Lyons v. Michael & Assocs., No. 13-56657 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against defendants, debt collectors, alleging that they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692i, when they sued her in the wrong judicial district to collect a debt that had been transferred to them. The district court concluded that the complaint was time-barred pursuant to the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations. The court concluded that, instead of applying Naas v. Stolman, the district court should have applied Mangum v. Action Collection Service, Inc., which is almost directly on point. The court held that the discovery rule applies equally regardless of the nature of the FDCPA violation alleged by a plaintiff. In this case, the court found that plaintiff's complaint was timely filed where she first learned of the collection action when she received service of process, and that she had no reason to suspect that she had been sued in Monterey County, a venue that is considerably distant from her residence in San Diego County. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal as time- barred of a complaint under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were debt collectors who violated the FDCPA when they sued her in the wrong judicial district to collect a debt that had been transferred to them. The panel held that the discovery rule applies in an FDCPA action. Accordingly, the one-year statute of limitations began to run when the defendants served the plaintiff with process, rather than on the date the debt collection action was filed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.