United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ABBY BEREKET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
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
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 Plaintiffto 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.
#40. Having reviewed the record before it, the Court now
GRANTS Defendant's motion for the reasons discussed
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
. . .
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 ...