By: Derek Hawkins//April 4, 2017//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Manuel Pantoja v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
Case No.: 15-1567
Officials: KANNE, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Focus: FDCPA Violations
Back in 1993, according to defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, plaintiff Manuel Pantoja incurred a debt for a Capital One credit card that he ap‐plied for but never actually used. Twenty years later, long af‐ ter the statute of limitations had run, Portfolio Recovery had bought Capital One’s rights to this old debt and sent Pantoja a dunning letter trying to collect. The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) prohibits collectors of con‐ sumer debts from, among other things, using “any false, de‐ ceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. This appeal concerns the practice of attempting to collect an old consumer debt that is clearly unenforceable under the applicable statute of limitations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Pantoja on his claim under § 1692e. The court found the dunning letter was deceptive or misleading because (a) it did not tell the consumer that the defendant could not sue on this time‐barred debt and (b) it did not tell the consumer that if he made, or even just agreed to make, a partial payment on the debt, he could restart the clock on the long‐expired statute of limitations, in effect bringing a long‐dead debt back to life. Pantoja v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 78 F. Supp. 3d 743 (N.D. Ill. 2015). We affirm, essentially for the reasons explained concisely by Judge Gettleman
Affirmed