|
In a case premised on a FORUM arbitration; a federal court in Missouri held that the statute of limitations on claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) must be adhered to, and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law is not a cognizable claim under the FDCPA.
In Lavender v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., No. 07-0015-CV-W-FJG, 2007 WL 3244189 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 01, 2007), Lavender and other Plaintiffs (collectively "Plaintiffs") had credit agreements with MBNA. The Plaintiffs filed suit against Wolpoff, a debt collection law firm for MBNA, alleging various claims under the FDCPA, regarding Wolpoff's actions in arbitration regarding the disputed debt.
The Court agreed with Wolpoff that the claims prior to January 8, 2006 were barred by the statute of limitations under the FDCPA. The statute of limitations is one year. The Court denied the extension of time requested by some of the Plaintiffs in this case, stating "[t]his is information which should have been determined before suit was even filed." Wolpoff's motion to dismiss as to the affected Plaintiffs was granted.
The Court further agreed with Wolpoff in rejecting the remaining Plaintiffs' argument that Wolpoff had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of the FDCPA.
Finding persuasive the reasoning in Reade-Alvarez v. Eltman, Eltman, & Cooper, P.C., 369 F.Supp.2d 353 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), the Court held that any alleged irregularities in Wolpoff's assistance of its client, MBNA, in collecting the Plaintiffs' debt is not actionable under the FDCPA, but rather, through the state bar association's disciplinary committee. The Court granted Wolpoff's motion to dismiss as it pertained to that claim.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|