Gavin Simpson v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment in Gavin Simpson’s action against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The court denied Simpson’s motion, granted PRA’s motion for summary judgment on all claims, and partially granted and partially denied Simpson’s motion to disregard or strike. The opinion addresses preclusion doctrines, alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations, evidentiary issues, and PRA’s reporting of a consumer debt after dismissal of a state-court collection action.

Holdings

1. Res judicata did not apply because PRA's defenses to Simpson's later claims did not exist and could not have been raised in the earlier state-court debt-collection action, in which PRA was the plaintiff.
2. Collateral estoppel did not apply because Simpson failed to show that those factual issues were actually litigated and essential to the state-court judgment.
3. Simpson could not obtain summary judgment on the FDCPA claim because he did not plead that claim in the operative amended complaint.
4. PRA's duties under § 1681s-2(b) were not triggered after the state-court dismissal because Simpson did not dispute the information with a consumer reporting agency and no consumer reporting agency notified PRA of a post-dismissal dispute.
5. Simpson failed to establish that PRA's July investigation was unreasonable or that PRA reported inaccurate or misleading information; therefore, PRA was entitled to summary judgment on the FCRA claim.
6. Simpson abandoned those claims by failing to address them on the merits and expressly stating that he was not pursuing them; PRA was therefore entitled to summary judgment on those claims.
7. The references to October 24, 2025 were obvious typographical errors meaning October 24, 2024 and did not warrant striking PRA's brief or declaration.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Simpson could obtain summary judgment on an FDCPA claim that was not pleaded in the operative amended complaint.
2. Whether the prior dismissal with prejudice of PRA's state-court debt-collection action barred PRA from defending against Simpson's later claims under res judicata or collateral estoppel.
3. Whether Simpson satisfied the notice requirement for a private claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) based on post-dismissal reporting.
4. Whether PRA conducted an unreasonable investigation or reported inaccurate or misleading information in response to Simpson's July 2024 disputes.
5. Whether Simpson's fraudulent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, defamation, and identity-theft claims were abandoned or otherwise subject to summary judgment.
6. Whether PRA's typographical reference to an October 24, 2025 deletion date warranted striking its briefs or declaration.

Disposition

other