A District Court judge in Washington has denied competing motions for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case that stretches back more than 13 years, ruling that both sides point to facts that could be ruled in their favor, thus leaving it for a jury to decide.
The Background: Back in 2011, the defendant was assigned to collect a debt owed by the plaintiff. The two sides spent a few months going back and forth about the debt before the defendant retained a law firm that filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff continued to correspond with the defendant, but never replied to the lawsuit. In one communication, the defendant invited the plaintiff to contact the law firm by March 12 if she was interested in attempting to resolve the disputed debt.
- But on March 5, the defendant sought — and obtained — a default judgment.
- The defendant did nothing with the judgment for 10 years, until it was about to expire in 2022. It reached back out to the plaintiff, who in turn filed this lawsuit in state court, alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA. The defendant removed the case to federal court and both sides filed motions for summary judgment.
The Ruling: Much of the defendant’s argument as to why its summary judgment motion should be approved relied on alleged evidentiary issues with the plaintiff’s documents, which the defendant said would be inadmissible if the case ever went to trial. But, ruled Judge Tana Lin of the District Court for the Western District of Washington, the documents would be admissible at trial.
- Judge Lin also found there to be an exception to the state’s statute of limitations, because the defendant never informed the plaintiff it was seeking to obtain a default judgment and because the defendant should have known the communications it received from the plaintiff after the complaint was filed could constitute an informal appearance by the plaintiff in the underlying collection lawsuit.
