Home / Compliance / Judge Denies MTD in FDCPA SOL Case

Judge Denies MTD in FDCPA SOL Case

A District Court judge in Illinois has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss after a plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit alleging the defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to mention in a letter that payment on a settlement offer would restart the statute of limitations on the underlying debt.

A copy of the ruling in Navarroli v. Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., and Encore Capital Group, Inc., can be accessed by clicking here.

The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. The letter included the following statement: “Congratulations! You have been pre-approved for a discount program designed to save you money. Act now to maximize your savings and put this debt behind you. . . .” The letter also included three payment options — a one-time payment of 60% of the amount owed, six monthly payments that would equate to 80% of the amount owed, and a monthly payment plan with payments as low as $50. The letter included a deadline to accept the offer and the following postscript: “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt and how long a debt can appear on your credit report. Due to the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it or report payment or non-payment of it to a credit bureau.”

The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter did not inform him that had he made a payment, the statute of limitations would have re-started. The defendant filed the motion to dismiss, arguing that the defendant lacked standing to file suit because he did not suffer a concrete injury.

“The very nature and purpose of MCM’s letter seems to be to bait the consumer into paying money on a time-barred debt, either by settling for sixty cents on the dollar — a percentage that is orders of magnitude higher than what Defendants allegedly paid to obtain the outdated debt — or by unwittingly renewing the statute of limitations by making a new payment on the debt,” Judge Sara Ellis wrote in denying the motion to dismiss, ruling that “the alleged injury is clear.” The plaintiff already had a “complete defense” because the statute of limitations had expired, Judge Ellis wrote.

In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Ellis ruled that the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff alleged a “bare statutory violation without identifying a particularized injury in fact,” did not stand up.

Check Also

House Committee to Mark Up Stopping Bad Robocalls Act Today

The full House Committee on Energy and Commerce will meet this morning to mark up …

One comment

  1. Judge Denies MTD in FDCPA SOL Case- IF THE CONSUMER SETTLED THE DEBT THEN HOW WOULDTHE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RESTART? THE DEBT IS SETTLED?? ANOTHER LIBERAL JUDGE WHO DOESNT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

X
Skip to toolbar