Gomez v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing as untimely plaintiffs-debtors’ Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim, alleging that defendant-debt collector’s two dunning letters were misleading because they demanded interest during months that creditor had internally decided to write off instant debt. Applicable limitations period is one year, and instant dunning letters were sent to plaintiff more than one year prior to filing of instant lawsuit. Moreover, while third dunning letter that was sent by defendant to plaintiffs’ lawyer, which plaintiffs contended contained “false” statements about debt, was timely, it was not actionable under FDCPA, since: (1) at time said letter was sent, reasonable competent debt collector would not know that claims for interest made in letter were not enforceable; and (2) claim made in third dunning letter would not have misled competent lawyer, because said lawyer would not deem as “false,” demand made by potential opponent in litigation just because lawyer believes that his client may be able to persuade judge that there is defense to claimed debt.