for a job because the prospective employer learned that the plaintiff had a judgment against her, a judgment, the plaintiff claims, was wrongfully renewed after it had expired.
The background: This journey starts way back in 2013, when the defendant filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff for unpaid homeownership association dues. A default judgment was entered on February 13, 2014 in the amount of $2,932.27 plus interest.
- Fast forward to November 2024, the plaintiff contacted the defendant to inquire about the judgment, because it was impacting her ability to obtain a home equity line of credit. A representative returned the call and informed the plaintiff that the balance on the debt was now around $10,000. The plaintiff requested validation of the debt, according to the complaint.
- Nine days after the call, the defendant filed a judgment renewal. According to the complaint, state law in Arizona dictates that the defendant had 90 days preceding the expiration of the original judgment — which was for 10 years — to file a renewal. That 90 day period expired in November 2023.
- The renewal was recorded and entered.
- In August 2025, the plaintiff was offered a job, a condition of which included passing a background check. The job was with a credit repair organization.
- The employer learned of the judgment and informed the plaintiff that it could not hire her. It was only because of this conversation that the plaintiff learned the judgment had been renewed, according to the complaint.
The claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating the FDCPA — it does not make any specific claims regarding which sections were allegedly violated, as well as accusing the defendant of violating abuse of process and state law in Arizona for recording a false document.
