Gajewski v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, 650 F. App'x 283

Background

Jozef and Wieslawa Gajewski refinanced in 2008; stopped payments in March 2011.
Ocwen began servicing in 2009, modified the loan in 2010, and initiated foreclosure in Illinois circuit court in January 2013 (represented by Codilis & Associates).
Nationstar replaced Ocwen as servicer in May 2013 and substituted itself as plaintiff in the foreclosure; the state foreclosure remains pending.
The Gajewskis filed a 105‑page federal complaint on November 18, 2014 alleging FDCPA violations (misrepresentation, false credit reporting, unfair collection) and state‑law claims; much of the complaint lacked date‑specific allegations of post‑2013 conduct.
Defendants moved to dismiss the FDCPA claims as time‑barred under the one‑year FDCPA statute of limitations; the district court dismissed those claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
On appeal the Gajewskis argued certain post‑foreclosure filings/continuing litigation restarted or tolled the FDCPA limitations period as a "continuing violation."

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FDCPA claims are time‑barred	New collection acts during the pending foreclosure (Ocwen/Nationstar/Codilis conduct) occurred within one year or restart limitations via continuing‑violation theory	Most actionable collection acts occurred before the one‑year window; continuing‑violation theory doesn't revive discrete past acts	Court held pre‑Nov 2013 acts are time‑barred; continuing‑violation doctrine does not revive earlier discrete FDCPA claims
Whether litigation‑related conduct during foreclosure can constitute new FDCPA violations	Litigation conduct can create new violations and thus be timely	Only specific post‑limitations discrete acts can be timely; mere continuation of suit doesn't automatically create a new violation	Court accepted that new litigation acts can be new violations but found complaint failed to allege any specific post‑Nov 2013 FDCPA‑violative acts by Nationstar
Whether substitution of Nationstar or post‑substitution filings tolled or revived claims against Ocwen/Codilis	Substitution and ongoing litigation continued the violation, tolling or restarting limitations	Substitution or continuation does not toll; Ocwen and Codilis ceased activity outside the limitations period	Court held Ocwen and Codilis were out of the picture before the limitations window, so claims against them are untimely
Whether the complaint adequately pleaded timely FDCPA violations by Nationstar	Nationstar’s continued prosecution of foreclosure amounts to a timely, actionable FDCPA violation	Complaint lacks specific allegations of independent wrongdoing by Nationstar within one year	Court held plaintiffs failed to plead any specific, independent FDCPA violation by Nationstar within the limitations period; claims dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Bentrud v. Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, P.C., 794 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2015) (litigation‑related acts can constitute FDCPA violations)
Miljkovic v. Shafritz & Dinkin, P.A., 791 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2015) (sworn litigation filings can be evaluated as alleged FDCPA violations)
Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Lemont, Ill., 520 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2008) (statute of limitations runs from injury and is not tolled by subsequent injuries)
Kovacs v. United States, 614 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2010) (continuing‑violation/cumulative‑violation doctrine does not apply to discrete, independently actionable acts)
Rodrigue v. Olin Emps. Credit Union, 406 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2005) (series of discrete acts are not governed by continuing‑violation tolling)
Naas v. Stolman, 130 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 1997) (rejecting argument that limitations should run from court judgment rather than filing)