In Cappos v. Suppa, Trucchi & Henin, LLP, 2012 WL 6057995 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Lorenz held that where the Plaintiff’s FDCPA suit arises from purported improper sums sought in a state court collection action, the filing of the state court action triggers the running of the statute of limitations for FDCPA purposes.

An FDCPA claim must be brought “within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Similarly, any action under the Rosenthal Act must be brought “within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1788.30(f). As a general rule, “a limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Magnum v. Action Collection Serv., Inc., 575 F.3d 935, 940 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Norman–Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260, 1266 (9th Cir.1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, Ninth Circuit authority also provides that when the alleged violation of the FDCPA is the filing of a lawsuit, the statute of limitations begins to run on the filing of the complaint in state court.   Naas v. Stolman, 130 F.3d 892, 893 (9th Cir.1997) (“Filing a complaint is the debt collector’s last opportunity to comply with the Act, and the filing date is easily ascertainable.”).