Mayfield v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

Background

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA) sued Dominique Mayfield in state court to collect an alleged store-credit-card debt. PRA served Mayfield with a summons that directed her to send an answer to a North Dakota post-office box and warned that she would lose the case if she did not respond. Mayfield did not serve an answer. PRA later filed the summons in state court and obtained a default judgment.

The state court later determined that the summons violated Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 4.01, which then required a summons to provide an address within Minnesota where the person who signed it could be served in person and by mail. The state court vacated the default judgment and dismissed PRA’s complaint without prejudice.

Mayfield filed this federal action alleging that PRA violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by serving and filing the defective summons. PRA moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and Mayfield moved for partial summary judgment on PRA’s liability.

Standing and statute of limitations

The court determined that Mayfield had standing because PRA’s summons threatened an invalid default judgment, and PRA followed through by obtaining one. The judgment remained in place for seventeen months before being vacated, and Mayfield incurred additional expenses, stress, and time contesting it.

The court held that claims based on service of the summons on November 10, 2019, were time-barred because Mayfield filed this action more than one year later. But the court held that claims based on PRA’s filing of the summons on January 9, 2020, were timely. Applying Eighth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that each alleged FDCPA violation must be evaluated separately, even when a later violation repeats earlier information.

Merits

The court focused on Mayfield’s claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5), which prohibits a debt collector from threatening to take an action that cannot legally be taken or is not intended to be taken. The court found that Mayfield was the subject of collection activity involving a consumer debt and that PRA was a debt collector.

The court concluded that PRA’s summons was legally defective, threatened a default judgment if Mayfield did not follow its instructions, and could not support a legally valid default judgment because it did not comply with Minnesota Rule 4.01. The court treated the warning in the summons as a threat under the FDCPA, even though the summons also gave legally required notice about the consequences of failing to answer. The court further found the threat material because PRA obtained the default judgment and maintained it for seventeen months.

The court rejected PRA’s argument that it could not be liable for its attorney’s preparation of the summons absent proof that PRA controlled the attorney’s actions. It also rejected PRA’s argument that imposing liability violated its First Amendment right to petition the courts.

Disposition

The court found that PRA violated § 1692e(5) by filing the defective summons. It denied PRA’s Motion to Dismiss and granted Mayfield’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The order addressed PRA’s liability; the opinion does not state an award of damages.