The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the ruling of a lower court granting summary judgment to the defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred because they were made more than one year from the alleged violation, and dismissed the plaintiff’s arguments why the one-year limit should not have applied.
The Background: Astute readers of AccountsRecovery with a good memory will recall the Second Circuit issued another ruling in a separate case involving the same parties last month.
- The plaintiff owned a condo in Brooklyn. In 2015, the condo’s board retained the defendant to collect unpaid fees. The defendant sent the plaintiff a letter via certified mail, identifying itself as a debt collector and notifying her that it had been retained to collect the unpaid fees. Six months later, the defendant filed a collection lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged the defendant engaged in sewer service by failing to serve her with the summons and complaint.
- While the collection lawsuit case was pending, the defendant was contacted by an attorney who said he was representing the plaintiff. As well, the plaintiff’s two daughters, one of whom had power-of-attorney over her mother’s affairs, appeared in court for their mother.
- The defendant prevailed on its collection lawsuit and was awarded attorney fees on top of the order.
- The plaintiff filed her claim on August 17, 2021. The issue is that the basis of her claim — the affirmation that the defendant emailed to her — was sent on August 13, 2020. That led the District Court judge to rule that her claim was not filed in a timely manner.
The Ruling: The plaintiff argued that she had moved to supplement her claim in a previous lawsuit, but the Appeals Court disagreed. That motion made no reference to the affirmation that was emailed, the Appeals Court noted.
- The plaintiff also argued that the defendant did not provide evidence of read receipts that formed the basis of her claim and that the statute of limitations on her claim should have been extended under New York state law which adds five days to time limits that are “measured from the service of paper,” and that she deserved more time because of the stay-at-home orders that were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The plaintiff’s reliance on New York state law is “misplaced,” the Appeals Court ruled because that provision is related to how state litigation deadlines are determined, because the time to act under state law is often measured from the date of service. Under the FDCPA, the statute of limitations starts running when a violation occurs and is not measured from a service date.
- The plaintiff also did not provide sufficient evidence to make her case regarding the stay-at-home order that was issued at the onset of the pandemic.
