tashatuvango / AdobestockOn September 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of an FDCPA lawsuit as untimely. The case involved efforts to collect on a defaulted auto loan, where a debt collection suit was filed more than five years after default — beyond New Jersey’s four-year statute of limitations.
The consumer did not raise the statute of limitations defense, or otherwise respond to the complaint, resulting in a default judgment and wage garnishment. More than a year after the debt collection suit was filed, the consumer brought an FDCPA action alleging that suing on a time-barred debt and subsequent collection efforts violated the statute.
The 3rd Circuit agreed with the district court that the continuing violation theory did not apply to “discrete” debt collection actions that were “separately actionable,” and thus did not apply to the FDCPA. The court also rejected the argument that post-complaint filings and wage garnishments were independent violations, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent cautioning against interpreting the FDCPA in a manner that would interfere with the process of ordinary litigation.
