Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bereket v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

March 27, 2018

ABBY BEREKET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKING MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC's (“PRA”) Motion to Compel. Dkt. #34. Defendant seeks an Order: (1) compelling the production of documents requested in the subpoenas to Cobalt Credit Services, LLC (“Cobalt”) and Jesse Rodriguez; (2) compelling Mr. Rodriguez to appear for a deposition; and (3) compelling Plaintiff[1]to produce documents requested in its Requests for Production. Id. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the basis that the discovery sought is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case.

         Dkt. #40. Having reviewed the record before it, the Court now GRANTS Defendant's motion for the reasons discussed herein.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed a proposed class action on May 24, 2017. Dkt. #1. 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 A.
. . .
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 months:
[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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.