Monitoring the financial services industry to help companies navigate through regulatory compliance, enforcement, and litigation issues
In an unpublished case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that actions to obtain a judgment and enforce that judgment in a collection lawsuit filed outside the statute of limitations do not create a continuing violation under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
In Moore v. Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP, et al., the plaintiff defaulted on her car loan. The car was then repossessed and sold, but there was a deficiency balance. The creditor retained the defendant attorney and law firm to sue the plaintiff for the outstanding balance, however the lawsuit was filed after the New Jersey statute of limitations for contracts for sale of goods lapsed. Nevertheless, the creditor obtained a default judgment. The law firm then obtained a writ of execution and garnished the plaintiff’s wages for three pay periods before she successfully vacated the judgment and wage execution. Sixteen months after the debt collection lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against the law firm and attorney, alleging they violated the FDCPA by filing a lawsuit to collect time-barred debts and for unjust enrichment for the wage garnishments. The district court granted a motion to dismiss for filing outside the statute of limitations. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, listing seven debt collection practices that occurred within the year preceding her FDCPA suit, all related to obtaining the default judgment, writ of execution, and garnishments. The defendants again moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely, and the plaintiff argued the continuing violation theory made her suit timely and alternatively that each post-complaint action was an independent violation. Her amended complaint was dismissed, and she appealed.
The Third Circuit held the continuing violation theory is inapplicable to FDCPA lawsuits. That theory was developed in hostile work environment claims to address situations where the whole course of conduct creates liability. The Third Circuit noted that no court has found the continuing violation theory can be extended to FDCPA claims and doing so in this case would broaden the theory too far, applying it to discrete collection efforts that are separately actionable. The court also held the subsequent efforts to obtain a judgment and garnish the plaintiff’s wages did not support an FDCPA claim because that contravened a Supreme Court admonition against allowing a consumer to stop “communications inherent in an ordinary lawsuit” and grind such suits to a halt.
The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims.
Rachel is an attorney in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group, where she represents clients in consumer financial services law, collections disputes, and commercial litigation in both the federal and state courts. She also represents creditors in bankruptcy courts throughout the U.S.…
Rachel is an attorney in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group, where she represents clients in consumer financial services law, collections disputes, and commercial litigation in both the federal and state courts. She also represents creditors in bankruptcy courts throughout the U.S., primarily Motions of Relief from Stay and Objections to Confirmation, as well as handling adversary proceedings.
Virginia is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice and specifically within the Financial Services Litigation practice. She represents clients in federal and state court, both at the trial and appellate level in the areas of complex litigation and business disputes…
Virginia is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice and specifically within the Financial Services Litigation practice. She represents clients in federal and state court, both at the trial and appellate level in the areas of complex litigation and business disputes, health care litigation, including ERISA and out-of-network issues, and consumer litigation in over 21 states nationwide. As a result of new legal developments, she increasingly counsels clients to ensure they comply with the myriad of growing laws in the consumer law with a particular emphasis on the intersection of TCPA and HIPAA.
Troutman Pepper Locke helps clients solve complex legal challenges and achieve their business goals in an ever-changing global economy. With more than 1,600 attorneys in 30+ offices, the firm serves clients in all major industry sectors, with particular depth in energy, financial services, health care and life sciences, insurance and reinsurance, private equity, and real estate. Learn more at troutman.com.
In addition to cookies that are necessary for website operation, this website uses cookies and other tracking tools for various purposes, including to provide enhanced functionality and measure website performance. To learn more about our information practices, please visit our Privacy Notice.
AgreeDecline
Third Circuit Holds that the Continuing Violation Theory is Inapplicable to the FDCPA – Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor
