Portfolio Recovery Associates Is Suing Me in California — What Do I Do?

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC ("PRA") is a wholly owned subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRAA), one of the two largest publicly traded debt buyers in the United States. PRA is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, and files thousands of consumer collection lawsuits each year, including a high volume in California.

PRA buys portfolios of charged-off consumer debt — primarily credit cards from Synchrony Bank, Capital One, and various store-card issuers — at deep discounts, then collects through in-house collectors and outside California collection counsel.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has taken two major enforcement actions against PRA. In 2015, the CFPB ordered PRA to pay $19 million in consumer redress plus an $8 million civil money penalty. In 2023, the CFPB took a second action for continued violations, resulting in an additional $24 million settlement.

Why this matters in California: California has the strongest consumer-protection regime in the country for debt buyers — the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Civil Code §§ 1788.50–1788.64) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The FDBPA's 8-element pleading rule maps almost exactly onto the documentation gaps the CFPB sanctioned PRA for.

If you were just served with a complaint and summons from PRA in California Superior Court, here is what almost certainly happened. You fell behind on a credit card or other consumer account. The original creditor wrote the account off and sold it as part of a portfolio to PRA at a deep discount. PRA is now suing you in California because a default judgment is the most efficient way to convert that purchase into a full-balance recovery.

In California, a default judgment carries serious consequences. With a judgment in hand, PRA can garnish up to 25% of your disposable earnings under Code of Civil Procedure § 706.050, levy bank accounts, and pursue other collection remedies. A California judgment is valid for ten years and renewable for additional ten-year periods.

Filing a real Answer flips the case from a near-automatic default into a real lawsuit that PRA must actually prove under Civil Code § 1788.58. They often choose to settle or dismiss rather than do that work — particularly because California's SOL accrues at first missed payment under CCP § 337, and the FDBPA gives you a fee-shifted counterclaim.

California's Answer deadline depends on how you were served. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 412.20, you have thirty days from personal service to file your Answer. If you were served by another method — substituted service, service by mail with acknowledgment, or service by publication — the deadline is forty days from completion of service.

For small claims cases (up to $12,500), the procedure is different. You must appear at the court hearing on the date set on the summons rather than file a written Answer.

For regular civil cases: count the days starting the day after service. Weekends count.

If you miss your deadline, PRA will request a default under CCP § 585. Once a default is entered, vacating it requires a motion under CCP § 473(b) within six months showing the default was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect — combined with a meritorious defense.

California has one of the most detailed debt-buyer pleading statutes in the country. The California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, codified at Civil Code §§ 1788.50–1788.64 and effective January 1, 2014, imposes strict requirements on debt buyers at every stage.

Under Civil Code § 1788.58, every debt-buyer complaint filed in California must include eight specific elements: (1) a statement that the plaintiff is a debt buyer; (2) the nature of the underlying debt; (3) the date of default or charge-off; (4) the name and address of the creditor at the time of charge-off; (5) the charge-off balance; (6) all post-charge-off interest, fees, and costs; (7) the date of sale of the debt to the debt buyer; and (8) the basis for any claim for additional fees or interest.

Under Civil Code § 1788.52, before suing, a debt buyer must also possess: documents establishing the assignment, the original contract or charge-off statement, an itemization of the post-charge-off interest, and other documentation. Failure to possess these supports both a defense to the suit and an FDBPA counterclaim with statutory damages.

This maps directly onto the CFPB's findings against PRA. The 2015 consent order required PRA to obtain the original cardholder agreement and account-level transfer files before suing — the exact documents § 1788.52 requires PRA to possess. The 2023 action found PRA still falling short.

If the complaint fails the § 1788.58 8-element requirement, you can file a demurrer under CCP § 430.10(e). California demurrers are powerful — they can be sustained without leave to amend if the defect cannot be cured.

For credit card debt and most consumer accounts in California, the statute of limitations is four years under Code of Civil Procedure § 337, which governs claims founded on a written contract.

California's SOL accrual rule is unusually defendant-favorable. The clock starts running on the first missed payment due date — not on charge-off. This means the SOL clock often starts running months or even a year before the account is technically charged off, making the debt time-barred earlier than PRA expects.

If you missed your first payment in March 2020, the four-year clock began on that date and expired in March 2024. A lawsuit filed in late 2024 would be filed outside the limitations period. By contrast, if accrual were measured from charge-off (typically six months after first missed payment under bank policy), the clock would not have run until late 2024.

California's revival rules are tighter than in many states. Under § 360, an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed to revive a time-barred debt. Partial payment alone may also revive in some contexts, but the rules are more limited than in some other states. Be careful if you made any payment after the SOL began running.

The statute of limitations in California is an affirmative defense that must be raised in your Answer or it is waived. Under CCP § 458, the SOL must be pleaded specifically.

PRA is well known for filing on accounts that are right at the edge of the limitations period or even past it, betting that the consumer either will not raise the defense or will not respond at all. The CFPB has specifically found PRA filed lawsuits on time-barred debts in both 2015 ($19M consumer redress + $8M penalty) and 2023 ($24M settlement). Calculate your dates carefully — and remember that California's first-missed-payment accrual rule means the SOL may have already run earlier than you think.

Most credit card agreements contain a clause requiring that any dispute be resolved through binding arbitration administered by AAA or JAMS. When PRA bought your account, they bought it subject to whatever terms were in the original cardholder agreement.

