In Fisk v. ARS Nat. Services, Inc., 2012 WL 3236569 (N.D.N.Y. 2012), Judge McAvoy rejected the ‘continuing violation’ theory for FDCPA statute of limitations purposes, refusing to strike the affirmative defense from defendant’s answer.

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ statute of limitations defense on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations is one year, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), the conduct occurred from October 2010 until September 2011, and Plaintiff filed her Complaint on March 16, 2012, within the one year statute of limitations. While some of Plaintiff’s conduct is clearly within the statute of limitations period, other conduct may fall outside of the limitations period (i.e. conduct prior to March 16, 2011). Because many courts have rejected application of the continuing violation doctrine to claims under the FDCPA, see Egbarin v. Lewis, Lewis & Ferraro LLC, 2006 WL 236846, at *9 (D.Conn.2006) (citing cases), it cannot said that Defendants’ statute of limitations defense cannot succeed (at least in part). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this defense is DENIED.