CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.61 -- Defenses -- Statute of Limitations

In Lopez v. Professional Collection Consultants, 2013 WL 708701 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Gutierrez found Defendant’s call volume, without more, to be FDCPA compliant. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to put forth evidence that the call volume violates the FDCPA under section 1692d(5). Mot. 2:14–21. Plaintiff's allegations regarding the frequency of Defendant's calls do not rise to the level of… Read More

In Cappos v. Suppa, Trucchi & Henin, LLP, 2012 WL 6057995 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Lorenz held that where the Plaintiff’s FDCPA suit arises from purported improper sums sought in a state court collection action, the filing of the state court action triggers the running of the statute of limitations for FDCPA purposes. An FDCPA claim must be brought “within one… Read More

In Melendez v. CACH, LLC, 2012 WL 4902687 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Wilken found the “continuing violation” theory for FDCPA statute of limitations purposes inapplicable outside on-going telephone call cases. The Attorney Defendants, Laskin Law Offices, CACH and SquareTwo contend that the FDCPA claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Under Ninth Circuit… Read More

In Fisk v. ARS Nat. Services, Inc., 2012 WL 3236569 (N.D.N.Y. 2012), Judge McAvoy rejected the ‘continuing violation’ theory for FDCPA statute of limitations purposes, refusing to strike the affirmative defense from defendant’s answer. Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants' statute of limitations defense on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations is one year, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), the… Read More

In a case probably limited to its particular facts, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied the discovery rule to the FDCPA in Magnum v. Action Collection Services, Inc. ,  a copy of which can be found here. Read More

In Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc. 2009 WL 1803263 (2009), the California Court of Appeal held that the litigation privilege does not provide a defense to a Rosenthal Act claim, and applied the “continuing violation” doctrine to allow recovery for violations of the Act that occurred beyond the statute of limitations.    As to the litigation privilege, the Court… Read More

In Roybal v. Equifax, Judge England issued three separate opinions addressing liability of furnishers and credit reporting agencies.  In Roybal v. Equifax, 2008 WL 453447 (E.D.Cal. 2008), Judge England addressed the CRAs for publishing allegedly inaccurate credit information about the plaintiff.  First, Judge England allowed a wife to pursue a claim for inaccuracies in the husband's credit report:   The… Read More

On June 2, 2008, Judge Jeremy Vogel held in an unpublished decision that although an act to enforce the FDCPA must be filed within one year from the date of the violation, "conduct occurring outside the statute of limitations is actionable under a continuing violation theory".  (Cruz v. International Collection Corp. 2008 WL 2263800 (N.D.Cal. 2008). Judge Vogel explained that… Read More