UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

MARITZA Y. ARCHER, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND 

1. Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 

U.S.C. §1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. 

Stat. §559.55 et seq. (“FCCPA”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1337, 1367 and 15 

U.S.C. §1692k.Venue in this District is proper because Plaintiff resides here and 

Defendant mailed letters into this District.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, MARITZA Y. ARCHER, is a natural person, and citizen of the 

State of Florida, residing in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

4. Defendant, PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, is a limited 

liability company formed under the laws of the State of Delaware and citizen of the State 

Case 1:20-cv-21990-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 1 of 6
 2

of Delaware with its principal place of business at Suite 100, 120 Corporate Boulevard, 

Norfolk, Virginia 23502. 

5. Defendant is registered with the Florida Department of State as a foreign 

limited liability company. Its registered agent for service of process is Corporation 

Service Company, 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. 

6. Defendant is registered with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation as a 

consumer collection agency. 

7. Defendant regularly uses the mail and telephone in a business the principal 

purpose of which is the collection of debts by sending thousands of debt collection letters 

and filing thousands of court cases seeking to collect consumer debts annually. 

8. Defendants sole source of income arises from debt collection. 

9. Defendants only business is the collection of debts. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Over a decade ago, Plaintiff received a Walmart credit card issued by GE 

Money Bank, ("the Walmart card"). 

11. Plaintiff used the Walmart card to make purchases for her own personal, 

family and household use. 

12. By late 2010, Plaintiff failed to make the payments on the Walmart card 

and the debt went into default with GE Money Bank. 

13. On or about March 11, 2011, GE Money Bank charged off the Walmart 

card balance. 

Case 1:20-cv-21990-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 2 of 6
 3

14. On or about March 31, 2011, GE Money Bank transferred, assigned or sold 

the Walmart card account to Defendant. 

15. On or about February 25, 2014 Defendant filed suit against Plaintiff in 

Miami-Dade County seeking to collect the Walmart card debt. See Statement of Claim, 

attached as Exhibit "A." 

16. On or about March 27, 2014 Defendant filed a voluntary dismissal with 

prejudice of the suit, attached as Exhibit "B." 

17. As a result of the dismissal with prejudice the alleged debt was 

extinguished. 

18. On or about March 17, 2020, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter, ("the letter" 

or "collection letter"), attached as Exhibit "C". 

19. The letter seeks to collect the extinguished debt. 

20. The collection letter makes three separate offers to resolve the alleged debt. 

21. The letter describes the three offers as "savings plans". 

22. The representation that a "savings" could be had regarding a debt that was 

previously extinguished via dismissal with prejudice is false, deceptive and misleading. 

23. There could never be a "savings" regarding a debt that no longer exists. 

24. The letter falsely implies the existence of a debt.

25. The receipt of a letter on a long since extinguished debt, left Plaintiff with 

the impression that she might be sued again on this extinguished debt. 

26. The letter leads the least sophisticated consumer to believe that if she does 

not "resolve" the account, she risks the possibility of a second litigation. 

Case 1:20-cv-21990-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 3 of 6
 4

27. The letter falsely represents the legal status of the alleged debt. 

28. The letter falsely implies the threat of litigation. 

29. In considering a debt collection letter sent on a time-barred debt offering to 

"resolve" the debt the Eleventh Circuit held: 

We conclude that this language, taken in its entirety, could plausibly 

deceive or mislead an unsophisticated consumer as to the legal status of the 

debt, even in the absence of an express threat of litigation. 

Holzman v. Malcolm S. Gerald & Assocs., Inc., 920 F.3d 1264, 1272 (11th Cir. 2019) 

COUNT I

FALSE REPRESENTATION OF THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ALLEGED 

DEBT

30. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 29. 

31. Defendant's letter falsely represents the status of the alleged debt in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e (2)(A). 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendant for: 

 a. Damages; 

 b. Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; and 

 c. Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper. 

COUNT II

DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING THREAT OF LITIGATION

32. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 29. 

Case 1:20-cv-21990-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 4 of 6
 5

33. Defendant's letter deceptively and misleadingly implies the threat of 

litigation on a debt that was extinguished by a prior dismissal with prejudice in violation 

of 15 U.S.C. §1692(e). 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendant for: 

 a. Damages; 

 b. Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; and 

 c. Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper. 

COUNT III

CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO WHICH DEFENDANT KNOWS IT IS NOT 

ENTITLED IN VIOLATION OF THE FCCPA

34. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 28. 

35. Defendant claimed in its letter the right to collect a debt when Defendant 

knew it previously dismissed a suit for the very same debt against Plaintiff and thus had 

not right to collect in violation of Fla. Stat. §559.72(9). 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff 

and against Defendant for: 

 a. Damages; 

 b. Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; and 

c. Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper. 

COUNT IV

DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

36. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 28. 

Case 1:20-cv-21990-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 5 of 6
 6

37. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§2201 and 2202, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that 

Defendant’s letter's is in violation of the FCCPA. 

38. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from 

continuing the collection of Plaintiff's debt. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment: 

 a. declaring that Defendant’s practices violate the FCCPA; 

 b. permanently injoining Defendant from engaging in the violative 

practices; 

c. Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; and 

 d. Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury. 

DONALD A. YARBROUGH, ESQ. 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Post Office Box 11842 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33339 

Telephone: 954-537-2000 

Facsimile: 954-566-2235 

don@donyarbrough.com 

 

 By: s/ Donald A. Yarbrough

Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 0158658 

Case 1:20-cv-21990-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 6 of 6