Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ayers v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

United States District Court, D. Utah

December 20, 2018

SARAH E. AYRES, Plaintiff,
v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR TO AMEND

          David Nuffer United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Sarah E. Ayres filed a motion (the “Motion”)[1] for clarification or reconsideration of the Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (“Dismissal Order”)[2] or, alternatively, for leave to file an amended complaint. For the following reasons, the Motion1 is DENIED.

         DISCUSSION The Dismissal Order was decided correctly.

         Ayres argues that the Dismissal Order should be reconsidered on the grounds that “the Court may have misapprehended one of the basis [sic] for” her Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“F D C PA ”) claim.[3] Specifically, Ayres asserts that the court failed to consider her allegation that Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC (“PRA”) violated the FD C PA by “falsely represent[ing] Ayres could save money by making payments on a time-barred debt.”[4] But, contrary to Ayres's assertion, she did not allege in her complaint that PRA violated the FDCPA in that manner.[5] And she cannot amend her complaint through a brief in opposition to PRA's motion to dismiss.[6] Therefore, the Motion will be denied to the extent it seeks reconsideration of the Dismissal Order.[7]

         Ayres's proposed amendment is futile.

         Ayres argues that she should be granted leave to file an amended complaint to allege that PRA violated the FDCPA by falsely representing that she could save money by making payments on a time-barred debt.[8] While leave to amend pleadings should be given freely “when justice so requires, ”[9] courts enjoy broad discretion in making this determination.[10] If an amendment is futile, leave to amend is properly denied.[11]

         Ayres's proposed amendment is futile because PRA is allowed under the FDCPA to offer to accept less than the full amount Ayres owes-resulting in a savings for Ayres.[12] Ayres's debt did not evaporate when the statute of limitations ran. Her debt is a valid obligation, and it will remain so until she pays it, regardless of whether her creditor can successfully sue her.[13]

         Legal defenses are not moral defenses . . . . And a creditor remains free, in the absence of a bankruptcy order or something comparable preventing it from trying to collect the debt, to let the debtor know what the debt is and to ask her to pay it. There thus is nothing wrong with informing debtors that a debt remains unpaid or for that matter allowing them to satisfy the debt at a discount. For some individuals, such letters may offer a welcome solution to an outstanding debt.[14]

         Because Ayres's proposed amendment is futile, her request to amend will be denied.

         ORDER

         THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion[15] is DENIED.

---------

Notes:

[1] Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion to Amend Complaint (“Motion”), docket no. 28, filed November 28, 2018; see Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion to Amend Complaint, docket no. 29, filed December 12, 2018; Reply in Support of Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of Order ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.