ALIFF v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, CV 114-198. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20150506833
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 05, 2015
Latest Update: May 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . On May 4, 2015, the Court stayed three cases on its docket pending the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC , No. 15-11240 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2015). 1 Upon review, the Court finds that a stay is equally appropriate in this matter. Indeed, as Defendants point out in brief (Doc. 49), Plaintiffs' argument that "acceptance" of payments on a time-barred debt constitutes a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Pr
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . On May 4, 2015, the Court stayed three cases on its docket pending the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC , No. 15-11240 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2015). 1 Upon review, the Court finds that a stay is equally appropriate in this matter. Indeed, as Defendants point out in brief (Doc. 49), Plaintiffs' argument that "acceptance" of payments on a time-barred debt constitutes a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Pra..
More
ORDER
J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.
On May 4, 2015, the Court stayed three cases on its docket pending the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 15-11240 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2015).1 Upon review, the Court finds that a stay is equally appropriate in this matter. Indeed, as Defendants point out in brief (Doc. 49), Plaintiffs' argument that "acceptance" of payments on a time-barred debt constitutes a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") separate and apart from filing the related time-barred proof of claim is identical to that presented in McNorrill v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-210 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2014). Defendants similarly raise a statute of limitations defense.
Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that the parties in this matter have not been afforded an opportunity to respond to the propriety of a stay. For that reason, each party shall have SEVEN DAYS to file a response, if they wish, to the imposition of a stay. Failure to file a response within seven days shall indicate there is no opposition to the Court's proposed course of action.
FootNotes
1. Ford v. Quantum3 Group, LLC et al., No. 1:15-cv-031, Doc. 7; McNorrill v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-210, Doc. 29; Willis v. Cavalry Investments, LLC et al., No. 1:14-cv-227, Doc. 34.
Source: Leagle
