VAZQUEZ v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC

Filing 6

OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 4/15/13. (gmd, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

RITA K. VAZQUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 13-793 (SRC)

OPINION

CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion filed by Defendant Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC (“Defendant” or “PRA”) to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion was initially returnable on March 18,
2013. Because Plaintiff had failed to oppose the motion by the March 4, 2013 deadline, the
Court sua sponte adjourned the motion. Plaintiff Rita Vazquez (“Plaintiff” or “Vazquez”) has
not, to date, filed any opposition to the motion to dismiss, despite receiving an ample extension
of time to do so. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and
dismiss the Complaint.
This action arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §
1692 et seq. In her Complaint, filed in state court on December 28, 2012 and thereafter removed
to this Court, Plaintiff alleges that PRA violated the FDCPA by sending her a December 15,
2011 collection letter that stated she owed a debt whose balance was $1,299.09, whereas in truth
1

the amount of the debt in question was actually $936.00 She claims that this conduct violated
FDCPA § 1692e(2)(A), which prohibits a debt collector from making a “false representation of
the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). Defendant moves
to dismiss on the grounds that the claim is barred by the applicable one-year statute of
limitations.
A complaint will survive a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) if it states “sufficient factual
allegations, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). The Third Circuit, following Twombly and Iqbal, has held that Rule 8(a) “requires not
merely a short and plain statement, but instead mandates a statement ‘showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.’” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008). In a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, the Court is limited in its review to a few basic documents: the complaint,
exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and undisputedly authentic
documents if the complainant’s claims are based upon those documents. See Pension Benefit
Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993).
Claims under the FDCPA must be brought within “one year from the date on which the
alleged violation occurs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). In this case, according to the factual averments
of the Complaint, the alleged FDCPA violation occurred on or about December 15, 2011, the
date of the allegedly unlawful letter. The FDCPA claim, however, was not filed until December
28, 2012. For Plaintiff’s claim to be timely, it would have to have accrued on or after December
28, 2011. Even factoring in mailing time to assume Plaintiff’s receipt of the December 15, 2011
letter several days after it was dated, the facts pled in the Complaint make it clear that the alleged
violation of the FDCPA occurred before December 28, 2011. See Skinner v. Asset Acceptance,
2

LLC, 876 F.Supp.2d 473, 477 (D.N.J. 2012) (holding that FDCPA violation requires a “discrete
act”). Accepting as true the factual allegations made in the Complaint, the Court concludes that it
is clear that this action was filed after the expiration of the one-year limitations period. It must
accordingly be dismissed.
An appropriate Order with be filed together with this Opinion.

s/Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge

Dated: April 15, 2013

3