The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and fraud lawsuit against a collection law firm, ruling that the plaintiff waited too long to file her claims.
The background: The case arose out of a state court collection lawsuit that the defendant, a Louisiana law firm, filed against the plaintiff.
- The defendant filed its collection petition against the plaintiff in Louisiana state court in May 2024 and served her with the petition later that month.
- More than a year later, in July 2025, the plaintiff filed suit in federal court against a credit union and two law firms, accusing the defendant of violating the FDCPA and committing fraud under Louisiana law.
- The plaintiff, who filed the suit as the trustee of a holding company, also named the wrong corporate entity for the defendant in her complaint.
- The District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant with prejudice and denied her request to amend her complaint.
- On appeal, the plaintiff argued the dismissal violated her due process rights because she did not receive notice of the motion to dismiss or have an opportunity to respond.
The ruling: The Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal, but on different grounds than the ones the District Court relied on, noting that it is free to affirm on any basis supported by the record.
- Claims under the FDCPA are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. That clock started running when the plaintiff was served with the collection petition in May 2024 and expired one year later, in May 2025. Because the plaintiff did not file her lawsuit until July 2025, her FDCPA claim was barred, the Appeals Court ruled.
- The plaintiff’s fraud claim fared no better. Louisiana law imposes a one-year prescription period on fraud claims, which began on the date the plaintiff was served with the petition, since that is when she became aware of the alleged fraud. That period also expired before she filed suit.
- Because both claims were already time-barred, the Appeals Court concluded that any amendment to the complaint “would have been futile,” meaning the District Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to let the plaintiff amend.
- The Appeals Court did not address the plaintiff’s due process argument about the lack of notice, resolving the appeal entirely on statute of limitations grounds.
