If Portfolio Recovery Associates’ Lawyers Lie and Bully You, It is No Anomaly
I asked Judge Rudofsky in the Federal District Court of Eastern Arkansas to allow me my Constitutional Right to have a jury hear my genuine dispute against Portfolio Recovery Associates and their parent PRA Group, Inc. (Stock symbol PRAA)
The Trump appointed judge said that no reasonable juror can believe any of my claims is more probably than not true, except maybe the one distinct claim about the character or amount of the debt PRA alleged. Nothing about annoyance nor invasion of privacy. According to Judge R., it is perfectly acceptable for a stranger to call hundreds of times without leaving a message when you let it go to voicemail and refuse to identify what company they work for if you refuse to tell them your birthday or last four of social security number first.
There is a hearing on a defense motion to kick that one claim out by summary judgment and my motion for reconsideration of the other claims. It is by phone on May 23, 2023. I am unclear if I may give out the code for the public to listen in.
After my briefing was complete, a judge in Virginia approved a stipulated order and judgment between the CFPB and Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The complaint and order recount how the CFPB believes PRA did many of the same things I claimed they did to me to hundreds of thousands of other people.
Apparently Judge Rudofsky does not think the people at the CFPB are reasonable. If the CFPB staff were reasonable to believe the claims of hundreds of thousands of other alleged debtors, than a reasonable juror might believe me. And Judge Rudofsky decided that no reasonable juror might think my rendition of the collection activity claiming I owed $2,297.63 and litigation that caused PRA to set my balance to zero is more probably than not a fact.
Here is a downloadable copy of my notice and the CFPB Complaint and consent agreement with the debt collector.
What is it Worth When You Catch a Lawyer Lying: Briefs from Appeal of $83M Verdict Against Debt Buyer PRA
Portfolio Recovery Associates appealed a jury verdict of $83 million. The argument was that the Goliath debt buyer continued to sue a woman for debt that did not belong to her until after she filed a counterclaim based on the FDCPA, and the judge sanctioned the company for its abusive litigation tactics by deciding liability in favor of the alleged debtor and letting the jury decide only the damages.
An attorney for PRA said in a hearing that the debt collector thought the counterclaim would be dropped after it acknowledged the woman may not have owed a debt. (They waffled, and made their dismissal without prejudice, just in case they could find any evidence supporting their claim against the woman.) When she refused to drop her suit, the PRA Group, Inc. subsidiary fought her full force and dirty.
It sounds a lot like my personal experience with Portfolio Recovery. Unfortunately, the judge on my case, Lee P. Rudofsky says no reasonable juror can find it is particularly annoying to have the debt collector ring my phone hundreds of times and not tell me who is calling or what they are calling about until I agreed to answer interrogatories on a recorded line. Judge Rudofsky dismissed the majority of my claims.
I am busy this next three weeks preparing for a hearing on May 23, 2023 in which I hope the Court reconsiders his opinion. So, with no more ado, here are the briefs filed by both parties in the jury verdict case and an amicus brief favoring the alleged debtor. Hopefully they will help you help your clients or yourself (pro se) so you don’t have to settle for the pittance Portfolio tosses your way.
A Higher Law 