(PS) Ortiz v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 21, 20242:23-cv-01456California3,516 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

BACKGROUND

25 Plaintiffs commenced this action on July 21, 2023, by filing a complaint and paying the 26 required filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) The allegations of the complaint generally concerned the 27 assertion that defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Fair 28 1 Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by attempting to collect a debt after plaintiffs had requested 2 validation of the debt. (ECF No. 71 at 6-71.) It appeared, however, that the time for plaintiffs to 3 dispute the debt had expired. (Id. at 7.) In light of plaintiffs pro se status, however, the 4 undersigned granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to provide sufficient factual 5 allegations to establish compliance with the FDCPA. (Id. at 9-11.) 6 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 9, 2024. (ECF No. 73.) Although the 7 amended complaint vaguely concerns allegations similar to those found in the original complaint, 8 it contains fewer factual allegations while attempting to add two additional plaintiffs, dozens of 9 defendants, and additional causes of action. On January 17, 2024, defendant Hunt & Henriques, 10 LLP filed a request for sua…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.