Jeremy Black v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, et al.

Black v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · March 31, 2026

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona consolidated three actions brought by Jeremy Black against Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC concerning alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions to remand, finding the removals proper and timely, and granted the defendant’s motions to dismiss. The court held that the claims were barred by res judicata because they arose from the same account and conduct as earlier state-court actions resolved by accepted offers of judgment and dismissals with prejudice.

Holdings

  1. The court had original federal-question jurisdiction over all three actions because Black's FDCPA claims arose under federal law.
  2. The initial removal filing did not itself remove all three unconsolidated actions, but PRA remedied the deficiency by separately removing the other two actions and identifying the same jurisdictional basis.
  3. The removal notices were timely because service by Federal Express did not constitute service by certified or registered mail under the applicable Arizona small-claims service provisions, so the 30-day removal period was not triggered.
  4. Consolidation of the three actions was appropriate.
  5. The 2025 FDCPA claims were barred by res judicata and had to be dismissed with prejudice.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the federal court had original subject-matter jurisdiction over the removed FDCPA actions.
  2. Whether PRA's inclusion of multiple complaints in the first removal filing created a remand-requiring procedural defect.
  3. Whether PRA's notices of removal were untimely because PRA received the complaints by Federal Express.
  4. Whether consolidation was appropriate because the three actions involved substantially the same parties, facts, and legal questions.
  5. Whether Black's 2025 FDCPA claims were barred by res judicata based on the 2024 actions.
  6. Whether the court needed to reach PRA's alternative statute-of-limitations argument.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (33)

  • Marcilis v. Township of Redford, 693 F.3d 589, 596 (6th Cir. 2012)(applied)
  • Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673, 684 (6th Cir. 2008)(applied)
  • Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)(applied)
  • Woodbeck v. United States, No. 07-1235-PHX-RCB, 2008 WL 312104, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 31, 2008)(applied)
  • Dugay v. JPMorgan Chase, No. CIV 06-1663-PHX-RCB, 2006 WL 3792043, at *5 (D. Ariz. Dec. 20, 2006)(applied)
  • Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)(applied)
  • Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)(applied)
  • Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)(applied)
  • Industrial Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990)(applied)
  • Schoppenhorst v. Schultz, No. 3:24-cv-00209-SLG, 2025 WL 1652147, at *6 (D. Ala. June 10, 2025)(applied)

Showing top 10 of 33.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…