California gives defendants a uniquely powerful offensive arbitration option. Under California law, if you compel arbitration and the debt buyer (as the drafting party) fails to pay AAA/JAMS fees within thirty days of the demand, they waive their right to arbitrate. You can then return to court via a motion to lift the CCP § 1281.4 stay — with the arbitration clause now nullified.

This flips the typical "abandon arbitration" pattern. In California, PRA's refusal to pay actively waives their right to arbitrate, and you can lift the stay and proceed in court.

California courts will compel arbitration if the agreement is valid and the dispute falls within its scope, under CCP § 1281.2. To use this defense, you generally need a copy of the original cardholder agreement showing the arbitration clause. Pair the arbitration motion with a § 1788.58 demurrer for maximum leverage.

Your Answer is the most important document you will file in this case. A good Answer in California does three things: it admits or denies each numbered allegation under CCP § 431.30, it raises every applicable affirmative defense, and — where appropriate — it raises a counterclaim under FDBPA or Rosenthal.

For the admit-or-deny portion: do not admit anything you do not actually know. California allows denials based on lack of information or belief under CCP § 431.30(d).

The affirmative defenses to consider in a California PRA Answer include lack of standing or chain of title; failure to comply with Civil Code § 1788.58 (8-element pleading); failure to possess pre-suit documentation under § 1788.52; statute of limitations under CCP § 337 with the first-missed-payment accrual rule; failure to state a cause of action; account stated cannot be established; and arbitration clause.

Where FDBPA or Rosenthal violations are present, raise a counterclaim under Civil Code § 1788.62 (FDBPA) or § 1788.30 (Rosenthal) for actual damages, statutory damages of up to $1,000 (Rosenthal) or $5,000 in class actions (FDBPA), and attorney's fees.

Consider also filing a demurrer under CCP § 430.10(e) instead of an Answer if the complaint fails § 1788.58 on its face. A successful demurrer can dispose of the case entirely without ever reaching discovery.

California has the strongest consumer-protection regime in the country for debt collection defendants — the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The FDBPA, codified at Civil Code §§ 1788.50–1788.64, governs debt buyers specifically. Section 1788.58 imposes the 8-element pleading requirement. Section 1788.52 requires pre-suit possession of documentation. Section 1788.62 provides a private right of action.

The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, codified at Civil Code §§ 1788–1788.33, applies to all collection practices. Section 1788.30 provides actual damages, statutory damages of up to $1,000, and attorney's fees for violations.

The federal FDCPA also applies to PRA. The CFPB findings against PRA are direct evidence of FDCPA-violative conduct.

The combination of FDBPA fee-shifting, Rosenthal fee-shifting, FDCPA statutory damages, the § 1788.58 demurrer pathway, California's offensive arbitration option, and PRA's twin CFPB consent orders means PRA faces enormous downside risk in California cases.

After you file your Answer or demurrer with the California Superior Court clerk and serve a copy on PRA's attorney, the case enters discovery (if you filed an Answer) or proceeds to a demurrer hearing (if you filed a demurrer). Discovery in California is governed by CCP § 2016.010 and following.

In a PRA case, this is where the chain-of-title and § 1788.52 documentation defenses get tested. You can serve a request for production under CCP § 2031.010 demanding every assignment document, every bill of sale, the original cardholder agreement, and the complete account history. PRA must respond within thirty days. If they cannot produce the documents required by § 1788.52 — documents establishing the assignment, the original contract or charge-off statement, and an itemization of post-charge-off interest — their case is in serious trouble. Given the CFPB findings against PRA, this is a frequent outcome.

What very often happens next is a settlement offer. The economics for PRA change dramatically once they realize they are facing a defendant who is going to make them prove their case under FDBPA — and who may have an FDBPA or Rosenthal counterclaim with attorney's fees pending. California practitioners report that PRA commonly settles real-Answer cases for forty to sixty cents on the dollar, sometimes much less when § 1788.58 elements are missing or when the offensive arbitration option creates additional pressure.

If the case does not settle, it proceeds to a court date. Cases under $12,500 may be in California small claims under simplified procedures. Cases above that threshold are in California Superior Court limited civil (up to $35,000) or unlimited civil (above $35,000) under full California Code of Civil Procedure.

A meaningful share of PRA cases get voluntarily dismissed in California after Answer or demurrer, especially when the FDBPA 8-element pleading is incomplete. Many more settle for a deeply discounted lump sum.

Answered is a self-help legal platform built specifically for pro se defendants in consumer debt collection lawsuits. The California playbook was reviewed by a California-licensed consumer-rights attorney and is built around the specific statutes and rules that govern PRA cases — CCP §§ 337, 412.20, 430.10(e), Civil Code §§ 1788.50–1788.64, the Rosenthal Act, and California's offensive arbitration framework.

When you upload your summons and complaint, Answered does the following: it identifies whether your case is in regular civil or small claims; it extracts your service date and your 30-day or 40-day Answer deadline; it scans for the FDBPA § 1788.58 pleading defects most commonly found in PRA pleadings (the exact defects the CFPB sanctioned PRA for); it identifies whether your debt may be time-barred under CCP § 337 with the first-missed-payment accrual rule; it analyzes whether an FDBPA or Rosenthal counterclaim is supported; it checks whether an arbitration clause is likely available and recommends California's offensive strategy where applicable; and it generates a court-ready Answer or demurrer.

Pricing is simple: free to start, and a one-time $99 charge to unlock and download your final documents.