Today, our client won a decisive FDCPA victory against Stock & Grimes, LLP and, indirectly, against Discover Bank. Our client alleged that Discover Bank through its debt collection law firm, Stock & Grimes, sued her in Pennsylvania after the expiration of Delaware’s 3-year statute of limitations. Her opponents predictably, and “not surprisingly” according the Court, argued that Pennsylvania’s 4-year statute of limitations should have applied. The Court accepted our client’s arguments that because Discover Bank is located in Delaware, the Delaware 3-year statute of limitations should apply. The Court reasoned that if Discover Bank is a Delaware bank then when our client did not allegedly pay Discover Bank, it felt the damages of the non-payment in Delaware. The Court said, “the place where the claim in the underlying action accrued was in Delaware,” and, therefore, “because the claim accrued outside of the Commonwealth, the shorter three-year Delaware statute of limitations governed…”
Our client relied on Pennsylvania’s “borrowing statute” to import Delaware’s statute of limitation law into her action.
Our client’s win permits her to seek her substantial damages against Stock & Grimes under the FDCPA for filing the time-barred, Discover Bank lawsuit. Her case provides a new shield for Pennsylvania consumers against stale debt collection actions, and it provides a sword under the FDCPA allowing consumers to recoup damages against the debt collectors who improperly file them in the first place.
The Court’s opinion is here: Hamid v Stock & Grimes – 12(b)(6) Denied.