Masters v. Harrison & Johnston PLC, 5:17-cv-00006

Mastets received medical services in 2008 from Neurologic; no payments after 2008. Neurologic provided 442 accounts (including Mastets') to Harrison & Johnston PLC (H&J) in 2016 for collections.
H&J, a law firm acting for Neurologic, reviewed documents Neurologic provided and filed suit against Mastets on Nov. 8, 2016 to collect $392.99. Mastets' claim was time‑barred under Virginia's 5‑year statute of limitations (expired 2013).
Upon notice from Mastets' counsel that the claim was time‑barred, H&J consulted Neurologic, determined the account had been sent in error, and dismissed the suit with prejudice before Mastets answered.
Mastets sued under the FDCPA, alleging H&J (a debt collector) violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692 by initiating collection litigation on a time‑barred debt.
H&J conceded the FDCPA violation but asserted the § 1692k(c) bona fide error defense (unintentional mistake + procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such errors), arguing it relied on Neurologic’s assurances and review process.
The district court found H&J violated the FDCPA but denied summary judgment to both parties, holding that whether H&J maintained procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the error is a jury question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether filing suit on a time‑barred debt violated the FDCPA	Mastets: filing time‑barred suit is an FDCPA violation (debt collector made false legal representation)	H&J did not dispute violation but invoked bona fide error defense	Court: Filing time‑barred suit violated FDCPA; H&J liable absent a successful bona fide error defense
Whether H&J's error was unintentional/bona fide	Mastets: does not contest lack of intent but disputes bona fides because client records showed no activity since 2008	H&J: error was a genuine good‑faith mistake based on Neurologic's representations and review	Court: H&J satisfied unintentional and bona fide (good‑faith mistake) elements by preponderance
Whether H&J maintained procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the error (§ 1692k(c) third element)	Mastets: H&J lacked adequate written procedures and unreasonably relied on Neurologic despite discoverable indications of staleness	H&J: reasonably relied on Neurologic’s review of its dual records system; had attorneys review claims	Held: Genuine dispute of material fact exists about the adequacy of H&J’s procedures; triable issue for jury
Appropriate disposition on summary judgment motions	Mastets: seeks summary judgment on liability and defense inapplicability	H&J: seeks summary judgment based on bona fide error defense	Held: Both motions denied; liability established but applicability of bona fide error defense reserved for jury determination

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and genuine dispute standard for summary judgment)
Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (FDCPA covers attorneys who are debt collectors)
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (lawyers may invoke bona fide error defense for factual errors)
In re Dubois, 834 F.3d 522 (filing suit on time‑barred debt violates FDCPA in Fourth Circuit)
Russell v. Absolute Collection Servs., Inc., 763 F.3d 385 (elements of bona fide error defense)
Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 137 S. Ct. 1407 (noting lower courts have held filing time‑barred suits may violate FDCPA)
McLean v. Ray, [citation="488 F. App'x 677"] (reliance on client’s records can support bona fide error defense)