Buy This Entire Record For
Bereket v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
October 4, 2017
ABBY BEREKET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT PORTFOLIO'S MOTION TO
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC's (“Portfolio”) Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Dkt. #13. Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claim
on the basis that he fails to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. Id. Plaintiff opposes the
motion, arguing that Defendant has misconstrued the relevant
law and that he has sufficiently alleged his
claims. Dkt. #17. Having reviewed the record
before it, the Court now DENIES Defendant's motion for
the reasons discussed herein.
filed a proposed class action on May 24, 2017. He alleges
that Defendant's actions violated § 1692 et seq. of
Title 15 of the United States Code, commonly referred to as
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”)
which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive,
deceptive and unfair practices. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 4.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges:
21. Some time prior to August 23, 2016 an obligation was
allegedly incurred to Bank of America.
. . .
25. On or about August 23, 2016 Defendant caused to be
delivered to Plaintiff a collection letter in an attempt to
collect the alleged debt. See Exhibit
. . .
28. The August 23, 2016 letter offered the Plaintiff a number
of payment options, one of which offered  an
‘Installment Option' for the Plaintiff to pay off
his entire alleged debt over the course of a number of
[Embedded image of options in letter not copied]
29. As of August 23, 2016, more than six (6) years had
elapsed since the last payment or activity on the Bank of
America debt subject to the letter.
30. Pursuant to RCW 4.16.040, the statute of limitations is
six (6) years for filing suit to collect on a debt.
31. The August 23, 2016 letter states, “The law limits
how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of
your debt, we will not sue you for it.”
32. The Defendant fails to inform the Plaintiff that should
he choose one of the payment plans offered it may re-start
the statute of limitations, which may expose the Plaintiff to
future litigation for this debt.
33. The Defendant does not inform Plaintiff that should the
statute of limitations reset, the Defendant may have the
right to commence legal action, which otherwise would have
34. The Defendant regularly sends collection letters on
time-barred debts, offering small monthly installment plans
in payment of the entire debt, but does not inform the
consumer that the statute of limitations may reset upon
making the first monthly payment.
35. The Defendant regularly sends letters seeking to collect
debts, which are time-barred, that offer small monthly
installment plans in payment of the entire debt, informing
the consumer that he or he will not be sued due to the age of
the debt; but not informing the consumer that the statute of
limitations may reset if a partial payment is made on the
debt, therefore allowing the Defendant the option of
commencing legal action, which otherwise would be barred by
the statute of limitations.
Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 21, 25 and 28-34 (bold in original).
Plaintiff alleges that these actions violate section 15
U.S.C. § 1692e of the ...